[Stoves] Prakti two-burner stove features in article on "protecting

[Ranyee Chiang]

Dear all,

I think that at the core, there is a lot of agreement and alignment in people's viewpoints about where testing methods need to go.  It is only with respectful and constructive discussions that we can make progress, and that is the number one goal for all of the ISO work, including at the upcoming meeting in Guatemala.  Everyone comes to the table as equals and the discussion is based on what is said rather than who says it.

Regarding the changes to the WBT 4.2.* updates, major updates to spreadsheets are recorded and detailed in separate documents available here: http://www.cleancookstoves.org/our-work/standards-and-testing/learn-about-testing-protocols/.  Some version updates are focused on the text of the protocol document, with only minor updates to the spreadsheets.  In these cases, the changes are described in the text of that version of the protocol document.  We also keep an archive of older versions of protocol documents and spreadsheets, so the entire history is available, either online or by request.  The most up-to-date version is really the one that should be the focus of our efforts and updates.

The list of people who have submitted comments, responses to the comments, and acknowledgements for who have worked on the protocol are also listed in the available documents.  This includes over 30 organizations from around the world.  Other people from all types of backgrounds are welcome, and are regularly invited, to provide comments on the test methods, statistics, and applicability of the methods at any time.

A lot of thoughtful and rigorous work has been happening, so I really encourage everyone to stay up-to-date.  For quite some time now, people have already been comparing different test methods and the lessons learned have already been very productive.  There have been proposals relating to how to provide a set of results to address the issue of remaining char, how to evaluate different types of stoves and fuels.  There is now an analytical tool to evaluate and propagate uncertainty for the WBT, which was shared about 6 months ago with people who expressed interest, and at Regional Testing and Knowledge Center workshops and webinars  - we are still looking for feedback.  Round Robin Testing is in progress.  

In order to be most efficient and effective, we should base discussions on where we are today, rather than where we were in the past.  

Best regards,
Ranyee



From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 6:46 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Prakti two-burner stove features in article on "protecting the poor from climate change policies"

Dear Dean
 
>I do not see how linking together your two outlier beliefs that stove testing is wrong and climate change is wrong strengthens either case.
The great majority of scientists involved in both fields disagree with you.
 
Topic 1: Climate
 
The end of this month marks at least 17 full years without a statistically detectable change in the average temperature of the planet. Some say 18 years, some say it is 21.  That is, the temperature of the globe, on average, is the same now as it was in September 1996. 
 
Recently, in the New York Times, International edition, yet another an unsigned article predicting global catastrophe caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions appeared reciting the meme that the temperature of the earth 'continues to rise'. This claim is patently false, as anyone can see by looking at the (multiple) temperature records available on line.
 
My position: It is a better to be an 'outlier' that an outright liar.
 
Topic 2: Stove testing
 
The lab test method used by the UNFCCC and the (different) lab test method referenced in the IWA 2012:11 which, in anonymously edited and undocumented form, is now being promoted as suitable for the ISO but it cannot predict the performance of a stove in use. The claim is made that the method reports the specific fuel consumption and the specific emission rates for CO and PM2.5. It does none of these and what numbers it does produce, have a high coefficient of variation.  There are other test methods available which reasonably predict performance in use, as well as CO and PM2.5 emission rates with much lower coefficients of variation.  
 
My position: It is a better to be an 'outlier' that an outright liar.
 
The beauty of science is that in the end real scientists defer to evidence.
 
I propose that we test a few stoves in typical use by householders and compare three lab test methods: the GACC's WBT 4.2.2 (not 4.2.3 because it has had its tab in 4.2.2 with the record of changes deleted so we have no idea what formulas have been altered), the EPTP used by Envirofit and the CSI-WHT used by the World Bank.
 
With these three lab tests and the actual emissions and fuel consumption measured using a validated and mutually agreed method, we will be able to report which lab test method gives a performance rating that is the most accurate, which is the outlier and which is the outright liar. Similarly, we can assess the coefficients of variation and assign them to those same categories.
 
Regards
Crispin


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 08:06:12 -0700
From: Dean Still <deankstill at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
	<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Prakti two-burner stove features in article on
	"protecting the poor from climate change policies"
Message-ID:
	<CA+tShZu9cJLY7UG0zex_JJst-Zm-TNKozecZApQCfMt9ZTaSzg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Crispin,

I do not see how linking together your two outlier beliefs that stove testing is wrong and climate change is wrong strengthens either case. The great majority of scientists involved in both fields disagree with you.

Dean

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott < crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> ?
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/26/protect-the-poor-from-climate-ch
> ange-policies/
>
> Dear Friends
>
> Domestic stoves are receiving more and more attention ?with the 
> contrast between the lives of the rich energy consuming nations and 
> the poor living in a cloud of smoke getting more and more attention. 
> Article are appearing with increasing frequency in Nature, Science and 
> heath publications. The piece above directly challenges the story line 
> that the poor should, in service to the greater good of mankind, 
> continue to suffer in backwardness in order to save us all from 
> thermageddon. The plight of stove users and breathers of smoke is starting to emerge as a PR talking point.
>
> Taking the standpoint of Samer Abdelnour which asks overarching 
> questions about links and common associations, one can ask if improved 
> stoves such as the one selected for the headline are actually 
> substitutes for real energy democracy, with complex questions of 
> access being 'technolgised' and reduced to providing a compensating 
> $35 stove. Poor countries are now being actively defunded for new 
> energy supplies as stove programmes are ramped up. Is this the trade off? Breathe less smoke is the dark - thanks.
>
> Personally I don't think so - it is an accidental correlation. It 
> falls to the stove promoting community to ensure that no backlash 
> against omnibus climate control policies negatively impact the 
> progress we have created in this sector.
>
> If the wonky science and even anti-science that pervades the climate 
> alarmist narrative were to be detected in stove testing and promoting 
> community the inevitable backlash will take down the stove programmes 
> (including the CDM funding).
>
> The moment is therefore opportune to sweep the stage clean at the 
> Guatemala ISO meeting and ditch the albatross that has weighed down 
> the improved stove sector - tests with questionable math, poorly 
> defined terms and even some invalid metrics. We are capable of doing 
> much better and now is the time to prove it.
>
> If the stove community cannot even abide by the basic requirements to 
> have our test methods peer reviewed, our formula changes tracked, our 
> definitions standardised, our metrics validated, we become a 
> vulnerable pawn in much greater conflicts about how the poor should be 
> raised from they current conditions, including energy poverty. I 
> invite you all to read my lecture presented on the 26th at Clarkson 
> University entitled "Blowing smoke - the curious case of the mangled 
> metric" which explores the conceptual error of applying a valid metric 
> to a thermodynamic situation different from the one for which it was 
> devised - and the negative consequences of doing so. I will make it available in a couple of days.
>
> In short, if the real scientists among us do not start taking a stand 
> in favour of the use of valid stove performance evaluation methods, 
> and soon, the whole improved stove edifice is going up in flames. 
> There are opportunists and careerists on every side. We must NOT be 
> caught with our mathematical drawers around our ankles. ?At the moment we stand exposed.
>
> Sincerely
> Crispin
>