[Stoves] [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures

[Philip Lloyd]

Unfortunately the reference is behind a paywall.

 

Prof Philip Lloyd

Energy Institute, CPUT

SARETEC, Sachs Circle

Bellville

Tel 021 959 4323

Cell 083 441 5247

PA Nadia 021 959 4330

 

 

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Anderson
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 3:22 AM
To: stove at lists.berkeley.edu; Stoves and biofuels network
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures

 

Stovers,

Below is the abstract of a significant comparative study done in China.   We
thank Kirk Smith and his Stove list (different from StoveS) for the
information.

Spoiler alert:   Here is the punch line from the abstract: 

Statistically significant differences 

between the two [China and Internatonal WBT] protocols indicate the need for
further efforts in emission tests and methodology development

before the release of a well-accepted international testing protocol.


Yes.  Should we be surprised.   It seems that some entities in the
international leadership of clean cookstoves might be pushing for one test
without sufficient attention to alternative testing methods.

Note (in abstract) that: 

With longer burning duration and higher 

power, the Chinese WBT had statistically higher efficiencies, gas
temperature, and lower pollutant emissions


Sure!!!   Change the duration and power, expect different test results!!!   

What is clear to me is that there should never be only one set of tests.
People around the world have very different ways of cooking.  High power in
China, plancha stoves in Central America, two-arm cooking of thick foods in
parts of Africa, long-simmering bean-meals vs. quick boil of rice meals, and
on and on.   The people we are trying to serve want solutions that are
appropriate for their circumstances. 

Observation:  There seems to be a slow-down in the seeking of stove testing
at the major testing centers that have equipment.   I can be shown to be
incorrect if any testing centers would give us some statistics of numbers
and types of tests that are being requested.

Of course I like the importance of emissions testing because the TLUDs and
other micro-gasifiers consistently give superior results.   But most funding
in the past has gone to less-qualified stoves.  

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 3/17/2016 1:08 PM, Kirk R. Smith wrote:

Can be downloaded from the website below/k

 

Efficiencies and pollutant emissions from forced-draft biomass-pellet
semi-gasifier stoves: Comparison of International and Chinese water boiling
test protocols

Yuanchen Chen, Guofeng Shen, Shu Su, Wei Du, Yibo Huangfu, Guangqing Liu,
Xilong Wang, Baoshan Xing, Kirk R. Smith, Shu Tao

Energy for Sustainable Development 32 (2016) 22-30

 

Ab s t r a c t

Biomass fuels are widely combusted in rural China, producing numerous air
pollutants with great adverse

impacts on human health. Some improved cookstoves and pellet fuels have been
promoted. To evaluate the

performance of pellet-gasifier stoves, efficiencies and pollutant emissions
were measured following International

and Chinese water boiling tests (WBTs). Compared with traditional stoves and
unprocessed biomass fuels,

increased efficiencies and lower emissions of pollutants including carbon
monoxide (CO), particulate matter

(PM), parent and derivative polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were
revealed for pellet-gasifier stoves.

However, the calculated emission rates (ERs) of CO and PM2.5 cannot meet the
ER targets recently suggested

by WHO indoor air quality guidelines (IAQGs). Better control of air mixing
ratio and gross flow rates of primary

and secondary air supply greatly reduced emissions and increased
efficiencies. Differences among testing protocols

are the key factors affecting the evaluation of stove performance. With
longer burning duration and higher

power, the Chinese WBT had statistically higher efficiencies, gas
temperature, and lower pollutant emissions

(p b 0.10) compared to those obtained through the International WBT.
Statistically significant differences

between the two protocols indicate the need for further efforts in emission
tests and methodology development

before the release of a well-accepted international testing protocol

 

 

---------------------------
Kirk R. Smith, MPH, PhD
Professor of Global Environmental Health

Chair, Graduate Group in Environmental Health Sciences
Director of the Global Health and Environment Program
School of Public Health
747 University Hall
University of California
Berkeley, California, 94720-7360
phone 1-510-643-0793; fax 642-5815
krksmith at berkeley.edu
http://www.kirkrsmith.org/




 






To unsubscribe from this list go to:
https://calmail.berkeley.edu/manage/list/reminder/stove@lists.berkeley.edu

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160318/36d7f5f1/attachment.html>