[Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

Wed Aug 30 19:12:02 CDT 2017

Xavier:

Abandoning WBT - or even permitting an open critical discussion of it -
would amount to disowning the large body of literature that has built
reputations and justified grant proposals or now, CDM and Gold Standard
methodologies.

When science depends on credulousness, it ceases to be science. Incentives
and sanctions are applied in science just as in any other human pursuit.

A peer-reviewed paper in the Annual Review of Energy identified problems
with WBT - and other tests - back in 1983. But the WBT became a cult,
evolving as cults do. Remedies for brainwashing are limited.

Back in early 1970's, Thomas Kuhn of Princeton published a book - The
Structure of Scientific Revolution. In an extremely simplified summary, he
argued that scientific revolutions happen not because there are new facts
but because the anomalies accumulate that can only be incorporated by a
paradigmatic change that explains most if not all the facts previously
explained under a different paradigm AND explains most if not all of the
former anomalies.

I think the time is now ripe for a structural change, a new paradigm. The
old paradigm of solid fuel combustion -> deforestation, climate change,
disease, sexual assault, has left too many anomalies. EPA contractors did
what they could, then WHO,WLPGA contractors and GACC sub-contractors piled
on over the past decade.

"Clean Cookstoves" have been talked at the Council on Foreign Relations and
at the White House. The momentum will sustain only if there is a change in
the paradigm. Physics alone cannot do the job. We are dealing with issues
of transformations of domestic life, of biomass and food economy, and of
human environments.

I reckon this forum is not good for discussions on paradigms or proposing
any alternatives to the old paradigm. But your critiques are much
appreciated. Thank you.

