[Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.
Frank Shields
frank at compostlab.com
Sat Apr 27 12:43:07 CDT 2013
Dear Paul,
IMO
Crispin is right about only giving you the data. And you should be careful
to whom you pass on the data to and how its presented and how you and others
look at it.
If there is a list of ten TLUD stoves tested. The results are presented in
two ways: (1) One set uses oven dried fuel of perfect size and introduced to
the stove in a very attentive, scientific manor while the other set of
results (2) are using a classification of real fuel and introduced to the
stove as determined by a Tool Box Observer (TBO) of mothers of four kids
running around,, one in the flour sack and the other wanting a band aid on
the knee, while trying to cook a meal which set of test data do you thing
the NGO wants when making a decision to purchase that will best reflect what
will be seen in the field? The first set of tests are only research data and
should NOT be presented in any way to the public. The second set does not
exist because we have not classified the fuel and established a means to
control the introduction of fuel to the stove when doing the testing in the
stove BOX.
Regards
Frank
Thanks
Frank Shields
BioChar Division
Control Laboratories, Inc.
42 Hangar Way
Watsonville, CE 95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(81) 724-3188 fax
<mailto:frank at biocharlab.com> frank at biocharlab.com
www.controllabs.com
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Anderson
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 8:33 AM
To: crispinpigott at gmail.com; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Hugh
McLaughlin; Jim Jetter
Subject: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets
of raw data of cookstove tests.
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 <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu> <psanders at ilstu.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:55:20 -0500
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <mailto:crispinpigott at gmail.com>
<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/bcf5b462/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list