[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
Mark Chalom
solarch at rt66.com
Tue Jul 8 15:03:10 CDT 2014
please remove from list
-----Original Message-----
From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 12:00 PM
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists
.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Key differences of performance test protocols for
household biomass cookstoves (Otto Formo)
2. Re: Key differences of performance test protocols for
household biomass cookstoves (Crispin Pemberton-Pigott)
3. Re: Key differences of performance test protocols for
household biomass cookstoves (Otto Formo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 10:30:35 +0200
From: Otto Formo <terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
To: Stoves Bioenergylist <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols
for household biomass cookstoves
Message-ID: <DUB111-W9831C5F0A3FE6E8859F4F4EA020 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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
From: crispinpigott at outlook.com
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 01:40:00 +0800
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols for
household biomass cookstoves
Dear Otto The claim, if presented as a comparison between the energy that
goes into a power station compared with the fuel burning in a stove is an
apples and oranges comparison because the energy that went into making the
wood is not considered. It is presented of course in a patently misleading
manner as if an open fire is ?efficient?. It depends on how much of the tree
is wasted in the field, how much is lost during ignition and how much is
left smouldering after the cooking is finished. It is this sort of thing
that gives stoves projects a bad name. As for time to boil, a Vest stove
will boil water at a rate of 3 minutes per litre measured from the time of
ignition, i.e. light the match and start the clock, and it will boil 2.5
litres in 7.5 minutes. That is much faster than anything on the chart. I
wonder why it is not included as it has been available for 10 years. The
Peko Pe has been available much longer. The way to really misrepresent the
performance of a stove in terms of its fuel consumption is to calculate the
energy used in the fire rather than the energy that was standing in the
forest when the fuel cycle started. Then compare it with the energy in the
ground that needs to be dug up to make electricity. The numbers quote for an
induction cooker are clearly wrong. Yixiang Zhang and I looked at every
model available in a Chinese mall and none were less than 88% efficient. So
even the worst of them, from, power station to hot water, is more efficient
that the most perfectly operated open fire not counting forest losses and
burnout. And that?s enough of that.Crispin From: Stoves
[mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Otto Formo
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 1:02 AM
To: Stoves Bioenergylist
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols for
household biomass cookstoves Dear stovers,
I do not know what kind of gasifier unit the Low Tech Magazine, are refering
to and have tested, but for sure, the ND Peko Pe, will boil 2,5 L of water
in less than 10 mins, using wood pellets from Pine. (Woodchips or almost any
type of dry biomass, moisture content less than 15%, will do the same).
That should indicate a different result, mentioned in the diagram, where the
gasifier came third.
The efficiency of the Peko Pe, tested in Copenhagen in 1996, varied from 25
- 29%, depending of the type of fuel.
How the Rocket stove can reach a therminal efficiency up to 54%, is to good
to be true.
Have a Nice summer.
Otto
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.htm
l 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-sustain
able-cooking.html What do you think? I think I need to double my forestry
efforts.
Kind Regards, Teddy
_______________________________________________
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/a
ttachments/20140706/d0dad008/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:18:52 +0700
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols
for household biomass cookstoves
Message-ID: <COL401-EAS37351DB97FA7E6071906B53B1020 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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/a
ttachments/20140706/9c0412ff/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:38:26 +0200
From: Otto Formo <terra-matricula at hotmail.com>
To: Stoves Bioenergylist <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols
for household biomass cookstoves
Message-ID: <DUB111-W341CD1C0347055F76D9BACEA020 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Dear Crispin,
I am very much aware of the local culture and cuisine, but can still not see
any difference form production of charcoal and cutting of logs by
individuals and low tech production of woodchips and high tech production of
pellets.
There are ND stoves out there, where you can control and adjust the flame or
energy used.
Prime Stove is one of them and found in Indonesia.
There are many ways to match the cooking cuisine and People are creative,
when it comes to Food preparation.
Otto
From: crispinpigott at outlook.com
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 16:18:52 +0700
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Key differences of performance test protocols for
household biomass cookstoves
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. RegardsCrispin 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
_______________________________________________
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/a
ttachments/20140706/5476638e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
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://www.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 47, Issue 5
*************************************
More information about the Stoves
mailing list