Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Cooking With Different

Fuels in Developing and Industrialised Countries

Michael Grupp, Synopsis
Lodève, France

1. INTRODUCTION

Domestic cooking is one of the foremost energy uses world-wide and causes
important greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Different cooking energy carriers and their specific stoves cause different
emissions, in CO2 as well as in other GHG. Thus, the reduction potential for GHG
emission depends on the fuel-stove combination which is being replaced, and on
the combination it is - completely or partially - replaced with.
The assessment of the respective GHG emission impacts is a complex issue
touching on technical (such as efficiency of combustion and of heat transfer), as
well as on user related issues (such as user acceptance). Some of the
corresponding parameters differ more or less strongly with local conditions; others
are quasi-constant (or can be expressed as meaningful global averages).
The different cooking energy carriers discussed here are fuelwood, roots,
charcoal, biogas, crop residues and dung, fossil fuels (kerosene, LPG, coal), as
well as electricity.
The present work is based in part on published data, in part on data collected in
the framework of the solar cooker pilot program in South Africa. This program
includes a comparative field test of solar cookers; it is jointly supported by the
Governments of South Africa and Germany and carried out by DME (Department
of Minerals and Energy) and GTZ (Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit).

2. METHODOLOGY

In general, figures of fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

by domestic cooking are based on direct monitoring of fuel consumption in a
sample of families.
Figures on fuel savings by different fuels or appliances are obtained by the
comparison of measured fuel consumption, either consecutively in the same
sample, or in parallel, in different samples.
This implies several sources of error, from plain monitoring errors to lack of
representativity of the samples and of the conditions prevailing during the
monitoring periods.
Finally, the interpretation of changes in fuel consumption as effect of the use of
other fuels or cooking appliances can be subject to doubt:
• fuels might be used for seasonal purposes other than cooking, such as space
heating
• users might be tempted to react to fuel savings with increased use, e.g. for
water heating.

An important gain in precision can be reached by using per-capita per-meal

data and by dropping the reference to time where it is not needed.
The logic of this “meal portion”- approach has been presented in DME/GTZ [1]
and used for payback calculations. Results of this approach are not expressed as a
function of time, but of the number of meal portions (hence the name of the
method).

2.1 Fuel consumption

For any given reference region, for each fuel type, the annual fuel consumption
for domestic cooking FCons can be written:

FCons = NUser * NMP * FConsMP (1)

with NUser being the number of users in the reference region and NMP the
average annual per capita number of cooked “meal portions” (as an example, 2
meals for 4 persons count as 8 meal portions). NMP is assumed to be independent
of the fuel type used. FConsMP is the average fuel consumption per meal portion.
It should be noted that the reference region can be anything from a village to
the world (if all averages refer to the same region); that the reasoning applies to
any fuel; that the one-year timeframe can be replaced by any other timeframe but
should contain information on possible seasonal variations.
Eq.2 defines the energy per meal portion delivered into the pot content
EdelMP. For a given reference region, EdelMP is independent of the fuel used: the
food in the pot, in order to be cooked, needs a certain amount of energy delivered
into the pot, no matter what type of fuel is heating the pot. Using the heat of
combustion HC and the total efficiency EffT (the product of heat transfer
efficiency and of combustion efficiency):

EdelMP = HC * EffT * FConsMP (2)

Using published statistical as well as experimental data, the annual fuel

consumption figures have been calculated for two reference regions, the
developing world for biofuels, coal and kerosene, and the industrialized world for
electricity and LPG.

2.2 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

The analysis is based on the energy delivered to the pot content per meal
portion (EdelMP), using the same value for all energy carriers. On the basis of
experimental overall efficiency values (EffT), emission factors (Efact) and global
warming potential (GWP) values ([2], [3], [4]), one obtains emission values (Emv,
in CO2 equivalent) for each GHG and each energy carrier:

Emv = EdelMP * Efact * EffT * GWP (3)

Furthermore, the same number of meal portions per capita and year is used for
all energy carriers.

2.3 GHG emissions: CO2 and non-CO2 contributions

The analysis of the GHG emission of fuels distinguishes between:

• CO2 emissions which can be partly or completely recycled by plant growth,

and
• non-CO2 GHG emissions, caused by incomplete combustion, which cannot be
recycled by plant growth.

