Environmental sustainability of cooking fuels in remote communities: Life cycle and local impacts
Экологическая устойчивость топлив для приготовления пищи в удалённых сообществах: жизненный цикл и локальные воздействия
2020-01-02
SCID: 54.1/vrnyq2je
Discuss with AI
cooking fuelsenvironmental sustainabilitylife cycle assessmentlocal health impactsremote communities
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Access to clean cooking fuels and technologies is essential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly in developing countries, to minimise human health and environmental impacts. This paper assesses for the first time the environmental sustainability of household cooking, focusing on remote communities in developing countries in the Southeast Asia-Pacific (SEAP) region and considering both life cycle and local impacts. To guide rural development policies, the impacts of the following cooking fuels are considered: liquefied petroleum gas, kerosene, wood, charcoal, crop residues, biogas and electricity. Both the present situation and three future (2030) scenarios are evaluated on 18 life cycle impacts, as well as on local environmental and health impacts caused by cooking. The results show that electricity is the worst option in 13 out of 18 life cycle categories since it is generated from diesel in off-grid communities. Biogas from manure is the best fuel with 16 lowest life cycle impacts. Biomass fuels can have lower life cycle impacts than fossil fuels but they have high combustion emissions which lead to higher local environmental and health impacts. Future scenarios with higher biomass utilisation have up to 47 times lower life cycle impacts than at present, but 4-23% higher local impacts. Health impacts related to fuel combustion are higher in Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar compared to the other SEAP countries due to regional background pollutant concentrations and health trends. A fuel mix with liquefied petroleum gas, biogas and renewable electricity offers considerable reductions in 13 life cycle impacts compared to the present situation, while also reducing local health impacts by 78-97%. A self-sufficient fuel mix with local biomass and renewable electricity would reduce 17 out of 18 life cycle impacts, but all local impacts, including on health, would be 11-28% higher than at present. The results from this study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop policies for clean cooking in remote communities and reduce both environmental and human health impacts.
Key Findings
1
A fuel mix of liquefied petroleum gas, biogas, and renewable electricity reduces 13 life-cycle impacts and local health impacts by 78–97%; locally self-sufficient biomass and renewable electricity reduce 17 categories but raise all local impacts by 11–28%.
2
Biomass fuels may outperform fossil fuels on life-cycle impacts but produce higher combustion emissions and consequently greater local environmental and health impacts.
3
Diesel-generated off-grid electricity is the worst option in 13 of 18 life-cycle impact categories, whereas manure-based biogas has the lowest impacts in 16 categories.
4
Future scenarios with greater biomass use reduce life-cycle impacts by up to 47-fold, but increase local impacts by 4–23% compared with the present.
5
The study evaluates seven cooking fuels in remote Southeast Asian-Pacific communities using 18 life-cycle categories alongside local environmental and health impacts.
Research Object
Household cooking fuels and technologies in remote communities in developing countries in the Southeast Asia-Pacific region
Research Subject
Life-cycle, local environmental, and health impacts of present and future cooking-fuel scenarios
Publication Details
Publication Date
2020-01-02
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest