[Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.

[Paul Anderson]

Stovers,

I asked Crispin to name the stoves for which the reported results are 
not accurate.   And he named one of mine, the Quad 2, which happens to 
be about the ONLY stove for which raw data sets have been made available 
on the Internet.

(So, to the the GACC and EPA and others:  My request for more disclosure 
of raw data set is STILL not satisfied, although we have received 
assurances of eventual compliance.)

Unfortunately, Crispin sent his reply only to me.   Perhaps he was 
trying to be nice.   But I want the cards on the table for ALL stoves, 
and it does not matter if one of my stoves is presented in a bad light 
(TEMPORARILY).    Much of this depends on how the data is presented, 
both in calculations and in discussions.

So much talk and so little reality.

I am NOT here to defend or condemn stoves that make charcoal (and they 
are mainly the TLUD stoves).   The reality is that they exist, and are 
consistently shown to be among the lowest of biomass-fueled cookstoves 
in emissions  of CO and PM .

And they do not require wood as fuel.   Those are facts.

Let the discussions continue.   But I am happy that others have been 
doing the discussion.

Dr TLUD

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

On 4/27/2013 2:08 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> Sorry for not replying. I am on a job in Palo Alto, CA.
>
> The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and gets 
> (got, anyway) a rating of 636g.
>
> The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1.
>
> However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that 
> category. The UNFCCC uses the CCT 2.0 (names it specifically) and that 
> uses the energy efficiency, not the fuel efficiency as the metric to 
> compare on the assumption that stoves do not make char.
>
> Regards
> Crispin travelling
> From BB9900
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> *Date: *Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:55:20 -0500
> *To: *Discussion of biomass cooking 
> stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Cc: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<crispinpigott at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of 
> cookstove tests.
>
> 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/20130427/98d2f177/attachment.html>