The GHG emissions other than CO2 are represented here by the three most
important contributors, CO, CH4 and N2O. They are expressed in mass CO2
equivalent.

2.4 The CO2 balance of bio-fuels

The CO2 impact of the burning of biomass is a complex issue (Herold, [5]). It is
a common misunderstanding that only fossil fuels contribute to the rising level of
CO2 in the atmosphere. In this sense, the use of biomass for fuel is frequently
characterized as CO2-neutral. In fact, biomass use for fuel can be, but it is not
always CO2-neutral. Any change in stored carbon (e.g. in trees and other plants,
but also in stored dead wood such as furniture) results in changes in the
atmospheric CO2 level. Three types of situations can be distinguished:

1. A net CO2 increase is caused e.g. by clearing of forest with subsequent

burning of the cleared wood. If the forest is replaced by agricultural use, part
of the CO2 increase is reversed; the same applies if primary forest is replaced
by secondary forest containing typically 30 to 60% of the original C stock
(WBGU, [6]). The burning (and the rotting) of dead wood also causes a net
GHG increase.

2. A sustainably exploited forest where felled trees are burned, but continuously
re-grown (and where the stored C remains constant) is CO2-neutral, just as the
clearing of forest where felled trees are not burned but durably used as
building materials, furniture, etc.

3. A decrease of CO2 can be expected in the case of a sustainably exploited

forest where felled trees are not burned but used as building materials, etc.
 It is clear that most of the fuelwood production in developing countries belongs
to a type 1 situation above, i.e. causes a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
This is particularly true for commercially cut fuelwood, since sustainable forest
management is radically more expensive than clearing (although firm regulations
and incentives can – in principle - tilt the balance the other way). On the other
hand, a type 2 situation can be ascribed to the burning of “indirect wood” , i.e.
residues from wood cut for other purposes, and particularly residues which would
have been burned in any case.

Under these assumptions, the global consumption of fuelwood for cooking

(coded FWC) can be divided in a direct part (FWCD: wood felled or harvested for
cooking – only this direct part is assumed to cause a net increase of CO2), and an
indirect part (FWCI: by-products from wood cut for other purposes but used for
cooking – this part is assumed to be CO2-neutral):

FWC = FWCD + FWCI (4)

This equation can be solved using available data (FAO, [7]): FWC is calculated
by multiplying the number of fuelwood users with the per-capita consumption of
fuelwood for cooking, whereas the direct production of fuelwood for cooking
FWCD is obtained from the direct production of fuelwood FWD minus the direct
fuelwood production for non-cooking purposes (such as process heat for craft and
industry) FWnCD:

FWCD = FWD – FWnCD (5)

Figure 1 illustrates these categories. Under the given assumptions, close to 50%
of the CO2 emissions caused by fuelwood for cooking can be considered CO2-
neutral.
For the burning of roots, no recycling by plant growth is assumed, since roots
can be considered as stored dead wood.
 Fig.1: The different fuelwood categories in developing countries

Fuelwood for
cooking FWC :
1147 Mt/a

46% non-CO2 neutral 54% CO2 neutral

Direct Direct Indirect fuelwood

fuelwood for non- fuelwood for for cooking FWCI :
cooking purposes cooking FWCD : 617 Mt/a
FWnCD : 530 Mt/a
175 Mt/a

Direct fuelwood
for all purposes
FWD : 705 Mt/a

Source: Synopsis (data by FAO [7])

As background information for this reasoning, the dominant position of direct

fuelwood in the wood production in developing countries should be noted: almost
80% of all the wood produced is used as fuel; about 60% of all wood produced is
used for cooking. Fuelwood, and in particular direct fuelwood for cooking, is by
no means an obscure sub-product of some other, more important use mode. It is
the dominating use mode for wood in developing countries.

