[Stoves] Standards for stoves - discussion Re: The Clean Stove Initiative (CSI) Forum

Wed Nov 26 08:08:30 CST 2014

Dear Masungu

Jambo.

What you are doing works very well as a determination of relative fuel consumption. It is called an uncontrolled cooking test (UCT) and is much favoured by me and a few others including Omar Masera in Mexico. We have both developed formal versions of such a test.

There is only one warning to heed: on occasion, the saving in fuel is so large‎ or the stove so convenient that the users change their behaviour and cook differently, especially longer, if they have the new and better stove available.

The question is a matter of attribution. If someone uses the new stove and it saves 50% of the fuel, and that user 'spends' half of that saving (25%) on additional cooking (like warming food) the question arises, what is the stove's performance? Does it save 25% or 50%?

The answer is that the stove saves 50%. The user saves only 25% because they changed their behaviour.

We therefore have a serious question before us: who is asking the question about performance and what do they want to know? Maybe their programme encouraged the behaviour change! The 'measurement' is of the net impact of a programme, not a stove. Household management training also saves fuel.

The KPT is not a stove test, it is a good way to test people in a home with a stove. Saying it is a stove test is misleading because it doesn't measure stove performance, it measures the consumption of fuel by a family. Suppose the new stoves allows for a change in behaviour? How is this captured and analysed?

Where fuel supply is severely stressed there is something called 'suppressed demand'. It means even if they have an really improved stove, they will not use less fuel because they are already using less than they desperately need. An example of such a place is the Lesoho Highlands or refugee camps. A KPT is 'correctible'. It sometimes measures the wrong thing so could have instructions to detect and deal with behaviour change.

A CCT, apart from the bad math in it, measures performance for a particular meal, not average performance. One might deliberately or accidentally tune the stove to perform well with a particular type of meal. A CCT is correctible. It could have the math fixed and be conducted over multiple meal types and sizes. The result would be a reasonable prediction of future performance. At the moment it does not do that.

A WBT based on either the VITA or Aprovecho-Berkeley tests is ‎so conceptually and mathematically deficient it's 'outputs' bear little relationship to actual performance doing anything. This is widely admitted by all in the accompanying texts - it is a 'lab test' whatever that means. It doesn't predict performance in use. What then does it predict? A performance test is a model of behaviour. If the model can't predict performance, get another model.

Think about any other 'lab test'. Do you think that engineers building bridges would be permitted to select bridge designs based on lab test methods known to have little relationship to the performance of real bridges?  ‎Road uses would complain each time they drove into the river.

So why don't stove users complain when someone sells them a 'bridge' that falls down? Well, they do. They go back to using the old 'bridge' and carry on with their day.

In your circumstances you are doing the best that ‎you can with the tools you have available. Carry on!

Regards
Crispin

From: Musungu Wycliffe Nabutola
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 08:23
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Standards for stoves - discussion Re: The Clean Stove Initiative (CSI) Forum

Dear Crispin,

We have been using the weighing wood method to determine the wood saving
that is realised by the stove user. Our method was very simple, weigh the
wood before the identified stove user actually cooks on the old stove. Weigh
the wood after cooking to determine how much wood was used. This is done for
7days. To give an average figure for a specific food type cooking. After
that the stove is constructed and when ready to use another series of
measurements are taken to determine the amount used by the new stove. The
difference between the two weights is the saving being experienced by the
new stove.

Thanks.

Musungu Wycliffe.

Reecon

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: 25 November 2014 00:36
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Standards for stoves - discussion Re: The Clean Stove
Initiative (CSI) Forum

Dear Paul and All

"I also know from the Biochar Listserv that the Indonesia system has a very
controversial element concerning "fuel efficiency" vs "energy efficiency"."

I don't think it is 'very controversial'. It is a matter of what question
was asked. If people want to know the energy efficiency, ask for that. If
people want to know the fuel efficiency, ditto. If people want to know the
heat transfer efficiency, ask and ye shall receive.

What has been so misleading is the reporting of energy efficiency as the
fuel efficiency. This has been accomplished by the mechanism of turning the
energy theoretically made available from a mass of burned or semi-burned
fuel and converting it to a 'dry fuel equivalent' mass of raw fuel of the
type used in the test.

First, that means it is only comparable with other tests in which the fuel
was the same.  Second, it misrepresents (badly, in the case of char-making
TLUD's) the fuel consumption.

In the case where, as per UNFCCC interests in stopping the unsustainable
harvesting of biomass fuels, the amount of fuel needed to operate the stove
per day is no lower than the baseline, we cannot have people claiming the
stove uses less, where 'less' means the dry fuel mass equivalent of the
energy theoretically released by the fire, instead of the actual fuel
consumption.

