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

[Dean Still]

Hi Tom,

I thought that going over Jim Jetter's latest paper on new stove testing
results might be helpful? You can see that fuel use is measured,
not assumed, etc. And, as you can imagine, in this EPA peer reviewed study
the statistical significance is good.

Twenty-two cookstoves burning six fuel types (wood, charcoal, pellets, corn
cobs, rice hulls, and plant oil) at two fuel moisture levels were examined
under laboratory-controlled operating conditions as outlined in the Water
Boiling Test (WBT) protocol, Version 4.

http://support.hedon.info/View+Publication&itemId=12800

All Best,

Dean


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Dean,****
>
> ** **
>
> I should add that in industry we directly measure the ash, the flyash, and
> the carbon in the ash and flyash to complete the energy balance. These
> usually suggest means to reduce energy loses and increase energy recovery.
> What stoves methods do all of that to verify assumptions of about where the
> energy goes in jikos, patsaris, rockets, TLUDs, etc, e.g. to determine
> actual fuel consumption? ****
>
> ** **
>
> These are not just academic exercises but important measurements for
> finding flaws in current methods and finding opportunities to improve
> stoves. From your extensive experience you might say that these measures
> would have a low impact. Maybe so, but where is the data that shows us that
> for each of the test methods? If the variation from testing is greater than
> the variation required to elevate a stove between tiers then why bother
> with tiers to categorize stoves? By using averages have we just removed the
> variability? If we don’t keep the outliers in the data set how can we
> analyze them to determine sources of variation or error? I haven’t seen
> evidence that anyone has really questioned the data.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Tom Miles
> *Sent:* Friday, November 23, 2012 8:54 PM
> *To:* 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove
> Performance in the Field?****
>
> ** **
>
> 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<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/****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121125/5616b51d/attachment.html>