[Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass cookstoves

Dean Still deankstill at gmail.com
Tue Jul 1 17:56:55 CDT 2014 

Hi Richard,

We have dryers here and we look forward to testing your samples!

Best,

Dean


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Richard Stanley <rstanley at legacyfound.org>
wrote:

> Crispin,
> I would not dismiss the ag.r residue biomass IF properly processed and if
> especially infilled with more dense and energy dense combustibles . I will
> be talking about / displaying samples of Eric Theiss's  source fibers
> blended with residual, powdered charcoal off our own ashland house wood
> stove.
> I hope to submit these samples for testing at Approvecho and would bet
> that particulates will be far lower that previously measured in less
> infilled samples.
> But to date this  supposition is based on simple observation of
> combustion. So lets see the real numbers eh…
>
>
> Richard
>
> On Jul 1, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
>  I am sitting on the floor at the Beijing airport delayed by
> thunderstorms.
>
>  The figures cited look like nonsense. An electric stove is about 60
> percent efficient and an induction electric stove is between 88 and 92. A
> rocket stove is about 27. They must be measuring something besides the
> appliance itself. That sort of thing happens a lot.
>
>  The system efficiency of an electric cooker powered by a coal-fired
> power station in South Africa is about 25-30 percent. When considering the
> rocket stove and it's system efficiency (which is only fair too) it is well
> below the number 27. I will be interested to see the article when I get to
> Singapore tomorrow.
>
>  Thanks for sending it.
>
>  The system efficiency approach is widely eschewed by the greens on
> certain pet technologies and included on ones that fall from grace.
>
>  How's this: ‎in South Africa where the delivered energy efficiency of
> the grid is perhaps 35 per cent of the input energy, the total emissions of
> PM10 and CO per MegaJoule are lower from a domestic space heating stove
> than a $1bn power station. Heh heh.
>
>  Stove combustion technology is so advanced when it comes to coal that
> even with particle accumulators and precipitators the humble stove is now
> cleaner. I was just at the lab in Ulaanbaatar where the only fuel available
> is lignite. Something like 1/2 the stoves submitted this year to a WB
> funded project are going to be cleaner than the required 90% reduction
> (minimum). It's a lot of progress in 7 years, believe me.
>
>  I will be looking at the total system efficiency possibilities of
> biomass systems with the China Agricultural University in Beijing later
> this year. I am thinking about how to create fuels from waste biomass in
> two or three stages with a view to reducing system emissions not just
> cooking emissions. Which biomass can be burned as cleanly as coal it
> usually is not. Part of that is the variability and lack of processing of
> raw materials.
>
>  So, onward and upward.
>
>  Regards
>  Crispin
>
>  BBM 2B567CC3
>    *From: *Cookswell Jikos
> *Sent: *Tuesday, July 1, 2014 22:40
> *To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Reply To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols for
> household biomass cookstoves
>
>  Dear Crispin - thank you for sharing this,
>
>  Have you (or anyone else) by any chance read this article
> http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-cooking-stoves.html
>
>
>  It a real mind turner to say the least.... I would be very interested to
> hear some of your thoughts on this matter. To quote one of the opening
> paragraphs -
>
>  *''In fact, an electric cooking stove is only half as efficient as a
> well-tended open fire, while a gas hob is only half as effective as a
> biomass rocket stove. And even though indoor air pollution is less of an
> issue with modern cooking stoves, research indicates that pollution levels
> in western kitchens can be surprisingly high.'' *
>
>  The author then follows that article up with this one -
> http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-insulation-key-to-sustainable-cooking.html
>
>  What do you think? I think I need to double my forestry efforts.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>  Teddy
>
>  *Cookswell Jikos*
> www.cookswell.co.ke
> www.facebook.com/CookswellJikos
> www.kenyacharcoal.blogspot.com
> Mobile: +254 700 380 009
>  Mobile: +254 700 905 913
> P.O. Box 1433, Nairobi 00606, Kenya
>
>  Save trees - think twice before printing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>  Dear Testers
>
>
>
> Please see the paper “Key differences of performance test protocols for
> household biomass cookstoves” by Zhang, Y *et al* at
>
>
>
>
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6827753&queryText%3DKey+differences
>
>
>
> Abstract
>
> “In this study, different ways of testing household biomass cooking stoves
> are compared and analyzed. The differences between test methods relate to
> the stove operation and data analysis methods, the fueling procedure, the
> end point selection, the choice of metrics and others factors. The
> influences of these differences were analyzed by using an induction heater.
> The results show the use of a pot lid or not, and the selection of the end
> point of the test have the greatest influence on the rated performance.
> Consequently test results provided by laboratories using different test
> methods will place the same stove-plus-fuel combination on significantly
> different performance ‘tiers’. Also the results show some metrics in
> popular tests should be reviewed. Some recommendations are provided for
> improving the accuracy and repeatability of test procedures and select
> metrics are defined for greater clarity.”
>
>
>
> The comment “some metrics in popular tests should be reviewed” is a polite
> way of saying they are not valid. This is a major issue when making
> performance comparisons. If the metric itself is not valid then the
> comparisons of it between products is not meaningful. One cannot trade
> money or products on the result.
>
>
>
> From the conclusions:
>
>
>
> b)       Some metrics still need to be revisited, even if they are
> generally agreed within the “stove enthusiast” community. National or
> international compulsory regulation of stove products as envisaged by ISO
> TC 285 must be based on credible science. The point of testing is to
> provide useful information. Selected indicators that meet specific needs
> must first be agreed and validated, and then a test method or methods
> developed to collect the information necessary to deliver product ratings
> that can be widely compared and accepted by the public.
>
> The paper is accessible free through academic services.
>
>
>
> 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/20140701/794ebc06/attachment.html>

More information about the Stoves mailing list