[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 84, Issue 16
cliff jarrell
cliffjarrell at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Aug 17 00:48:05 CDT 2017
what i know is that my friend has now four improved stoves in his school. they burn just a fraction of the wood he burned before and there is almost no smoke produced. before his walls and ceiling in the cooking area were black with soot. i don't know about measurements, but i know what my eye can see. the difference is clear. cliff jarrell, port harcourt, nigeria
From: "stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org" <stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org>
To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 21:01
Subject: Stoves Digest, Vol 84, Issue 16
Send Stoves mailing list submissions to
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
stoves-request at lists.bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
stoves-owner at lists.bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Stoves digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater than thought
(Bruno M.)
2. Re: Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater than
thought (Sujoy Chaudhury)
3. Re: Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater than
thought (Nikhil Desai)
4. Re: Revisiting WBT and performance metrics - revisiting
history (Nikhil Desai)
5. Re: Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater than
thought (Nikhil Desai)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 01:50:25 +0200
From: "Bruno M." <brunom1 at telenet.be>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: [Stoves] Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater
than thought
Message-ID: <7cf7443e-2678-c42f-2245-d9093700c6c1 at telenet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
I didn't saw this been posted here before:
Andrew Grieshop a researcher from North Carolina State University,
found:
Advanced wood-burning stoves designed for use in the developing world
can reduce air pollution more than anticipated, because gaseous
emissions from traditional wood stoves
form more particulate matter in the atmosphere than researchers
previously thought.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170807112840.htm
Enjoy
Bruno M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170816/4cf4be4f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:30:36 +0530
From: Sujoy Chaudhury <sujoy.chaudhury at gmail.com>
To: brunom1 at telenet.be, Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater
than thought
Message-ID:
<CA+ejjr74dsi+Z+F5ZdxcObbh8V1-9YwcrYwyQOpKXjiB+iwWzg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Bruno
Thank you for the paper- Interesting to wood stove promoters.
But - "All of this is based on lab measurements, which is important to note
because previous studies have found that advanced stoves don't necessarily
work as well in the field as they do in the lab".
Measurements from the field. anyone thinking about this ?
Regards
Sujoy Chaudhury
CSS
Kolkata
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Bruno M. <brunom1 at telenet.be> wrote:
> I didn't saw this been posted here before:
>
> Andrew Grieshop a researcher from North Carolina State University,
>
> found:
>
> Advanced wood-burning stoves designed for use in the developing world
>
> can reduce air pollution more than anticipated, because gaseous emissions
> from traditional wood stoves
>
> form more particulate matter in the atmosphere than researchers previously
> thought.
>
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170807112840.htm
>
>
> Enjoy
>
> Bruno M.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
> lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170816/b4f4729f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:26:25 -0400
From: Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
To: brunom1 at telenet.be, Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater
than thought
Message-ID:
<CAK27e=mEF8xY+7LYCq8O7VEqxL9bkAjE5CCpPudW-qJhzuZodQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Bruno M.:
Paul Anderson had posted this on 10 August, and Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
and I had posted rejoinders the same day.
The "advanced" stove tested by Grieshop and colleagues was a Philips stove
that some "health" researchers had characterized as not good enough,
because their use did not lead to significant health gain that the
researchers had apparently taken as an article of faith. There was a
discussion late last year on this List on that "epidemiological" study in
Malawi.
Here, the same stove is praised by the NCSU team because they have taken
atmospheric chemistry and what they call "atmospheric aging" of emissions
into account.
I find it a very interesting result, but irrelevant to practical design and
use considerations - or "benefits" in "health" or "climate". For one, the
ISO/WHO mythology is built around hourly average emission rate of PM2.5 at
the time of testing, nothing else.
Nikhil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Bruno M. <brunom1 at telenet.be> wrote:
> I didn't saw this been posted here before:
>
> Andrew Grieshop a researcher from North Carolina State University,
>
> found:
>
> Advanced wood-burning stoves designed for use in the developing world
>
> can reduce air pollution more than anticipated, because gaseous emissions
> from traditional wood stoves
>
> form more particulate matter in the atmosphere than researchers previously
> thought.
>
>
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170807112840.htm
>
>
> Enjoy
>
> Bruno M.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
> lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170815/471df6e4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 23:01:35 -0400
From: Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com>
Cc: Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Revisiting WBT and performance metrics -
revisiting history
Message-ID:
<CAK27e=m0f_qL19gy_yhPrWoa8H_4=i1NH98gXAhhygZvkxkMjw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Frank:
I could not respond to this sooner. I fully agree "The PM 2.5 metric has
wasted more years and falsely put more stoves at the top for marketing."
Perhaps marketing only Berkeley and related careers at WHO or GACC. (A
fresh PhD on the Chicago study in pregnant women in Nigeria is said to have
been hired by GACC.)