2.5 The GHG emissions of non-wood biomass and fossil fuels

The GHG emissions of non-wood biomass are calculated for the burning of
crop residue, dung, as well as for biogas, assuming complete recycling of CO2.
Non- CO2 emissions are taken into account using the specific emission factors [3].
The emissions caused by the use of fossil fuels are calculated for LPG and
kerosene, burned in the respective stoves [3]. Electricity-caused emissions are
represented by gas-fired power-plants, taking into account the thermodynamic
efficiency (the unavoidable losses of thermal power plants). In places like South
Africa where most electricity is generated from coal, emissions will be
significantly higher; it will be lower in regions with an important part of electricity
generated by renewable sources.
 3. RESULTS

3.1 Cooking fuel consumption and cost

Figure 2 shows the fuel consumption and the fuel cost per meal portion, using
experimental data [3] (with the exception of overall efficiency of wood-burning
devices, where the measured residual humidity of typically 5% seems too low to
be used as global average). For wood, distinction is made for wood on three-stone
fires (“wood3”), wood in stoves and roots in stoves. Secondary energy
consumption is not included.
Fuel consumption is highest for biofuels (wood in a three-stone fire, dung,
roots, wood in stoves, crop residue and charcoal without the production process in
kilns), due to low efficiency of the stoves in use, and lowest for fossil fuels.
Exceptions are the high efficiency of biogas and the low efficiency of electricity.
Monetary fuel costs are highest for electricity, followed by LPG, (bought)
wood, kerosene, charcoal and nil for collected fuels.

Figure 2

Fuel consumption and cost per meal portion

16 0,160

14 0,140

12 0,120
MJ input / MP

US$ / MP

10 0,100

8 0,080

6 0,060

4 0,040 Energy consumption

MJ input /MP
2 0,020
Fuel cost $/MP
0 0,000
e

ro t
oo ne

as

l
ne

El PG

C g
ty

rs
o

oa
oa
ov

un
o

ci
og
W sto

se

p
R

C
rc
L
st

tri

ro
Bi

ha
3-

ec
d

Ke

C
d
oo
W

Using eq.1 and experimental data on fuel consumption in different stove-fuel

combinations [3], as well as demographic and fuel use data [9], [10], the global
consumption of different cooking fuels is estimated. Fig 3 shows the relative
shares of the different fuels. The quantitative dominance of low-tech biofuels is
overwhelming.
 Figure 3: the relative shares of the most important domestic cooking fuels

Coal
Consumption by fuel
7%

Crop rs
24%

Wood 3-stone
48%

Dung
8%

Charcoal
1%
Electricity
3% Wood stove
LPG Kerosene Root 6%
1% 1% 1%

This preponderance of biomass is due to several factors:

• There are more biomass users than fossil fuel users

• The energy content of biomass is lower than the energy content of fossil fuels
• The energy efficiency of the traditional ways to cook with biomass is lower
than the efficiency of fossil fuel stoves.

Overall, users of fuelwood for cooking accumulate the drawbacks in

comparison to users of fossil fuels: wood is bulkier, less practical and – if it is
bought – almost as expensive as gas. Moreover, it causes high indoor air pollution
and important GHG emissions (see below).
In absolute terms, the daily fuelwood consumption for cooking is in the order
of 7 million m3 which corresponds to a container train of 1000 km length.
In the case of electric cooking, the Carnot losses (waste heat at thermal power-
plants) divide by 3 the overall efficiency of electric stoves.

3.2 GHG emissions

Figure 4 shows the GHG emissions per meal portion caused by the different
fuels, for CO2, non-CO2 and total in g CO2 equivalent per meal portion. Emissions
are highest in biofuels (due to low energetic efficiency, a - partly or completely -
non-sustainable CO2 balance, and incomplete combustion causing high non- CO2
emissions). As has been noted by Smith [3], biofuels cause high emissions even
under the assumption of complete CO2 recycling.
Only biogas combines high energetic and combustion efficiency with a
sustainable CO2 balance which results in very low emission values.
 Figure 4

Emission per meal portion

1800
1600
g CO2quivalent / MP

1400
1200 Emission CO2

1000
Emission non-CO2
800
600 Total emission CO2-
equivalent
400
200
0
Wood stove
Wood 3-stone

Root

Kerosene

LPG

Charcoal

Coal
Biogas

Dung
Electricity

Crop rs

Fig. 5 presents the relative global emission shares of the different cooking
fuels, in CO2 equivalent units.

Figure 5

Emissions by fuel
Coal
16%

Crop rs
10%

Wood 3-stone
Dung 45%
3%
Charcoal
2%

Electricity
9%
LPG
3% Kerosene Wood stove
Root
4% 6%
2%

The total GHG emissions by cooking are in the order of 2 Gt eq CO2 and
represent roughly 5% of all GHG emissions caused by human activities.
 4. THE EMISSION- AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FUEL AND
COOKER REPLACEMENT

The replacement of high emission cooking appliances and fuels is an obvious

option for the reduction of GHG emissions.

