[Stoves] [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward
Lloyd Helferty
lhelferty at sympatico.ca
Mon Nov 23 08:43:36 CST 2015
Thank you James.
I noted in the presentation (which is from more than 2 years ago --
Aug 2013) that:
with a specific note in the text that, "there is a need for a testing
protocol for batch-fueled stoves" (as expressed in a Resolution in the
IWA), and I also noted at the end of the presentation that EPA may
assist with the development of "a procedure for testing batch-fueled
stoves" via EPA "participation in the ISO process to develop standards
and test protocols for stoves" with "experts from many countries", and
that, "the timeline is likely to be *three years*" (beginning Nov 2013).
So at this point in time I guess that I should assume that there is
still no "standard protocol" (stove testing methodology) for stoves that
produce biochar, and that we might expect something to be *published by
the ISO* by around the *end of 2016*?
... Because right now it's still a bit confusing.**
** Ref: Response from Ronal Larson this morning which concluded:
Comments appreciated when we are striving to make char in a stove:
Q1: are the losses 22%, 40%, or 67%?
Q2: Is the efficiency 78%, 60%, or 33%?
... With a "muddying" of the waters even further when Frank Shields
suggested that we "place an importance on each (percentage of
importance) for the span of a year or season" of either making char or
boiling water.
Creating an "importance" factor is a very /subjective/ thing to do,
however. ;-)
CC: Stoves groups [X2].
Regards,
Lloyd Helferty, Engineering Technologist
Principal, Biochar Consulting (Canada)
www.biochar-consulting.ca
Earth Stewardship consultant, Passive Remediation Systems Ltd. (PRSI)
http://www.prsi.ca/
Promotions Manager, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network (CSAYN)
http://csayouthnetwork.wordpress.com/
http://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture/
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=6756248
48 Suncrest Blvd, Thornhill, ON, Canada
905-707-8754
CELL: 647-886-8754
Skype: lloyd.helferty
Co-manager, Sustainable Agriculture Group
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Sustainable-Agriculture-3866458
Steering Committee coordinator
Canadian Biochar Initiative (CBI)
Community Sustainability (CoSWoG), A working group of Science for Peace
was: http://www.scienceforpeace.ca/currents/
President, Co-founder & CBI Liaison, Biochar-Ontario
Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC)
Manager, Biochar Offsets Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2446475
Advisory Committee Member, IBI
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1404717
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42237506675
http://groups.google.com/group/biochar-ontario
http://www.meetup.com/biocharontario/
http://www.biocharontario.ca
www.biochar.ca
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not."
— Dr. Seuss (The Lorax)
On 2015-11-23 8:15 AM, Jetter, James wrote:
>
> Dear Lloyd,
>
> For char-producing stoves, we are reporting thermal efficiency both
> with and without credit for the energy in the produced char. Please
> see Page 46 of the attachment for details. A similar approach is
> included in the ISO Technical Committee 285 working draft for
> harmonized laboratory testing protocols.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim
>
> __________________________________________
> James J. Jetter, P.E.
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E305-03)
> National Risk Management Research Laboratory
> Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
> Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA
> phone: (919) 541-4830 fax: (919) 541-2157
> email: jetter.jim at epa.gov
>
> *From:*Lloyd Helferty [mailto:lhelferty at sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2015 7:40 PM
> *To:* Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
> *Cc:* Biochar <biochar at yahoogroups.com>; Entire Group
> <biocharstoves-7xpll at wiggiomail.com>; sureshjiitd at gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: [biochar] [biochar-stoves] A review of chronological
> development in cookstove assessment methods: Challenges and way forward
>
> Thanks, Ron.
>
> I know nothing about the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation(s)
> that "use the char’s energy value".
> Could you elaborate?
> Is the Jetter/EPA total efficiency calculation your preferred
> methodology as a /next step/ to the "WBT"?
>
> (Yes, I am quite out of touch with the latest in "Stove testing"
> methodologies. What "efficiency" methodology does the GACC currently
> endorse when testing stoves that produce biochar? Is it still an open
> question?)
>
> Regards,
>
> Lloyd Helferty
>
>
> On 2015-11-22 3:13 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
>
> Lloyd etal
>
> I am imagining a charcoal-making stove owner who has 2 clients to
> whom she sells charcoal. One client (A) burns the char; the other
> (B) uses it as biochar. How can one say the stove has two
> different efficiencies?
>
> But another argument is that if all the produced char is used by C
> as biochar - it must be that the char’s soil value exceeded the
> energy value. So perhaps the efficiency value for client C should
> be even better than for case A. This soil use for the char is
> where I think we are heading.
