[Stoves] Comparison fuel consumption - Time for changes

Mon Apr 17 16:59:26 CDT 2017

Dear Tom

Well you hit several nails on their heads with that set of questions. They cannot all be answered in a digestible single message.

The stovers' community is dominated by three mutually non-communicating ‎groups: the USA group of the usual suspects that one meets on this list, the Indian group centered around the Ministry that writes and implements the stove standards, and the Chinese who have gone much farther than any other country in systematizing their national regulations, having a dozen National standards (at least) regulating this sector.

The EU has a single omnibus standard covering dozens of types of product.

Universally, tiers of performance are created, evaluated and updated by groups outside the regulatory framework of national or international standards. The inclusion, or attempts to do so as per IWA 2012:11, of tiers inside a test method is something new and broadly rejected save among the US-based groups. It appears to emerge from EPA-type thinking where the imposition of targets is decided by the regulator, not so much the affected players in the market. That is why the American scene is so riven with court battles - the regulations are top down.

The negotiations between industry representatives and the EPA ‎are not 'between equals'. The energy efficiency tiers in, say, the EU, are. The 'Energy Star' sticker on your computer monitor is there because of agreement among a broad range of players including industry, not because it was forced on them from 'above'.

From the publicly available documents, we know that the WHO emission rates are based on laughably inadequate modeling done by Berkeley, modeling they admit is not representative of anything real. To make such emission rate 'targets'‎ compulsory at the international level is, indeed, to drive a stake through the heart of the ISO's product. It will turn out that 'lamentably defective' is not a standard developing countries aspire to.

The implications are quite serious, should this come about in any enforceable manner, for example that although they are voluntary, the GACC may refuse to fund any stove project that does not apply them, while simultaneously asserting they are the international focus point for collecting and distributing stove project funds.

We should remember that the GACC is a project of a private not-for-profit company, it is not part of the UN or even the US government. The UNF is entitled to 15% off the top and can spend the money as they see fit. That places money and power in private hands, while they simultaneously exert considerable control over the content of international standards that will regulate the industry.

It is rather like Big Oil writing their own environmental and fuel efficiency standards and then mandating their fuels be used.

Regards
Crispin attending the '‎2017 Clean and Efficient Heating Stove South-South Knowledge Exchange Event'

Is the real issue with the ISO TC 285 process money? Is there fear that the process will result in funds directed to household energy and health will be directed to select suppliers? What’s at stake? Billions of $$?

Who has paid for the 25 million stoves apparently in use? What share has been paid by national governments, international air programs, and Non-governmental organizations? How will development and implementation of an ISO TC 285 affect that funding?

How do the stakeholders who are developing the ISO TC 285 view the use of the standard? How will it affect their funding strategies? The Tier 4 PM 2.5 hourly average emission rate target is one metric. How does it affect stove policy among donor organizations?

What stakeholders feel they have been excluded from the ISO TC 285 process? What is the potential impact on them?

It seems to me there is a lack of information and room for a lot of mis-information in this discussion.

Tom

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Paul Anderson
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 7:35 AM
To: ndesai at alum.mit.edu; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: SPAM: Re: [Stoves] Comparison fuel consumption - Time for changes

Stovers,

Nikhil wrote a reply to Crispin and to all of us:     (my emphasis added as    PSA:   ].)

<< snipped >>

I happen to think WHO interjection in the ISO TC 285 process - in particular, Tier 4 PM2.5 hourly average emission rate target - drives a stake into the heart of solid fuels cookstove effort.

[PSA:   Absolutely correct.  Solid fuel ICS stoves are "Insufficient Cookstoves" with dated combustion technology that keeps hanging around and pretending to be "improved", an over-used and no-longer meaningful word. ]
 So long as "international standards" and Tier certificates dominate policy discussions, with GACC insistence (the Implementation Science paper and previous work for the World Bank) on "permanent transition and exclusive use of clean cookstoves", I don't see stovers of the past getting out and helping users and their governments.

TC 285 is a "top down" drive    [PSA:  True]    to clear the market for LPG.    [PSA:  Not necessarily true, but it is the reality unless the TLUD / woodgas stoves can get some serious support.}

I am puzzled that Ron, Tom, and other knowledgeable people fail to see this destruction of biomass stover community.
[PSA:  Again  Nikhil is correct.  ICS stoves are not sufficient any longer.    The destruction of SOLID FUEL  biomass stover community is overdue.   Too much time and money continue to go  to  weak "solutions" with  ICS stoves (which do not include woodgas/TLUD stoves).   See the stove classification document at
http://www.drtlud.com/2017/04/11/classification-stove-technologies-fuels/       ]
(BTW, how much has your "step forward" led to funding increase for solid fuel stove design and testing efforts in the field? Or is it still "more of the same", however you choose to characterize the failures of the last 40 years?)

[PSA:  Please see the classification document cited above.   It is time to rally with support for the existing (but few) stove designs that can use solid fuel as INITIAL fuel and then make clean-burning GASES that are the actual fuel for the heat for cooking (as are the woodgas TLUD stoves.).   Otherwise, just hand over the serious efforts to the LPG advocates.  Nikhil is correct; in the past 40 years the ICS stoves (including the simple ones and the rocket ones and the charcoal ones) have not risen to the challenge for even 100 million stoves, even  with all the support from the PCIA and GACC and major donors like Shell Foundation plus the mega-efforts in past decades in India and China.    In contrast, woodgas/TLUD stoves have been left to starve for funds, or mis-directed funds. ]
[PSA comments above by Paul S Anderson]

 Nikhil
******************

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD

Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>

Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072

Website:  www.drtlud.com<http://www.drtlud.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170417/27c30962/attachment.html>