4.1 Low emission fuel stoves

Biofuel stoves can be optimised in terms of energetic efficiency as well as

combustion efficiency. Low emission biofuels can be used, such as biogas.
Finally, the use of new fuels, such as pellets, gel fuels and hydrogen, can be
developed.
The corresponding emission impact can be calculated on the basis of the meal
portion emission data shown in Fig.4.

4.2 Solar cookers - results per meal portion

Solar cookers cannot be characterized by fuel consumption (there is no fuel

involved) nor by emission, but their impact can be calculated in a simple way: a
solar cooker, for each meal portion prepared, saves all of the fuel and avoids all
the emissions that would have been used or caused by the cooker which was
replaced.
Table 1 shows that:

• the average avoided GHG emission per meal portion prepared by solar instead
of wood is in the order of 875 g; e.g. a meal for 5 prepared on a solar cooker
avoids the emission of 4 kg of CO2 equivalent
• for the replacement of coal and electricity, the emission impact is of similar
magnitude, while the replacement of kerosene, LPG, dung and crop residue is
less effective, and nil for the replacement of biogas
• the monetary fuel savings of a solar cooker per meal portion are in the order
of 1 to 11 UScents for the commercial fuels (and nil for the non-commercial
fuels)
• the break-even (or pay-back) number of meal portions per $ retail price is in
the order of 9 MP for electricity and 25 to 55 MP for coal, LPG, wood and
kerosene: if the cooker (during its entire useful life, until it is discarded) is
used for less than these 9 to 55 MP per $ of price, it causes a financial loss for
the user (in this case, the GHG reduction actually has a financial cost); if it is
used more, the user makes a profit and the GHG reduction comes for free.
 Table 1: Solar cooker – avoided emissions and fuel cost per MP, break-even
number of MP
Wood 3-st Wood Coal Kerosene LPG
Avoided GHG emission g CO2-equivalent per MP 875 688 748 180 153
Avoided fuel cost $/MP 0,024 0,018 0,040 0,022 0,033
Break-even number of solar MP per $ retail price 42,4 55,1 24,8 45,7 30,3

Electricity Biogas Charcoal Dung Crop rs

Avoided GHG emission g CO2-equivalent per MP 458 7 1029 490 341
Avoided fuel cost $/MP 0,112 0 0,012 0 0
Break-even number of solar MP per $ retail price 8,9 - 84,7 - -

For a solar cooker with an assumed retail price of $35 replacing commercial
fuelwood, the break-even point between cooker price and monetary fuel savings
is reached at 1500 MP. If the cooker is used to prepare more than 1500 MP, it
saves fuel costs and avoids GHG emissions. For collected fuelwood with a
“shadow cost” of 50%, the break-even point is reached at 3000 MP.
It should be noted again that the meal portion results do not need any
assumptions concerning solar cooker use rates and useful life. The statement is
simply that a solar cooker, whenever it is used to prepare a number x of meal
portions, saves x times 875 g of GHG emissions (and x times 2.4 UScents in fuel
expenses) which would have occurred using woodfuel. Obviously, no savings
occur if the solar cooker is not used.

4.3 Per solar cooker results

The next important question is how many meal portions are actually prepared
on a solar cooker during its useful life. Basis of the estimate are South African
field test data on use rate [10], and demographic data for the developing world (all
biofuels plus coal and kerosene) as well as for the industrialised countries (LPG
and electricity) [9]. An average useful life of the cooker of 5 years is assumed.
More detailed emission and cost results for the same solar cooker are given in
Table 2.

