[Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.
Ron
rongretlarson at comcast.net
Sun Apr 28 16:20:10 CDT 2013
Paul and Frank. Ccs
I write to tentatively concur with Paul. Do you (paul or anyone) have an URL for the CSU
test results?
But this is mostly to ask Frank for more rationale. Jim Jetter will be reporting values for stoves
that were voluntarily submitted for testing - I presume with knowledge that the results would be
made public.
I can see some cases where the public would be best served if names were not associated
with particular results, but still the data could be valuable to all.
Can you tell us more of how to best get and use all of Jim's test results? Any precedents in the
(your) testing world?
Ron
On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Frank and all,
>
> I respectfully disagree. If we present no data from the lab tests and there are none, (or few, and fewer that are comparable to each other) from testing in the field, then we have zero data about the stoves.
>
> Who are we trying to serve? Who are we trying to protect?
>
> Let's get some data that can be used. So far, the Jetter data from EPA (final figures, not raw data sets) is the most cited and respected. There have been other comparisons by Aprovecho and one done at CSU that should not be forgotten. The comparative graph that I made several years ago used Aprovecho data plus the initial results of TLUD testing.
>
> We all sit waiting for the release of the next set of results from EPA (Jim said the results should be out in about September.)
>
> At Aprovecho Stove Camp this year (22 - 26 July, with co-leader Dr TLUD), we will be getting some additional results that should give interesting comparisons. Soon I will post to the Stoves Listserv some notes on the testing, so that Frank and Dale and Crispin and Tami and all others can comment and refine what will be done. And I hope that many of you will be able to attend.
>
> 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 4/27/2013 12:43 PM, Frank Shields wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 <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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130428/d4963ba6/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list