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

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Sun Jul 6 04:18:52 CDT 2014


Dear Otto

 

I replied on the story's webpage, received a reply and have submitted a
response. It focuses on the edges of the systems one is comparing.  

 

The concepts that underlie a claim are important. We have to be fair and
open minded - some things unpalatable are true, some things we want to hear,
also. That's life. 

 

Something that has been undervalued (in the eyes of some) is the imposition
of additional work or inconvenience on the users of 'improved stoves'.
Somehow we need to be able to assess the impact on the user, family and
society when recommending interventions. As everyone here knows, there have
been lots of failures in every kind of appropriate technology adventure. In
many cases the expectation of the willingness of the users to 'change' is
over-estimated.

 

With reference to stoves, a major resistance is for any need to increase the
amount of work needed either to collect particular fuel instead of the type
they are used to, or to cut or chop it into small pieces.  Here is an
example.  I went to a rural area in Indonesia to speak to and get opinions
from a group of women who are members of a development club. When I
mentioned improved stoves (they also have 'improved kitchens' in the region)
I received an unsolicited and energetic response that whatever it is I am
going to introduce it had better not have anything to do with chopping fuel
into small pieces because they were never going to do that. Full stop.

 

So unless the fuel is already in the right form, like candle nut shells
which I hold out hope for, it had better be a stick wood burning product. As
there are pellets made in the province it is possible a stove could use
them. So far there is no pellet stove without a fan that will cover the
range of power control needed to match local cuisine. 

 

One of the things is the paper originally reference in the subject line is
that the emissions from ignition to 'test end' are recorded in one protocol
(National Standard) but the emission of some things is larger after the test
is ended! Zhang raises the point that when a test ends can greatly change
the overall performance rating. So when comparing one stove with another,
how the fire dies or is extinguished matters a lot. Similarly and more
famously, if the amount of raw fuel needed to operate the stove each cooking
session is not determined, then the 'fuel consumption' as intended by the
UNFCCC is also not determined. This is no small matter. The boundary of the
system being evaluated must reflect reality as much as possible: apples
compared with apples.

 

Regards

Crispin

 

 

Dear Crispin,
 
I very much agree with you about the comparison among apples and oranges,
which will not tell the whole story.
 
I consider agri- and forest-waste for "free", because the biomass are not
utilized, any how.
Pellet production demand energy, which also has to be calculated into the
total energy budget.
Woodchips also need some preparaition, but less.
Corn colbs need just man- or woman power, that`s all.
 
People, also seems to "forget" that to produce a TESLA, you need enegry both
in the production line and to handle the waste materials, like batteries
etc.
Nobody is mentioning to much about the "popular" catalysator for petrol
cars, any longer. 
 
We realy have to look into the energy circle, before drawing to many
conclutions and clear statements.
 
Enjoying the summer along the Baltic Sea, where they are focusing on
woodchips and pellets for fuel.
 
Otto 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140706/9c0412ff/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list