In the case of the CSI-Indonesia Pilot, there was a clear call for 'fuel
saving' meaning it has to consume less fuel, not less energy and the same
amount of fuel. Or more fuel. Thus the method applied reflects the goals of
the programme. This can hardly be surprising.

What is really surprising to people funding stove programmes is that they
have been told a stove saves 'fuel' when it is saving 'energy' as they
assume that is the same thing. Clearly, it is not if the stove saves energy
abut uses more fuel than the open fire. The 'controversy' is not that the
calculation is made properly, it is that many funders have been hoodwinked
into funding stoves that don't save fuel when they thought that is what they
were paying for.

Regards

Crispin

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Anderson
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 4:14 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: [Stoves] Standards for stoves - discussion Re: The Clean Stove
Initiative (CSI) Forum

Dear Stovers,

Strike it rich!!!!    I went to the CSI website (link is in the message
below) and went browsing.   I stumbled upon this document:

https://collaboration.worldbank.org/docs/DOC-10999      that is entitled:

2014-10-15 Seminar Video Recording: RBF Pilots on Promoting Clean Stoves in
China and Indonesia

On October 15 this year, while the working groups on standards were meeting
in Guatemala, a Power Point presentation was recorded by CSI and it is now
available to be seen.   Length is almost 1 hr 12 minutes.   Not all is great
listening.   But much is quite informative.

OF SPECIAL NOTE is the discussion starting at 56:21 about how stoves are
being evaluated in Indonesia.   We knew about these standards months ago
when Indonesia requested applicant stoves for evaluation for inclusion in
the national pilot program.   But in this document it became clearer to me.
See the presentation, but here are some highlights:

1.  At 58:00 minutes:   See photos of 15 of the 22 entries (17 accepted for
testing).   Many are easily recognized.   Seems like 3 or 4 have fans;  one
has a chimney, TLUDs and rocket stoves are included.

2.  The timetable of the Indonesia program calls for the next round of
results (finalists?) to be announced in November.   If they are on schedule,
we hope to hear the results publicly by mid-December.   I hope somebody
reports it to the Stoves Listserv.

3.  The testing criteria have ratings of 1, 2, and 3 Stars.

Well worth the time to view this documentation.

4.  The speaker also mentions that this evaluation system was being
considered (probably not seen for the first time) by the Working Group on
Stove Standards in Guatemala.   No wonder there is discussion about Tiers
and WBT, because there is at least one set of alternative measurements /
methods.

Clearly none of this is confidential information exclusive to the working
group members.   It is all out in front of us on the Internet, if we just
find it and call it to the attention of those who read our Stoves Listserv.

I also know from the Biochar Listserv that the Indonesia system has a very
controversial element concerning "fuel efficiency" vs "energy efficiency".
Specifically, the char-making stoves (mainly TLUDs) are given zero credit
for the energy value (or other value as a different fuel) of any resultant
charcoal produced.   The wood is no longer wood if it has become charcoal,
so fuel-wood efficiency is going to be lowered even if the net-energy-used
efficiency is more favorable.   To me, that remains an item for discussion,
but charcoal production will hurt the TLUD stoves in the context of the
Indonesian testing.

Note:   With transparency and fair play for all, I will point out the the WB
CSI (like the GACC) has not done, in my opinion, a very good job of
utilizing the Stoves Listserv as a means of informing these "Stovers" about
its efforts.  Sure the websites are there, but please help us out a bit to
better appreciate your content.

And Stovers, when you find interesting sites and specifics, please inform us
all.  I have hardly scratched the surface of what is on these well-made and
informative websites.

If anyone has knowledge of other "stove testing standards" that should be
considered, please mention them to the Listserv.

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud      Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 11/13/2014 6:29 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:

Dear Stovers

If you haven't done so already, I recommend checking out a useful resource
on sustainable stoves:
https://collaboration.worldbank.org/groups/clean-cooking-and-heating-solutio
ns. This is a website run by the World Bank Group Clean Stove Initiative
aiming to provide both knowledge products and a discussion forum for working
professionals in this field, in two languages.

You can access categories of information on clean cooking and heating
solutions (click here
<https://collaboration.worldbank.org/groups/clean-cooking-and-heating-soluti
ons/projects/knowledge-hub/content> ) or join ongoing discussions on various
aspects of the issue (click here
<https://collaboration.worldbank.org/groups/clean-cooking-and-heating-soluti
ons/projects/discussion-forum>  for English and here
<https://collaboration.worldbank.org/groups/clean-cooking-and-heating-soluti
ons/projects/iniciativa-de-estufas-limpias-en-centroam%C3%A9rica?invite=fals
e>  for Spanish).

To learn more about the initiative please contact Ms. Xuege Lu
<mailto:xlu1 at worldbank.org>  at for details.

Thanks for your interest!

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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20141126/4d366395/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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/

_______________________________________________________
Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting
              http://www.doteasy.com 