Wasting time in search of holy grails and wandering into every ally that
common sense sees to be blind serves one and only one purpose --
affirmation of Kirk Smith's definition of "solid fuels" as "dirty cooking"
and LPG/electricity as "clean cooking". If you think about it, however, oil
companies and electric utilities are not primarily in the business of
reducing cooking fuel hourly emissions no matter what the fuel, what the
home, what the cook and what the meal. What appears to be marketing for
LPG/electricity as "clean cookstoves" is a facade; the real marketing is
careers and consultancies.
Yes, the hourly average PM2.5 emission rate is a red herring, with no
identifiable benefit other than cooked up "indoor concentrations" via BAMG
model with ridiculous assumptions.
With no basis in theory or evidence, these manufactured estimates of
concentrations, netted for ambient air concentrations from other sources (I
don't know about "indoor" sources of PM2.5 other than a cookstove, such as
cigarette or dust or foods), mean precisely NOTHING.
So long as gullibility trounces reason, the circus will continue.
It is time to take another look at the last seven years of re-inventing the
wheel.
Your emphasis on fuel and cooking tasks should wake up those merrily
dreaming fuel-free, cook-free "science". Yes, many egos are at stake, and
it is hard for the grant-makers to admit the errors of their ways. So good
money is thrown after bad money year after year, as a new generation gets
hypnotized into thinking that the problem at hand is publishing new pal-
and boss- approved cite-o-logy, not to cultivate the capacity to design a
series of good stoves and testing them in actual use.
I hope to find some rocket scientist - at least, s/he would know hydrogen
and other fuels suited to various tasks - and a robotics engineer for my
iCook stovers. You have already given a picture of defining "contexts".
Nikhil
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
> Dear Nikhil,
>
> Well said.
>
> The PM 2.5 metric has wasted more years and falsely put more stoves at the
> top for marketing.
>
> The WBT was well designed going from Fuel >> completed Task but fails for
> three reasons:
> 1) The test for fuel was poorly designed. Stopping a fire in seconds and
> sorting the char from ash and wood not reproducible.
> 2) The fuel test had no connection to the fuel at the location the stove
> was planned to be used.
> 3) Too many matrices that were just stated and not actually tested.
>
> The fuel (processed) for the WBT was chosen to produce the *best*
> results. Not chosen to give *reproducible* results. Best results are for
> the purpose of improving combustion chamber measurements etc. Collecting
> wild biomass from around a location, chopping, cutting, splitting and
> drying to produce a homogenous mix would give reproducible results and be
> more like what might be used.
>
> What needs to be done:
> Fuel needs to be based on matrices that cross all biomass fuels. I suggest
> fixed and volatile matter.
> Its the fixed and volatile matter that is used to compare from site to
> site (along with other data like shape, size, etc).
> The fuel tested and compared is done using very dry fuel. The effects of
> increasing moisture can be determined and plotted later.
>
> We need more Completed Tasks in addition to boiling water to be used when
> comparing stoves.
>
> Also; The testing does not consider the goal intended because the goal is
> different for each area. Saving wood, faster cooking, less 2.5 pollution,
> less fuel preparation time, etc are all different goals. Some more
> important than others depending on the location. The testing just reports
> the matrices that are needed to determine these goals. The end user decides
> the goals more important.
>
> We need a list of suitable stoves for an area. That where the fuel on site
> can be used in a stove to complete a task. The requirements (fuel prep.)
> and matrices (fuel used, time, 2.5PM) during completion are reported.
> Individual decisions are made to determine the stove they want to purchase.
> Stoves that are not suitable (cannot complete a specific task) are not on
> the list.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Nikhil Desai <ndesai at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Xavier:
>
> I don't know about Ecostove performing badly with the WBT and still being
> superior to the traditional stoves. As you know, I don't think much of the
> efficiency metric -- no tree needs to be "saved" if its use has a higher
> value - and PM2.5 is only a recent fad thanks to Kirk Smith and WHO. I
> don't think much of mg/min emission rates cooked into the cake of annual
> average concentrations irrespective of fuel and cooking practices.
>
> But if Ecostove is found to be usable and used, that is a success, no
> matter what lab tests say. Maybe only a success of marketing and delivery
> chains, but that - as Kirk Smith says after his second epiphany - is more
> important than mere science.
>
> Science and marketing merge in product engineering. Let's see who
> succeeds. Do you think the ISO TC-285 exercise is less about science and
> more about marketing, by fooling people about "health benefits" or specific
> mg/min Emission Rate ranges for different Tiers?
>
> Nikhil
>
> ------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831 <(202)%20568-5831>
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Nikhil,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for sharing these 2 papers. They really nailed it, and that was
>> already back in 2011.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Aprovecho Research Center has been pushing for years the WBT and
>> rocket stove designs with their golden rules without the expected success.
>>
>> The example of the Ecostove is really interesting. It performs badly with
>> the WBT but probably still is a great stove compared to the traditional
>> stoves. It shows how much relying on the WBT has been problematic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have to look more into detail this new handbook by the GACC and MIT.
