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

[Paul Anderson]

Crispin,

You wrote:
> 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. 
Please provide an example.   If it is a specific stove, then name the 
names and give the data.

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 4/25/2013 10:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130426/50afbae4/attachment.html>