[Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove Performance in the Field?

Fri Nov 23 22:54:01 CST 2012

Dean,

We need to look at all of the tests, whether they are complicated on not. We
have at least three generations of WBT's, a KPT and CCT. Then we have the
Chinese WBT, and Indian efficiency test. There may be others. Years ago
Geres had one they preferred over the WBT. They all have values but they all
must be examined. 

Should there be  a more complete version of the WBT's, CCT's or KPT's that
will give us a better picture of stove performance? We need to explore that
to offset the shortcomings of the unmeasured assumptions made in the
existing tests. As far as I know the WBTs and CCT's do not directly measure
fuel consumption but infer them from gas analyses. In industry we combine
gas analyses with direct  measurements of fuel consumption and heat recovery
to characterize heaters and boilers. They are complicated tests but the
combination gives you an accurate picture and suggests important
modification to the devices. We routinely check the operation of the devices
in the field with short versions of the more complex tests. 

While tests may be preferred by users do they give comparable results? Do we
know what "factors" to apply to compare results from the different tests?
Will they all be used as a basis for decision making by the UNFCCC or
donors?  

Tom

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Dean Still
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 7:07 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove Performance
in the Field?

Tom,

Testing can move stakeholders forward to learn about how stoves work and
then to help projects to evolve stoves that cook better, use less fuel, make
less smoke, etc. Remember that the Water Boiling Test is essentially just
seeing how much fuel is used to boil and then simmer water while measuring
the emissions made.  Not complicated.

The next test has cooks using their pots, their fuel, their food, etc.(the
Controlled Cooking Test) comparing the traditional and prototype new stove
to see which stove cooks better while making the same meal. Again emissions
made are counted and again it's not complicated.

The point to me is to test the stoves to 'get what you inspect, not what you
expect'. Testing is how we improve stoves. The IWA  is inclusive so many
Water Boiling Tests can be used as preferred by the tester. No problems.

Best,

Dean

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

Dean,

My questions below include might where is the data;  how good is the data;
how have we tested the validity of the data; what are the flaws in our
existing methods; how can we improve the methods we use; and what is the
appropriate use of the methods we have? These questions apply to the
physical and social aspects of stove performance. I appreciate the efforts
that have gone into developing the stoves and the information about them
that we have but that shouldn't stop the process of improving on what we can
know and using the best information to inform our decisions about where we
are going. I haven't seen recent comparative and critical testing of what we
have. The next step is to drill down into the inventory to see what is
useful and what is not. If it the critical component is there then I didn't
catch it the first time around, but then I usually read for speed and not
comprehension.  

Tom   

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Dean Still
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 12:32 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: ethos at vrac.iastate.edu
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove Performance
in the Field?

Hi Tom,

Personally, I have no doubts about the need for testing. As Kirk Smith says
"You get what you inspect, not what you expect". I want decisions to be data
driven so the stoves are as helpful as possible. 

Remember that the IWA process is inclusive of all kinds of Water Boiling
Tests.

The various water boiling tests are very useful to inform how the prototype
stove could theoretically be improved. But, the actual stove itself is
evolved by groups of cooks and all stakeholders who holistically create most
viable stoves using the applicable lab and field tests. Cooks who know how
the stove has to function to make great food are a big part of the process
of evolving a successful cooking stove.

I've found this inclusive process to work very well. 

Best,

Dean

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

Dean,

It was after reviewing this inventory and the recent EPA publication that I
began to question whether we have resolved the testing issues we discussed
about three years go. We need to challenge this data set. Do the test mean
anything? When you break down those tests into the categories displayed in
the report we have a very small number of tests for a particular stove and
fuel. We should be at the point where we have large numbers of tests for
each condition to arrive at performance numbers rather than having to rely
on averages of averages of data generated by using outdated versions of the
testing protocols. If there are still flaws in the testing protocol does the
whole stack of cards fall down?  What is the statistical probability of
changing the outcome if we find that we have to change one element the
protocol (e.g. assumption about charcoal) to make it more accurate? What is
the impact on our understanding of stove performance and what stoves we need
to improve, or abandon?

These questions gain more importance as they influence decisions about
funding stoves programs. Did the stove performance survey that Aprovecho
started in about 2003 lead the Shell Foundation to make good decisions about
their programs in China and India? Or, did they have to go through their own
learning curve about what worked and what didn't from a technical point of
view? What does the Berkeley inventory tell us about what will work best in
South Asia or Africa? We should discuss these issues in detail at ETHOS.  

