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

tmiles at trmiles.com tmiles at trmiles.com
Thu Aug 31 09:12:28 CDT 2017


Here it comes, Ladies and Gentleman! Nikhil is about to announce the long-awaited “Paradigm Shift”!

 

After more than nine months of loudly complaining, Nikhil will describe in excruciating detail his alternatives to the much maligned WBT, PM2.5, ISO process, and other “mis-directions” that biomass cooks stove development is supposed to have taken over the last 35 years. 

 

Let’s hear it, Big Guy. Show your stuff!  

 

Or, did he just tell us that he doesn’t have anything for us?   

 

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Nikhil Desai
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 5:12 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
Cc: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

 

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 <mailto: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

*	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 <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&type=pdf> &rep=rep1&type=pdf

*	The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534 <http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd> &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

*	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

*	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

*	Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936 <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&type=pdf> &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 <mailto: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/20170831/d3960c1d/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list