[Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.

[Paul Anderson]

Dear Crispin and Kevin,

You are happy to talk about Fuel efficiency, and use ENERGY numbers.   
And then immediately discuss forests being destroyed.

Please get past the equating of fuel with wood and trees. Beating on 
that drum constantly is unscientific.

Paul

Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 4/24/2013 9:49 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Kevin
>
> You analysis is correct. When rating the performance of a stove from a 
> fuel use perspective, the chart is correct:
>
>     Two stoves are being compared for "Efficiency".
>
>     Given facts from Tests:
>
>     	
>
>     STOVE A
>
>     	
>
>     STOVE B
>
>     	
>
>     STOVE C
>
>     	
>
>     STOVE D
>
>     Nature of Fuel
>
>     	
>
>     Ag. Waste
>
>     	
>
>     Ag.Waste
>
>     	
>
>     Stickwood
>
>     	
>
>     Stickwood
>
>     Fuel Energy Supplied, MJ
>
>     	
>
>     10
>
>     	
>
>     15
>
>     	
>
>     10
>
>     	
>
>     15
>
>     Energy to Cooking Pot, MJ
>
>     	
>
>     5
>
>     	
>
>     5
>
>     	
>
>     5
>
>     	
>
>     5
>
>     Energy in Char, MJ
>
>     	
>
>     0
>
>     	
>
>     5
>
>     	
>
>     0
>
>     	
>
>     5
>
>     Stove Efficiency, %
>
>     	
>
>     50.00%
>
>     	
>
>     33.33%
>
>     	
>
>     50.00%
>
>     	
>
>     33.33%
>
>     If someone is interested in the char, it can be reported. What Ron
>     is proposing, to add that heat energy available in the char back
>     into the mix, is akin to considering the energy efficiency to be
>     the fuel efficiency which is precisely what created for us a
>     problem in the first place.
>
>     The energy value of the char came from somewhere. Consider a stove
>     that takes 2 tons of forest per year. If it produces ¼ of a ton of
>     forest's worth of energy in the form of char, fine. Say so. But
>     saying so does not reduce the two tons of forest it takes. If you
>     have (as you pointed out) a second stove that can utilise the
>     charcoal, then that can be viewed as a 'system' by all and sundry,
>     but is still does not change the fact that Stove 1 takes two tons
>     of forest each year which is what the reported fuel consumption
>     should be. No smoke and mirrors.
>
>     Burying the char as a soil amendment instead of burning it merely
>     takes us back to the two tons of forest per year draw-down and
>     returns it to the environment in an (apparently) inert, solid form.
>
>     What has been happening that is wrong, in my view, is that stoves
>     that take off 3 tons of forest per year have been getting credit
>     for taking only one ton and proclaimed to be 'better' and 'more
>     fuel efficient' than a two-ton stove. Plainly this is not the case
>     and the test method has to report the fuel consumption correctly.
>     It is a problem that the UNFCCC methodology does not handle this
>     well because it is being used for CDM trades.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Crispin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130424/c497c5e4/attachment.html>