Nikhil

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Ron,
>
>
>
> « *The ISO process is open to every country - and is progressing well
> mostly (I listen in from time to time). »*
>
> The gates are open, but I don’t know how to pass through them. Sally Seitz
> and Ranyee Chiang kindly asked me if wanted to get updates from the TC 285
> discussions, I said yes. Several times. I am still waiting. I asked the
> AFNOR in Paris, but it doesn’t seem like having France as part of the TC
> 285 is one of their priorities.
>
> The ISO is a black box to me. If anyone can direct me to regular sources
> of information or ways I can join, I’d be most thankful.
>
>
>
> *« The WBT IS valuable »*
>
> Can you explain what is valuable about the WBT?
>
>
>
> *« and should stay until replaced with something better »*
>
> There is already something better! Better is not right word: there is
> already something valid, as opposed to the invalidity of the WBT. There’s
> be something valid for a long time.
>
> There are the CSI method and HTP protocol.
>
> They are here, I sent the link to you long ago:
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?
> usp=sharing
>
>
>
> Tell me why you think they cannot replace the WBT?
>
>
>
> Tom, this question is also addressed to you, since last time, I think you
> were saying there wasn’t yet an alternative.
> What is so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI nor HTP?
>
>
>
> *All “the experts” I trust are advocating continued use of the WBT.*
>
> Ron, can you please list all the experts who, now, today, still advocate
> continued use of the WBT?
>
> I know there is you, and there is Dean Still with whom I discussed over
> emails.
>
> Can you please name these experts Ron?
>
>
>
> You are talking about « Crispin’s » experts. I cannot help but think about
> the people who reviewed the CSI and HTP and highlighted the problems with
> the WBT.
>
> The 2 (long) lists are below this email.
>
>
>
> Ron, can you please critique their work? Critique the reviews or the
> studies? What is it that you don’t agree with?
>
> Ron, or anyone, can you please share a list of reviews of the WBT protocol?
>
> As you said Ron, the WBT has been used for decades. It shouldn’t be
> difficult then to get a list of reviews by external researchers showing how
> scientifically valid the WBT is.
>
>
>
> 7 months ago, the 26/01, I asked you Ron on this List several very
> specific questions, referring to the WBT issues.
>
> You never responded.
>
> I ask you these questions again, they refer to the text of the paper of
> Riva and al., paper that you can find here:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_
> interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_
> analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves :
>
>
>
> Ron, in the WBT,
>
>    - do you contest the role of thermodynamic uncertainties (viz.
>    variable steam production and boiling point determination) on results
>    repeatability? Can you ensure there are no uncertainties? Of if there are,
>    can you ensure they have no effect on results repeatability? How?
>    - do you have an answer to the questions about the rationale of some
>    calculations raised by Zhang et al.?
>    - do you support the statistical approach recommended by this
>    standardised laboratory-based test (the WBT) to evaluate, communicate and
>    compare performances and emissions of tested stoves, i.e. using the
>    arithmetic average of three replicate tests? How do you guarantee this
>    statistical approach ensure good comparison of stove performances?
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
>
>
> *Reviews of the HTP and CSI*
>
>
>
> The HTP was officially reviewed by an external expert group as required by
> the IWA 2012:11. The World Bank office in Beijing commissioned SGS
> Netherlands which provided a report after investigating the equipment, test
> protocol and calculations.
>
>
>
> The Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project test method for approving stove
> performance is the HTP before the CSI contextual portion was added, though
> the test conducted is in fact based on current observed practice. The
> Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project test method has been reviewed and/or approved
> by:
>
>    - Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Prof Tseyen-Oidov
>       and others
>       - Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project, Operations Manager & Chief
>       Engineer, Ms D Tsendsuren
>       - Dr B Odonkhishig and Dr Jargalsaikhan Buriad, head and Director,
>       respectively, of the SEET Laboratory in Ulaanbaatar
>       - SGS Laboratories, Netherlands (who conduct most of the stove
>       tests for EU certification), WB contract
>       - Team experts under Akeo Fukuyama, from the Environment Division
>       of JICA contractor Suuri-Keikaku Co. Ltd.
>       - Millennium Challenge Account – Mongolia (MCA-Mongolia is the
>       local branch of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, USA) which
>       spend $20m on stove subsidies based on the results of the tests
>       - National University of Mongolia, Prof Lodoysamba, Innovation
>       Manager, Department of Research (nuclear physicist and air quality expert)
>       - GTZ building energy efficiency programme in Ulaanbaatar, headed
>       by Ruth Erlbeck (reviewed by her head technical man and a young German MSc
>       physicist Mr Henning Schulte-Huxel who wrote a lot of the chemical balance
>       calculation block on the FUELS tab)
>
> The CSI Test Protocol which includes the contextual test method appended
> to the HTP test method and calculations has been reviewed by:
>
>    - World Bank technical review team for Indonesia (their infrastructure
>       engineer and technical reviewer)
>       - College of Engineering, China Agricultural University (CAU), Prof
>       Renjie Dong, head of the National Key Laboratory for Biogas, reviewed it at
>       the request of the Senior Economist heading the CSI-Indonesia Pilot
>       - Yixiang Zhang, PhD candidate, College of engineering, CAU. He has
>       published several reviews of certain aspects of the test method and its
>       calculations.
>       - Degan Ostogic, Lead Energy specialist (engineer) in the WB Energy
>       and Extractives supervising the CSI-Indonesia Stove Pilot, he also required
>       a demonstration of the method in action.
>       - The head of stove testing at a Western nation’s national
>       regulatory body has reviewed the method for generating the Technical Test
>       from a set of Cooking Tests. This provides the contextual element of the
>       CSI Method.
>       - Prof Harold Annegarn, nuclear physicist, then at the Department
>       of Geography Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of
>       Johannesburg
>       - Engineer David Beritault, formerly with GERES, for years the head
>       of the Cambodian stove testing lab and now with CARITAS Switzerland, made a
>       very detailed review of the concepts and calculations underlying the
>       method. He is a co-author of ISO TC-285 WG2, 19867 Part 2.
>       - James Robinson, BSc (Eng), MSc (Eng), MSc (aeronautics), former
>       head of the SeTAR Centre, University of Johannesburg.
>       - Dr Tafadzwa Makonese, Head of the SeTAR Centre, Research Village,
>       University of Johannesburg
>       - Indonesian BNI (National Standards Body technical committee) made
>       a conceptual review with the intention of replacing their current Draft
>       National Standard (which at present uses an early SeTAR Centre heat
>       transfer efficiency test protocol, the forerunner of the HTP.
>
>
>
> *Papers pointing at issues with the WBT*
>
>    - Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis
>    for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves
>    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_
>    interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_
>    analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves
>    <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves>
>
>
>    - Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass
>    cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1–11.
>    http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/
>
> To access the file, select DUE [Domestic Use of energy COnference]. Select
> DUE 2014. Select PROCEEDINGS. Select paper by Zhang etal (PDFs arranged
> alphabetically).
>
>    - Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove
>    interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project.
>    Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57–70.
>    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
>    461.783&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
>
>    - The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol
>    http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd
>
>
>    - Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and
>    development of an improved testing protocol
>    https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-
>    influence-of-testing-parameters.pdf
>    <https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testing-parameters.pdf>
>
>
>    - How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance
>    and emissions? — Three is not always adequate.
>    http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-
>    13-00075-Wang-et-al._final.pdf
>
>
>    - Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for
>    thermal performance of biomass stoves
>    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_
>    Systematic_and_conceptual_errors_in_standards_and_
>    protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves
>    <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual_errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves>
>
>
>    - Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of
>    expanded uncertainty for WBT
>    http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%
>    20Testing/Testing%20Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/
>    2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf
>    <http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%20Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf>
>
>
>    - Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols
>    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
>    1000.3936&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
>
>    - Towards a standard for clean solid-fuelled cookstoves
>
>              https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_
> a_standard_for_clean_solid-fuelled_cookstoves
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170830/42f838f0/attachment.html>