Another important question: do failures in stove programs have anything to
do with stove technology or are they due to problems with the implementing
organizations? IN my business of developing and implementing new
technologies it is often not the technology that fails but the company that
is trying to implement it. Are there things we can do to strengthen our
stove organizations? To help them make uncomfortable decisions about stove
technologies they may be vested in in order to accomplish their goal of fuel
savings and health?

This is going to take a lot of beers. . .

Tom   

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Dean Still
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 9:21 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Cc: ethos at vrac.iastate.edu
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove Performance
in the Field?

Hi Tom,

Great suggestions for ETHOS!

 A Stove Performance Inventory was released this week with both lab and
field data funded by the Global Alliance.

"This Stove Performance Inventory, developed by the Berkeley Air Monitoring
Group in partnership with the Alliance and with funding from Environment
Canada, contains data from over 600 sets of cookstove performance tests.  A
detailed report
<http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/stove-performance-inventory-
pdf.pdf>  is available in the Resources section of the Alliance's website."

Best,

Dean

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

Mark,

You have listed a number of standards and protocol topics. Now that GACC
exists have we made any gains on the science side? Where is the data?  We
should be generating good field data by now. I don't want to just hear
reports about what people have decided in political committees that nobody
seems to be able to attend or vote in.  

I would like to see a critical review of the testing protocols and methods
with regard to the key metrics and emissions. For example, the protocols to
date have made assumptions about heating values of fuels and residues ash
and charcoal that I have always felt were just placeholders until someone
with larger research budgets could validate them. Determining the amount of
energy left in the ash or charcoal is a good example. I often get asked what
value to use for the remaining ash/charcoal. I haven't seen a test where the
remaining charcoal/ash has been directly tested for ash content and heating
value. 

Testing the benchmarks. Do the benchmarks that were derived several years
ago make sense now that we have improved tools for measuring stove
performance or do we get the same numbers because we're using the same
tools? Do the benchmarks tell us anything about stove performance in the
field? Do stoves preform in the field in the same relative way they are
shown to perform in the lab or are some stoves much better than others (or
much worse) when they are used in the field? Are the stoves designed to the
test (e.g. WBT) or to the use in the field? Do some stoves perform best when
they are tested in the lab and fail in the field? Or, are we even testing
for this?

Field applications. Are our tools and metrics of any use for improving stove
performance in actual use? If so then how are projects in developing
countries using these tools to improve their fuel use and health? How do
local, nation, or regional stove projects use these tools to improve their
stoves, or do they just ignore them?

QA/QC. When a program buys container loads of stoves how do we know that
they perform within the expectations created by the test results? Do any of
the manufactured stove suppliers test the quality and performance of their
stoves on a regular basis? Is there any monitoring?

How has testing been used for different fuels? I was inspired this week by a
photo from Mexican which a construction worker was using an LPG burner in an
eCocina stove (Stove Team International) because it substantially reduced
his LG use. Can we compare fuel consumption for different fuels? How good
are our fuel consumption metrics? 

Health. We still do not have proven direct correlation between stove
emissions and heath. Most of the data seems to be recycled. Are there new
health studies? Has GACC and the many supporting organizations funded any of
the fundamental health studies that every year Jay Smith tells us are
lacking? 

These are some of the questions that I would like to see addressed at ETHOS.

Looking forward to another productive ETHOS. 

Thanks

Tom  

T R Miles Technical Consultants, Inc.

tmiles at trmiles.com

www.trmiles.com

www.stove.bioenergylists.org

From: ethos-bounces at vrac.iastate.edu [mailto:ethos-bounces at vrac.iastate.edu]
On Behalf Of Bryden, Kenneth [M E]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:05 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; ETHOS - Listserve
Subject: [Ethos] ETHOS 2013

All, 

It's that time of year again! We're starting to get the activities together
together for the ETHOS conference. The conference will be January 25 - 27,
2013 in Seattle. Proposed discussion topics include

- Update on the Global Alliance and their activities

- Standardizing Reporting on IWA Indicators

- Stove Performance Inventory, Sharing Public Data, and Establishing Common
Data Formats

- Update on ISO Process

- Updates on Protocol Developments (including possibly charcoal, plancha,
batch-fed, durability, finalizing WBT from public comment period)

Let us know what else you would like to talk about. A lot is happening and
I'm sure it will be as exciting as ever. I'd appreciate having your ideas on
topics and panels by November 15.

Abstracts for papers and talks are due January 1.

For more details, to register, and to submit your abstract the conference
web site is http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/conference.php.

Please send your ideas directly to Dean and I.

Best regards

Mark

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20121123/b3d69ed4/attachment.html>