Table 2
Wood3 Kero LPG Coal Elect. Dung Crop r.
Estimated household size cap 4,5 4,5 2,4 4,5 2,4 4,5 4,5
Life cycle years 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Number of solar cooked MP/a, cap 244 244 269 244 269 244 244
Average number of MP per solar cooker 5480 5480 3232 5480 3232 5480 5480
Total emission t CO2-equivalent per solar cooker 4,8 1,0 0,5 4,1 1,5 2,7 1,9
Cost per avoided t CO2 (except fuel cost) $ 7,3 35 71 9 24 13 19
Avoided fuel cost during solar cooker life cycle $ 129 120 181 221 615 0 0

Under the given assumptions on average family size and life cycle, a solar
cooker, during its life cycle, replacing wood, avoids 4 to 5 t of GHG. The related
cost, around $8 per avoided t, is a small fraction of the savings in fuel. Thus, in
most cases, the cost per avoided t is actually negative.
It should be noted that these per cooker results depend on assumptions on
average household size, cooker price, use frequency and useful life, and are,
therefore, less reliable than the MP data.

5. OUTLOOK

The meal portion method presented here allows a simple estimate of energy
consumption and GHG emission by different domestic cooking technologies and
fuel carriers. This can be done on the basis of global figures, but since the
precision of the averages used determines the precision of the results it would be
useful to establish regional averages for meal portion parameters, on the basis of
direct measurement of consumption and emissions, in analogy to GHG emission
maps under publication [11]. In order for these measurements to be credible,
appropriate standards have to be agreed upon.
Also, “secondary” processes can cause important contributions to energy
consumption and GHG emission and should be compiled or studied, e.g.:

• fuel transport,
• transformation processes as in refineries or charcoal kilns,
• distribution losses such as grid losses or biogas leaks,
• induced energy consumption, as in kitchen air conditioning.

On the application side, an increased effort should go into the development of:

• high efficiency, low-emission wood and other biofuel stoves

• clean fuels, such as gels and hydrogen
• non-fuel cooking and simmering appliances, such as solar cookers and “hay-
boxes”.

It would be risky to predict which of the potential clean cooking technologies

will come out winners on the market. The technical development should be
conducted in parallel with acceptance and commercial pilot dissemination studies,
in order to adapt development results to the preferences of users and of market
players. Future efforts should be comparative, i.e. not be limited to pre-selected
single technical solutions.
At this point, there is no doubt that domestic cooking causes massive energy
consumption and GHG emissions and that the main share of these is caused by
traditional cooking techniques which can be improved at relatively modest cost or
even at profit due to fuel savings.
 6. REFERENCES

[1] DME/GTZ, 2002, Solar Cooker Compendium, www.solarcookers.co.za

or www.synopsis.org
[2] IPCC, 2001, Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001,
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp/html
[3] Smith, K. R., et al., 2000, Greenhouse Gases from Small-Scale
Combustion Devices in Developing Countries, Househould Stoves in
India, EPA-600/R-00-052
[4] Klingshirn, A., 2002, private communication
[5] Herold, A., 1998, Der Wald als Klimaretter? - Potentiale, Probleme und
Prinzipien bei der Anrechnung von biologischer Senken im Kyoto-
Protokoll
[6] WGBU, 1998, Sondergutachten, Die Anrechnung biologischer Quellen
und Senken im Kyoto-Protokoll: Fortschritt oder Rückschlag für den
globalen Umweltschutz? http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn1998.html
[7] FAO, 1999, World Ressources 2000 - 2001, Table FG.3.
[8] Hulscher, W., et al., 2000, Stoves on the carbon market,
http://ecoharmony.net/hedon/meetings/x/p_carbon.pdf
[9] UNhabitat, 2001, Statistical Annexes to the Global Report on Human
Settlements 2001 http://www.unhabitat.org/habrdd/statannexes.htm
[10] DME/GTZ, 1997, End-User Acceptance, Solar Cooker Field Test in
South Africa, Main Report, Volume 1
[11] Yevich, R., Logan, J., 2002, An assessment of biofuel use and burning of
agricultural waste in the developing world, to be published,
www.as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/ publications/yevich2002.pdf

Acknowledgements

The present work has been conducted in part in the framework of the solar
cooker pilot program in South Africa, jointly supported by the Governments of
South Africa (DME: Department of Minerals and Energy) and Germany (BMZ:
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung) and
carried out by DME and GTZ (Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit).
The author is thankful for inputs from Hannelore Bergler, Eberhard Biermann,
David Hancock, Agnes Klingshirn, Erica de Lange, Rolf Posorski, Dieter Seifert
and Marlett Wentzel.
The views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the above-mentioned
institutions and individuals. As always, errors and misconceptions are of the sole
responsibility of the author.