The Tibetan tents are the other extreme - very low embedded energy, quick to build or erect, but a major health hazard to the occupants. Minor improvements in the design can drastically improve the quality of life for the occupants.

What's the health hazard? fumes?

Peter.

The coal fired brick may indeed not be sustainably produced,but the coal is going to be burnt anyway,and the energy derived therefrom mostly used to produce steel used in cars,or run electric lighting and so forth-not in sustainable activities.

I unhappily will never be able to travel to China,but being acquainted with the habits of poor but fairly self sufficient people here in the mountians of the American south,I would bet that those overengineered bricks are still in use hundreds of years from now if they are as good as the ones commonly used here.

Given the fact that the coal WILL be burnt,I can't immediately think of a better use of it.

I expect to see the solar stoves in common use here in the states in poorer communities within a few years.

As to the health hazards of fires in tents,it seems to be well established that smoke inhalation is a major source of health problems when people live in similar structures.One good friend of mine died of CO poisoning inside a modern house a a result of a leaky flue and a furnace located under a faily tightly sealed den.It seems unlike that a traditional yurt or other movable structure would be THAT airtight.

In regard to the changes in design that you suggest there are a couple of points. In Beijing they are building back to traditional designs in the backstreets behind the large edifices that you see on the main streets - with the gated compounds. This also holds true out in the rural villages, where the use of the flat roofs (Qinghai is a very dry state) allows for a significant heat capture in the winter (and thus they wouldn't be excited about the "whitewash" recently advocated by the Secretary of Energy).

We talked a little about the transfer of technology for small scale solar houses along the lines of the DOE Competition and they (state government) seemed very interested in following up on that. Remember, however that in Qinghai they want to put the dwellings where it is not possible to run power (low demand, high cost) and where they may be transporting in the materials by yak. In those places servicing the solar equipment has (see Botswana) been a significant problem, although apparently solved in Bhutan using the "Barefoot University" approach.

Ralph: What minor design improvements to the tents do you recommend for improving occupants' quality of life?

It is important to differentiate between building technologies and cooking methods. In the case of tent structures, it is actually the fuel (dung is the least clean fuel per unit energy extracted) combined with the type of stove used that makes the situation so hazardous, rather than the building structure itself.

Building structures in this region are highly insulated against the cold winters, but this at the expense of worsened indoor air pollution. Health is threatened in many traditional lifestyles due to limited energy options for both cooking and heating.

The article mentions solar energy options for people in Qinghai. However, neither rural villagers nor nomads are able to employ these technologies. The solar water heaters are difficult to transport and often leak (with adobe roofs this causes many problems) or break during the frigid winters, with temperatures well below -20C. The solar cookers available (and pictured) weigh around 95kg. About 20% break en route to villages, and they are too heavy for use by nomads or those living in tents.

These are some of the many challenges to overcome while also incorporating traditional knowledge and cultural patterns to produce a locally-adapted solution. We've been working on and studying these issues, and we welcome any comments or suggestions you may offer: http://www.OneEarthDesigns.org