128
D. Sakthivadivel et al.
5 Conclusions and Way Forward
The analysis of the performance comparison of AMGCS and TCS was carried out
in terms of FBR, FP, SFC and efficiency using WBT 4.2.3. The annual CO 2 mitigation potential of AMGCS has been estimated at about 350–500 MT for different
fuels and found these values are comparatively better than ICS and TCS. A simple
payback period for different fuels was calculated between 2 and 5 months for four
members family. Greenhouse gas mitigation, cost, robustness and cultural fit are
mostly important in this regard are fulfilled by AMGCS.
Any technology extends the grassroots only when everyone is conscious of that
particular concept and its implications. Hence, AMGCS system should be put to use
in schools and college laboratories, for the creation of awareness of the technology
among the people and should be disseminated to every household in rural areas.
The financial support or government subsidies can be offered for scaling up the
AMGCS and branding the technology as inexpensive. Direct user subsidy is desirable
for ensuring the use of AMGCS and the sustainability of operations. Microfinance
with repayment opportunities can help to make this technology affordable allowing
further number of households and commercial cooking communities to move towards
advanced smart cookstoves.
References
1. Kucuk MM, Demirbas A (1997) Biomass conversion processes. Energy Convers Manag
38(2):151–165
2. Mukunda HS (2011) Understanding clean energy and fuels from biomass. Wiley India, New
Delhi
3. Prasanna UR (2010) Modeling, optimization and design of a solar thermal energy transport
system for hybrid cooking application. Indian Institute of Science
4. WHO (2017) Household air pollution and health. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediac
entre/factsheets/fs292/en/
5. User guide for India’s 2047 energy calculator cooking sector 2013. India Energy. Available
from: http://www.indiaenergy.gov.in/docs/Cooking.pdf. Accessed on: 30 July 2017
6. Bhattacharya SC (2015) Wood energy in India: status and prospects. Energy 85:310–316
7. Bruce N, Perez-Padilla R, Albalak R (2000) Special theme—environment and health. Bull
World Health Organ 78(9):1078–1092
8. Arbex MA, Martins LC, de Oliveira RC, Pereira LAM, Arbex FF, Cancado JED (2007) Air
pollution from biomass burning and asthma hospital admissions in a sugarcane plantation area,
Brazil. J Epidemiol Commun Health 61(5):395–400
9. WHO (2006) Fuel for life: household energy and health 23. Available from: http://www.who.
int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife.pdf. Accessed on: 30 July 2017
10. The World Bank (2011) Household cookstoves, environment, health, and climate change, a
new look at an old problem. Washington, DC. Available from: http://cleancookstoves.org/res
ources_files/household-cookstoves.pdf
11. Laxmi V, Parikh J, Karmakar S, Dabrase P (2003) Household energy, women’s hardship and
health impacts in rural Rajasthan, India: need for sustainable energy solutions. Energy Sustain
Dev 7(1):50–68
D. Sakthivadivel et al.
5 Conclusions and Way Forward
The analysis of the performance comparison of AMGCS and TCS was carried out
in terms of FBR, FP, SFC and efficiency using WBT 4.2.3. The annual CO 2 mitigation potential of AMGCS has been estimated at about 350–500 MT for different
fuels and found these values are comparatively better than ICS and TCS. A simple
payback period for different fuels was calculated between 2 and 5 months for four
members family. Greenhouse gas mitigation, cost, robustness and cultural fit are
mostly important in this regard are fulfilled by AMGCS.
Any technology extends the grassroots only when everyone is conscious of that
particular concept and its implications. Hence, AMGCS system should be put to use
in schools and college laboratories, for the creation of awareness of the technology
among the people and should be disseminated to every household in rural areas.
The financial support or government subsidies can be offered for scaling up the
AMGCS and branding the technology as inexpensive. Direct user subsidy is desirable
for ensuring the use of AMGCS and the sustainability of operations. Microfinance
with repayment opportunities can help to make this technology affordable allowing
further number of households and commercial cooking communities to move towards
advanced smart cookstoves.
References
1. Kucuk MM, Demirbas A (1997) Biomass conversion processes. Energy Convers Manag
38(2):151–165
2. Mukunda HS (2011) Understanding clean energy and fuels from biomass. Wiley India, New
Delhi
3. Prasanna UR (2010) Modeling, optimization and design of a solar thermal energy transport
system for hybrid cooking application. Indian Institute of Science
4. WHO (2017) Household air pollution and health. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediac
entre/factsheets/fs292/en/
5. User guide for India’s 2047 energy calculator cooking sector 2013. India Energy. Available
from: http://www.indiaenergy.gov.in/docs/Cooking.pdf. Accessed on: 30 July 2017
6. Bhattacharya SC (2015) Wood energy in India: status and prospects. Energy 85:310–316
7. Bruce N, Perez-Padilla R, Albalak R (2000) Special theme—environment and health. Bull
World Health Organ 78(9):1078–1092
8. Arbex MA, Martins LC, de Oliveira RC, Pereira LAM, Arbex FF, Cancado JED (2007) Air
pollution from biomass burning and asthma hospital admissions in a sugarcane plantation area,
Brazil. J Epidemiol Commun Health 61(5):395–400
9. WHO (2006) Fuel for life: household energy and health 23. Available from: http://www.who.
int/indoorair/publications/fuelforlife.pdf. Accessed on: 30 July 2017
10. The World Bank (2011) Household cookstoves, environment, health, and climate change, a
new look at an old problem. Washington, DC. Available from: http://cleancookstoves.org/res
ources_files/household-cookstoves.pdf
11. Laxmi V, Parikh J, Karmakar S, Dabrase P (2003) Household energy, women’s hardship and
health impacts in rural Rajasthan, India: need for sustainable energy solutions. Energy Sustain
Dev 7(1):50–68