[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 17:24:41 CDT 2013
Crispin
Thanks for quick response - but I remain ignorant of details. More below.
On Apr 28, 2013, at 3:22 PM, "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <crispinpigott at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ron
>
> The issues with most stove test protocols, but particularly with the WBT's relate to three type of conceptual errors.
>
> 1. The mass of water remaining in the pot is used as the amount 'boiled' or 'simmered' and 'specific' performance numbers are incorrect.
RWL1 - incorrect how? For the GACC (Jetter) approach in WBT 4.2.1?
>
> 2. The consideration of dried, torrefied, charred and ashed materials (i.e. non-new materials) frequently gives misleading performance claims because of the way the energy content and re-useability of the fuels are considered.
RWL: I am satisfied with what I see in 4.2.1, after Jim adds the E2 and E3 output. I see no need to worry about re-usability of char. That should be up to users. Just report its production amount in terms that people are used to (Energy terms are aOK by me, but CO2 and C weights are trivial additions.
Yes, to handling unburied/ unpyrolyzed fedstock appropriately of course, and I'm not sure it is. Is it in 4.2.1?
>
> 3. The formula used in many spreadsheets does not handle fuel moisture correctly - simple math errors that skew different fuel moisture levels differently.
RWL: More specifically - are the formulae in WBT 4.2.1 wrong?
>
> There are other issues such as the averaging of ratios and averaging of averages of averages but these are relatively minor in their influence and error.
RWL. If three or four identical runs are pretty similar, averaging of E1, E2, and E3 would seem necessary to avoid user overload. I am most concerned about asking Jim etal to do too much, if relative performance between stove types doesn't change much.
>
> By far the largest difference between 'perceived claims' (what people think they are being told) and the actual meaning of the claimed numbers relates to treating char made by gasifiers as unburned raw fuel.
RWL: I don't see that happening now in 4.2.1. Can you give a specific line number in the Excel spread sheet? Char energy content, different from the raw biomass energy content, seems to be in the computations in the right places (at least for char).
> If the TLUD promoters do not get to grips with what is happening a) behind the formulas and b) what is happening behind the scenes with respect to the difference between a 'uses xx g of fuel to perform a WBT' and the fuel needed to do so.
a. I see the "if"", but no consequence.
b. I don't understand "behind the scenes".
c. I don't follow the last part of the sentence. What is the difference between
'uses xx g of fuel to perform a WBT'. ( in quotes?)
and
the fuel needed to do so.
>
>
> The reputation of the stove sector rests on our ability - as a group - to deal with these in a straight forward manner.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
> From BB9900
> From: Ron <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:06:14 -0600
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Paul Anderson<psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Cc: crispinpigott at gmail.com<crispinpigott at gmail.com>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Hugh McLaughlin<wastemin1 at verizon.net>; Jim Jetter<Jetter.Jim at epamail.epa.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests.
>
> Paul:
>
> 1. I agree with your thoughts below. Thanks for persevering.
>
> 2. Can you help answer the questions below on Crispin's note to you.
>
>>> The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and gets (got, anyway) a rating of 636g.
>>> RWL - Any other data? Amount of char? Any formulas or web sites to visit?
>
>>> The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1.
> RWL: What are the 4.2.1 values?
>>>
>>> However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that category.
> RWL: What category?
>
> Thanks. Ron
>
> On Apr 27, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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/20130428/2ae9d4c6/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list