[Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove
rongretlarson at comcast.net
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Wed Nov 28 13:11:35 CST 2012
Ranyee and list:
Thank you for Monday's GACC response (below) to Tom. Yours gives me a chance to urge a relatively small addition to the 4.1.2 water boiling test we have recently discussed on this list and to which I think you were responding. My requested addition is to use already-collected data to also supply a new stove measure that will help those (like myself) who believe stoves can play a major role in getting both to zero fossil fuel use and also to 350 (or lower) ppm CO2. This suggestion is solely built around the term "CO2" - which I don't see enough of in the GACC web pages.
To do this, I want to provide/emphasize the percent of the initial fuel's carbon that ended up as a recalcitrant char for placement in soil (only then called biochar). All of the data needed to do this are already being considered, but the ratio (a number near 40-50%) is nowhere provided. Giving only the weight of the char is insufficient (a ratio near 20-25%). This requested value can be given either in C or CO2 terms (those dealing with geoengineering costs prefer C, but carbon prices are almost universally given in CO2 (or CO2-eq) terms). I think providing both variations will be helpful - especially to emphasize the differences when costs enter the dialog. That is, a price of $10/tonne CO2 is the same as $37/tonne C (and we need both to be higher if we are interested n 350 ppm CO2). Too often, I see the terms confused.
The present GACC handling of char weight is to compute its energy content and subtract this from the input biomass energy in the denominator of an energy efficiency computation. This bothers some on this list, but I think is relatively OK if the char is eventually productively used. But if one wants to really understand how well the rest of the biomass was used that did not go into char production, then one should simply divide the saved fossil energy's C or CO2 by the similar quantity in the input biomass. It is NOT appropriate to say that all of the CO2 produced in the WBT was carbon neutral. And different fossil fuels would have different CO2 outputs; the displacement of methane would displace about half as much CO2 as would displacement of coal.
This complexity of the displaced fuel is not highlighted in the GACC material. It is an unfortunate complexity related to the percent hydrogen in the different fuels (including charcoal seen as a fuel). Nevertheless, for those interested in global warming, I suggest that this additional set of data provided by the GACC WBT's will help clarify why many of us on the stove list are interested in stove technologies (I was the first stove list coordinator - always emphasizing how bad charcoal burning is). Additional GACC data will emphasize the importance of both carbon neutrality and carbon negativity in the stove world. I do not see sufficient recognition of this duality in the present GACC material. The source of the char should be emphasized when you report on the efficiency of jikos.
I recognize that I have only given a broad brush description. I will work with the small amount of charcoal-related data in EPA's (Jim Jetter's) approach and any in the Berkeley data (which I have requested, but do not yet have from your office). It is very unfortunate that there is still so little data to work with for char-making stoves (too much in the "grey" literature). If anyone can supply me with such data, I will calculate the new CO2 data I am looking for. What I think we will find is that char-making stoves have quite high efficiencies - in the range 80 to 90 % - roughly 40-45% each for the carbon neutral and carbon negative portions. This does not now come across in any GACC material I now read. We absolutely need two efficiency numbers we can add together - and I do not now see them.
To repeat the essence of the above - CO2 is the only parameter I have found which can be used to analyze carbon neutrality and negativity together. Weight and energy units do not tell the CO2 story. An emphasis on energy alone is fine if you are not interested in CO2-induced global warming. But the production of biochar is necessarily accompanied by a reduction in energy. Biochar enthusiasts recognize that we can't have both high energy output and high char output. But both are now important. Having CO2 (or C) appear in the numerators of the separate carbon neutral and carbon negative terms seems to be a mathematical necessity. Having the energy content of char appear only in the denominator of an energy efficiency computation means that the whole story of char-making stoves is not being told.
I welcome further dialog on this topic.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ranyee Chiang" <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 11:48:05 AM
Subject: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove
Dear Tom and all,
I wanted to jump into this conversation to emphasize that providing access to data on stove performance in the field is high on the priority list for the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.
The recently released Stove Performance Inventory has already been mentioned, which was an effort to pull together existing publically available data for laboratory and field testing. We will be having a webinar on December 11 4 pm GMT, which will cover the development of the inventory, results, an overview of the existing format for the Inventory, and discussion of next steps (keeping the inventory up to date, improving the accessibility and query-ability of the interface, etc).
All projects selected through the external peer review process and funded by the Global Alliance (published online when the grants are finalized) are required to make their data publically available. The most relevant field studies came out of a recent Request for Applications , and these projects are currently getting started now. The information about these studies is getting posted online as we speak, since these grants were only recently finalized. And as these projects and other recently funded projects progress, that work and the resulting data will be shared.
A comment was also made about committees related to standards and testing. We are working extremely hard to make discussions and meetings inclusive and widely attended. We will continue to use channels like this listserv to keep everyone updated about upcoming activities (online, teleconference, and in person), and we will continue to support travel to help people attend meetings in person. I have been posting regular updates on standards and testing activities in the Communities section of the Global Alliance website, and I am happy to talk to anyone interested in more detailed updates.
Best regards,
Ranyee
Description: Description: emailsignature
Ranyee Chiang, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Manager
rchiang at cleancookstoves.org
www.cleancookstoves.org
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:06:01 +0000
From: "Bryden, Kenneth [M E]" < kmbryden at iastate.edu >
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
< stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org >
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove
Performance in the Field?
Message-ID:
< 75123EB3655A6E44B6FC942F119B90CA0373EF0E at ITSDAG4A.its.iastate.edu >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Tom,
Sounds like a great idea and I'm sure by the flurry of writing this weekend that it would attract a lot of interest. I also know that there are a lot of questions that need be answered.
Maybe a format that could work would be a panel for the whole group followed by a set of talks for those who wish to continue the discussion. Can you put together a panel and a set of talks that would represent the divergent views on this topic?
Dean - any thoughts
Thanks
Mark
On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Tom Miles 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<mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com >
www.trmiles.com<http://www.trmiles.com >
www.stove.bioenergylists.org<http://www.stove.bioenergylists.org >
From: ethos-bounces at vrac.iastate.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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/20121126/e8e47199/attachment-0001.html >
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:19:46 -0800
From: "Tom Miles" < tmiles at trmiles.com >
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
< stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org >
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove
Performance in the Field?
Message-ID: < 00db01cdcbf1$da33d800$8e9b8800$@trmiles.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Good idea. We can work on it over the next few of weeks. Sorting out the objectives and use of tests, methods and formal protocols would be the place to start.
Tom
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Bryden, Kenneth [M E]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:06 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] ETHOS 2013: Where is the New Data on Stove Performance in the Field?
Tom,
Sounds like a great idea and I'm sure by the flurry of writing this weekend that it would attract a lot of interest. I also know that there are a lot of questions that need be answered.
Maybe a format that could work would be a panel for the whole group followed by a set of talks for those who wish to continue the discussion. Can you put together a panel and a set of talks that would represent the divergent views on this topic?
Dean - any thoughts
Thanks
Mark
On Nov 23, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Tom Miles 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: < http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20121126/88d948c9/attachment.html >
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
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/
------------------------------
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 27, Issue 44
**************************************
________________________________
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
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/20121128/705e1133/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12598 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20121128/705e1133/attachment.png>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list