>>
>> I think I'll post about it next week.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Xavier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *De :* Nikhil Desai [mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com]
>> *Envoy? :* mardi 1 ao?t 2017 20:28
>> *? :* Xavier Brandao
>> *Cc :* Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Cecil Cook; Tami Bond; Robert van der
>> Plas; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> *Objet :* Revisiting WBT and performance metrics - revisiting history
>>
>>
>>
>> List, Xavier:
>>
>> I stumbled upon paper a few months ago - Sustaining Culture with
>> Sustainable Stoves:The Role of Tradition in Providing Clean-BurningStoves
>> to Developing Countries
>> <http://www.consiliencejournal.org/index.php/consilience/article/viewFile/157/67>,
>> Consilience, The Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 5, Iss. 1 (2011),
>> Pp. 71-95. Britta Victor Department of Anthropology Princeton University,
>> Princeton, NJ .
>>
>>
>> It is relevant to the earlier discussion on the tensions between physical
>> and social scientists or students of cultures and foods, and the pursuit of
>> energy efficiency as the sole metric.
>>
>> There is another 2011 paper - A Review of Global Cookstoves Programs
>> <https://mlgifford.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cookstove-programs_berkeley-thesis.pdf>,
>> by Mary Louise Gifford - that cites some of the same material that is cited
>> by Britta Victor, and reaches similar, though less strong conclusions,
>> namely that global technologists alone are likely to fail.
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> Excerpt from Britta Victor's Sustaining Culture with Sustainable
>> Stoves:The Role of Tradition in Providing Clean-Burning Stoves to
>> Developing Countries
>> <http://www.consiliencejournal.org/index.php/consilience/article/viewFile/157/67>,
>> Consilience
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
> lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Frank
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane
> Salinas, CA 93907
> (831) 246-0417 cell
> (831) 771-0126 office
> fShields at keithdaycompany.com
>
>
>
> franke at cruzio.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_
> lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170815/4b59cb8f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:02:13 -0400
From: Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>, Sujoy Chaudhury
<sujoy.chaudhury at gmail.com>
Cc: brunom1 at telenet.be, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Benefits of advanced wood-burning stoves greater
than thought
Message-ID:
<CAK27e=mjoCyCWsNB2qOzds8D3LqDo+nqH==iqAcgdhjWTWOcng at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sujoy:
This is a cup in a firestorm, if you understand what I mean by inverting
metaphor.
The study was indeed linked to field use in Malawi, the same one associated
with a rather ludicrous "health study". That apart, the NCSU research is
about "climate change", not about cooking or health. (The health professors
had already declared Philips stoves in Malawi as making no significant
change. I am writing from memory.)
Why bother? All the talk about "household stoves warm the planet" is also
cooked up "convenient facts". It is known for decades that depending on the
type of biomass and stoves (in and outside households), there are warming
aerosols (black carbon) and there are cooling aerosols (organic carbon) in
different ratios.
I found this study very interesting because they did some follow-up lab
studies to discover that "atmospheric aging" of emissions changes the
relative ratio of warming v. cooling species.
So, in an academic sense, field testing of roughly a billion stoves (some
people have more than one, and there are non-household users) will tell us
if they warm or cool the earth.
That is the limit of my recollection of atmospheric chemistry on that. I
don't think it matters a hoot if the professoriat finds that their findings
are different from what "researchers previously thought."
Especially as come to climate change, where I am guessing the net effect of
biomass stoves on multi-decadal GMST change is zero.
I hope it surprises nobody that in a crude sense, the net effect of
coal-fired power emissions on multi-decadal GMST change is also zero.
Depends on what organic carbon and sulfate emission loads are.
The war against solid fuels is fought with convenient lies and academic
factoids.
Nikhil
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Sujoy Chaudhury <sujoy.chaudhury at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Bruno
>
> Thank you for the paper- Interesting to wood stove promoters.
>
> But - "All of this is based on lab measurements, which is important to
> note because previous studies have found that advanced stoves don't
> necessarily work as well in the field as they do in the lab".
>
> Measurements from the field. anyone thinking about this ?
>
> Regards
> Sujoy Chaudhury
> CSS
> Kolkata
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Bruno M. <brunom1 at telenet.be> wrote:
>
>> I didn't saw this been posted here before:
>>
>> Andrew Grieshop a researcher from North Carolina State University,
>>
>> found:
>>
>> Advanced wood-burning stoves designed for use in the developing world
>>
>> can reduce air pollution more than anticipated, because gaseous emissions
>> from traditional wood stoves
>>
>> form more particulate matter in the atmosphere than researchers
>> previously thought.
>>
>>
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170807112840.htm
>>
>>
>> Enjoy
>>
>> Bruno M.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170816/130b34d4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
------------------------------
End of Stoves Digest, Vol 84, Issue 16
**************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170817/be804a6c/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list