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

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Paul

 

Here is the problem restated slightly better without prejudice re other
biomass:

 

If someone is interested in the char, it can be reported – it is in the raw
data set. What Ron is proposing, to reduce the energy in the fuel consumed
by the heat energy available in the remaining char, is akin to considering
the fuel efficiency to be the energy 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
needs 2 tons of biomass per year to operate. If it produces ¼ of a ton of
biomass energy equivalent in the form of char, fine. Say so. But saying so
does not reduce the two tons of biomass it takes to feed the system. 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 biomass each year which is
what the reported fuel consumption should be. The impact of a system is not
the same as the impact of a component of that system. The only debate left
is how to report the fuel consumption and by-products.

 

What has been happening that is wrong, in my view, is that stoves that
actually take off 3 tons of biomass 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 (which measures energy efficiency) does not handle this well and
it is being used for CDM trades. People are being cheated.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130425/3a95e583/attachment.html>