[Stoves] Quick comment on developing international standards -- RE: [stove] Comparison of stove testing procedures

Wed Mar 23 13:26:55 CDT 2016

Dear Nikhil

>You have done that now - with the claim "Many countries already have stove performance standards. In order to have an ISO standard replace a national standard, it will have to at least as good a job because it will displace it."

>Permit me to ask - 

>a) How many of these are for solid biomass stoves alone, without specifying fuel quality and utilization practices? 

Well there is slightly narrow but I would say there are a range of answers. Let me explain:

If you mean standards (at all) for biomass burning stoves, there are a lot for space heating and few for cooking, and those few for cooking are not compulsory save in a few countries. China probably has the most because they have industry standards, city standards, provincial and national standards. 

I have repeatedly seen in publications claims that the Berkeley WBT (now under the custodianship of the GACC) is an ‘international test’.  We all know there is no such thing. Any test one claims is supported by a reference in the IWA 2012:11 is blowing smoke if it has not been externally, expertly reviewed (as required by that self-same document). There was established no mechanism for reviewing test methods. To claim that the WBT 4.1.2 (which has lots of errors) be being referenced in the IWA is ‘accepted’ is a clear case of special pleading <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading> .  There is no international WBT. If we take the most popular, or the most used, or the most used for the most stoves, only India and China even have a test on the table. 

The interesting thing is that India’s test is mathematically reasonably sound (though it still has about a dozen category errors) and the Chinese test is the one most correct and has a test cycle that is reasonably realistic. I would say the same for India’s but someone wrote into it years ago that they should use totally dried wood which completely changes the PM emissions. In consequence, if you want your stove to ‘pass’ in India, you have to build it to pass the test, not to be clean and efficient.

The same applies to the EPA test – a well-known and complained about aspect they have to face and deal with. At the moment there are multiple groups working on that. 

b) What difference have these performance standards for solid biomass stoves made in the markets for stoves and for fuels? 

The biggest difference is between compulsory standards (the EU, China and South Africa) and voluntary standards (India, USA, Canada). I am referring to more than cooking stoves because there are almost no compulsory biomass cooking stove standards anywhere. The heating stove market is really hopping in North America with the advent of pellet stoves. The performance is good, reproducible and the metrics have some validity. Some states have compulsory standards.

For cooking, compulsory in order to be marketed? I think even in China there are places you can sell and buy stoves that are not compliant. Perhaps someone can confirm that. In some cities/provinces there are compulsory regulations. 

The effect: mostly China has concentrated on energy efficiency – i.e. fuel saving. That was the most important thing. Now they are concentrating on emissions, particularly of PM. Watch that space as they are still working on it. For the first time domestic coal stove and wood stove standards are becoming aligned. Not completely, but it is happening because of an interest in PM.

>In short, what "job" have the existing standards done? Who bothers if a new one does any? 

The cooking stoves with the most regulations are LPG and gas, with kerosene following behind. South Africa has two compulsory standards for heaters, lanterns and cooking stoves, (not cooking alone) and they are strongly focussed on safety, not emissions. There is a CO/CO2 requirement (<2%).

>I suspect the composition of solid biomass fuel types and qualities - twigs to dung, grass to charcoal - has changed in most countries but nobody has bothered to document the changes, or the changes in operating practices of stoves and the influence, if any, of the supposed "national stove performance standards" on price of eggs. A few million dollars more for such expert trips to blind alleys? 

Correct. Things that change are:

Kitchen architecture

Fuels

Fuel use behaviour

Cooking patterns, particularly faster cooking foods in urban settings

Co-firing with dung is becoming more common as the wood resources in some area goes unreplaced. Tajikistan is a good example of that. And Malawi.

Pot sizes and materials are evolving

Meals are more common and smaller, generally speaking

One of the stresses with standards is the conflict (as I see it) between the designers and engineers who want internal measurements they are interested in v.s. the overall performance metrics regulators need. The VITA WBT was designed for designers. SANS 1243 and 1906 are designed for regulators.  Ostensibly ISO 19867 is for regulators but it contains a great deal more.

Did you see the paper we are now just starting to discuss? I think your long term involvement in this field means your input on the PM toxicity and exposure, dispersion, disease response and the modelling of it will be valuable to this group discussion.

Thanks for your interest
Crispin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160323/bc6bf724/attachment.html>