>
> In sum, I see no reason to do other than use the char’s energy
> value when calculating a total efficiency - as is being done by
> Jetter/EPA/
>
> Ron
>
> On Nov 22, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Lloyd Helferty [biochar] wrote:
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> In reading that quoted/highlighted paragraph, my expectation
> is that the term, "/utilizing/the*_charcoal_*" (..."should be
> considered as a useful energy") is/probably/meant to assume
> that the leftover/residual charcoal would subsequently be
> utilized as a*fuel*, and probably not as*biochar*. If the
> resulting charcoal is used in a non-energy application (i.e.
> as biochar) then one does not normally talk about or refer to,
> "the/_energy_/stored in the charcoal" as being "useful"
> anymore, if one considers the classical [non-regenerative /
> linear] energy models. (Of course if one understands the use
> of biochar from a holistic** perspective, it can make sense to
> use biochar in a non-fuel application if that application
> results in a boost to the actual [biomass] fuel -- and food
> --/production capabilities/of the soil from which the original
> stove 'fuel' was derived... but of course those are more
> complex calculations that must also consider time and a number
> of other variables which are not normally taken into
> consideration.)
>
> **Note: If considered in this holistic perspective / context,
> the use of/soil-health enhancing/materials like biochar will
> very likely eventually be a/prerequisite/of the very
> definition of "sustainable" biofuels / biomaterials.
>
> CC: Biochar group
>
> Regards,
>
> Lloyd Helferty
>
> On 2015-11-22 3:58 AM, Ron Larson wrote:
>
> Professor Jain
>
> 1. Thank you for a tremendously useful document.
> Especially that you (Elsevier?, TERI?) have made it
> available on a non-fee basis (for a*_SHORT_time).*
>
> **2. I am a little surprised (and delighted) that I
> received this on the climate change list. I am alerting
> four other lists who will also find this most useful.
>
> 3. To me, interested in both climate change (through
> biochar - not mentioned) and stoves, the most important
> sentence in your exceedingly thorough (161 cites) is this
> partial paragraph in Section 2.3.1 (emphases added):
>
> /// “The energy expenditure in the form of fuel for
> boiling and evaporating water is calculated by
> standardizing the amount of raw fuel with fuel moisture
> content, ambient temperature,/*/_charcoal_/*///formed fuel
> and calorific value of fuel and/*/_charcoal_/*/. This is
> called the ‘equivalent dry wood
> consumed’./*/Charcoal/*///utilization after the cooking
> process in real households has not been validated in any
> of the studies. If the/*/_charcoal_/*///disposed by
> targeted population then the fuel consumption can be
> corrected. //If a certain community has a habit of
> utilizing the*_charcoal_*then //…//../
>
> /t*_he energy stored in thecharcoal_**_should be
> considered as a useful energy_*//.” /
>
> 4. As I know you know, there is more than one way to
> report the impact of charcoal production in stove
> comparisons. Examples coming.
>
> 5. I could not find an email address for Ms. (Dr?) Pooja
> Arora. I intend to look up other papers she and you have
> published. Please congratulate her as well.
>
> Again, thanks for a very useful stove assessment document.
> I am aware of nothing like it.
>
> Ron (first/past “stove” and “biochar” lists coordinator)
>
> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:09 PM, S. Jain (Env. Engg.) wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We are sharing with you an article on */Chronological
> development in cookstove assessment methods:
> Challenges and way forward/*. We hope to receive your
> inputs and comments on the same.
>
> *Abstract*
>
> This review intended to collect and collate the
> information related to cookstove testing methodologies
> applied in lab and field conditions and their output
> in the form of energy and emission parameters. The
> important information related to progression of
> cookstove testing techniques was segregated in order
> to understand the relationships in different
> indicators of cookstove performance and to understand
> the sources of uncertainty in emission data. The major
> research issue that has been dwelt upon in the recent
> literature is the establishment of relationship
> between lab and field results of cookstove
> performance. It is observed that controlled cooking
> test and kitchen performance test are the two field
> based tests which provide a better picture of a
> particular cookstove performance as it involves the
> user perspective. Misrepresentation of actual
> cookstove performance based on laboratory based
> testing puts the present standard protocols in
> question. Solutions have been put forward by some
> research studies; however a validation is needed
> through multiple scientific investigations conducted
> at various temporal and spatial scales. It has been
> observed that cookstove testing methodologies are
> still in their nascent stage compared to the research
> that has already been conducted for other sources
> where biomass combustion emissions have studied
> thoroughly. Still the shift in focus of upcoming
> research studies towards field based integrated
> cookstove testing methodologies has the potential to
> drive future cookstove research in the new direction.
>
> We are providing you with the following personal
> article link, which will provide free access to your
> article, and is valid for 50 days, until January 10, 2016
>
> http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1S4Na4s9HvhN9u
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151123/ecae6dd7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: hdeiaccd.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18274 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151123/ecae6dd7/attachment.png>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list