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

Paul Anderson psanders at ilstu.edu
Fri Nov 28 15:05:40 CST 2014


Crispin,

Your reply is appreciated.

1.   I meant to say that only one star IN EACH CATEGORY is needed.   
That is a good system.

2.  Crispin wrote:
> Some 80% of households use their domestic cooking stove to earn money. 
> Far more fuel is burned per day than just the cooking needs. If the 
> charcoal market existed (it doesn't) they could produce lots of it 
> from biomass presently burned to get rid of it (like Kaliandra). 
Please provide any documentation about how that 80% number was 
determined.    I think that eaaaaaven 50% would be high, and would be a 
favorable indicator for improving cookstoves to obtain lower operating 
costs and cleaner emissions related to income earning.

The LACK of a charcoal market in an environment of abundant biomass is 
interesting but probably not unique.   And perhaps the volcanic soils of 
Indonesia would not benefit much from biochar. This could become a 
separate discussion topic some day.

3.  I am curious about the calculation  of the energy content in a kg of 
biomass fuel.   The example discussed is the Albasia pellet, but the 
calculation method could be applied to other biomass. Much of DRY woody 
biomass is stated to have 16 to 18 MJ/kg.   But if it is to be 
"de-rated" (or adjusted) to approx 12 MJ/kg, (and not just because of 
moisture content) that would have major impact on all subsequent 
calculations of efficiencies.   I read your explanation:
> Because the additional work of removing moist ure and volatiles from 
> raw fuel to make char, the effective heating power of a 'missing kg of 
> fuel' is only 12 and a bit MJ. That is not the heating power of the 
> pyrolysis gases because some of the carbon is burned. It is the net 
> heat released with everything considered. 
For purposes of having valid comparable test results, I am glad that the 
system in Indonesia is uniformly applied to all of the stoves.   But for 
purposes of comparison with any other testing methods (or even to 
question the MJ/kg adjustment itself), the adjustment is still not clear 
to me.    Not that I matter.   I would be happy if others are in 
agreement with the method in Indonesia.   I hope that this calculation 
is further explained and openly discussed.

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 11/27/2014 12:50 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> ?Dear Paul
>
> Just a couple of clarification notes.
>
> >1.  A stove only needs to get one star (Indonesia system) to be eligible to be 
> included in the up-coming national program (first with 2 pilot 
> locations).
>
> The stove has to get a star in all three categories: fuel saving, PM 
> reduction and CO reduction. In order to get to 'be tested' it must 
> first pass the Indonesian National Standard which is 'SNI'. It has 
> different metrics and uses a SeTAR standard operating procedure for 
> part of it. The CSI test is more difficult to pass.
>
>
> The stars are 'paid for' individually although there has to be one for 
> each category. It is not like the IWA tier system which basically 
> requires compliance across a tier (I think). It also has 9 metrics, 
> not three.
>
> >The people, the customers, those who ultimately count, will know that 
> a stove makes charcoal.
>
> There is one existing opportunity which is being exploited on a small 
> scale.
>
> >So, getting at least one star is crucial, and Crispin has said that 
> some TLUDs can accomplish that.
>
> See above. The minimum is 3. After that there are 6 more available.
>
> >It does the required cooking task using 1174 grams of fuel which is 
> Albasia Pellets at 7.2% moisture content MC, which is 84.5 g of 
> moisture, resulting in 1090 dry weight.
>
> It is actually much more complicated than that. The stove is loaded 
> with quite a lot of fuel left from a previous test, more raw fuel, and 
> the mix loses 1174 g of fuel, net. The moisture is actually 5.21% but 
> while making charcoal, it is dried and that 
> mo                          drying the raw fuel, the effective 
> moisture level of what is burned is higher than the raw fuel moisture. 
> I hope you can follow that.
>
> Because the additional work of removing moist ure and volatiles from 
> raw fuel to make char, the effective heating power of a 'missing kg of 
> fuel' is only 12 and a bit MJ. That is not the heating power of the 
> pyrolysis gases because some of the carbon is burned. It is the net 
> heat released with everything considered.
>
> ?>370 divided by 1090 is 34% charcoal yield (dry weight basis).
>
> That is 1% less than the minimum yield for charcoal imported into the 
> EU so I don't think it is particularly high.
>
> However it could be partially charred - at least some of it. This 
> method is not the ideal way to analyse charcoal or pellet stoves. The 
> 'Burn Out Method' ?I designed for BP (described in an ETHOS 
> presentation by Penn Taylor) is much better for pellet stoves because 
> it doesn't require separation of char vs non-char.
>
> > And if the household does one additional but smaller cooking task with that 
> stove, then at least 500 grams (at least half a kilogram, more than 
> one pound) of char can be produced per day per household.
>
> Some 80% of households use their domestic cooking stove to earn money. 
> Far more fuel is burned per day than just the cooking needs. If the 
> charcoal market existed (it doesn't) they could produce lots of it 
> from biomass presently burned to get rid of it (like Kaliandra).
>
> >Each applicant for testing was allowed to specify what fuel was to be used in the testing.
>
> They can specify pellets or stick wood, and say how it is to be 
> prepared (cut). All the wood is teak and all the pellets are Albasia.
>
> >So, to Ron I say that the decision to treat resultant charcoal as "no longer being the 
> original fuel" is okay.   It is one interpretation.   Just as the WBT 
> procedure that give credit to the energy in the charcoal is also one 
> interpretation.
>
> The IWA labels the energy 'fuel/energy consumption'. This is 
> misleading. Not as bad as the WBT which called it 'fuel consumed'. 
>  Don't think people have not noticed this discrepancy.
>
>  >It will be nice when BOTH interpretations are clearly stated in the 
> rest results of any tested stove.
>
> Well, one is the heat transfer efficiency and one is the equivalent of 
> the fuel consumption. They are both valid numbers if correctly 
> calculated, but they are very different metrics.
>
> >Happy Thanksgiving Day to everyone!!
>
> Ditto!
> 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/20141128/27027ff5/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list