[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]

[Nikhil Desai]

Dear Ron:

All I can say is that you have made no case for the use of WBT by anybody
who has an interest in standards of cooking and policy of regulating the
stove business.

That WBT is used by anybody and everybody for decades only confirms my view
that the so-called stove science is built on fiction passed as theory.
Groupthink. A religion of the faithful, peers praising pals. Means nothing
to cooks.

Nothing worthwhile can be said to inform stove design without keeping the
user and her use patterns at the center, and addressing the regional,
seasonal, and inter-family (even intra-family) variations in fuels, stove
use, and, to keep up with the times, rapid changes in demographics,
cultures, and food/cooking habits I have seen in many parts of the world.

You wrote, "It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that
stove testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT)  are unnecessary. "

Touche!

Well, who makes stove testing laboratories use WBT - as you say "some
version" of WBT - and why? In this country (US), EPA has neither
promulgated nor approved ANY test protocol for cookstoves, so why are
Americans spreading the WBT gospel in those parts of the world they know
very little about?

Nobody I know - not even myself - argues that stove testing laboratories
are unnecessary. The fundamental question is, what is to be tested and why?
Then there can be a debate on how to go about best measuring it.

I for one believe that lab testing has its limits in showing anything that
necessarily determines usability of a stove. The only thing a producer and
distributor/installer may warrant is some limited definition of safety and
durability, and perhaps not even that; no producer wants to be responsible
for misuse of a stove causing a fire.

With the Lima Consensus/IWA metrics and tiers, all I can say is that they
are for some imaginary cooks and imaginary fuels. Sure, a stove designer
would submit his stove to testing labs, but he would be stupid to design
his stove to score on lab results and not on customers' preferences and
desires.

I hope you find a stove for biochar production that sells and is used. The
theory behind TC-285 that somehow stoves ranking high on some metric will
produce a high desired impact on the basic rationale for that metric is
spurious.

We are told that the four or five metrics are to be judged independently,
so any test protocol would rate a particular stove as, say, XTi, YTj, ZTk,
so on, where X is the metric, T the Tier corresponding to that metric, and
i, j, k etc. are numbers from 1 to 4.

The clear purpose of EPA/UNF manipulation of WHO in the TC-285 process is
simply this -- anoint stoves NOT using solid fuels as Tier 4, then
rationalize billions of dollars of funding to market those stoves and
fuels, namely LPG.

This is clear in the Rosenthal, et al. (2017) Implementation Science to
Accelerate Clean Cooking for Public Health
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjjuO6Q_v3XAhURPN8KHVytB2UQFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC5226685%2F&usg=AOvVaw3ErScSEK1n6BL-WjcmxxXL>
where
they speak only of "In choosing among clean fuels or combinations (e.g.,
LPG, biogas, alcohol, electricity, solar, tier 4 indoor emissions biomass
stoves) and technologies .." endorsing the Johnson-Chiang view "These
findings suggest that near exclusive, community-wide use of clean fuels is
needed to meet the PM2.5 guideline and to maximize health benefits"

In the name of "maximizing health benefits" - for which they have zero
empirical basis, at most only HAPIT deceit - a propaganda is generated for
"clean fuels".

Which for all practical purposes rules out stoves using solid biomass.

Back to TC-285 rigmarole. GACC said in 2014,

"Develop a Cookstove Rating System and Voluntary Global Standards –

The sector has made considerable progress in the development of a consensus
voluntary global standard. This standard will enable the rating of
cookstoves by emissions, efficiency, safety, durability, *and
affordability* *while
allowing for differences in local conditions and user behavior.* Although
the standards could take a variety of forms, *one mechanism that is
currently being explored* is the establishment of international standards
through the International Standards Organization. *Such an international
consultative process will take time (perhaps as long as three years*), so
in the near-term the sector should develop an interim tiered rating system
to be used while a voluntary global standard is in formal development"
(emphasis added)


Three years have passed. In another three years, GACC is scheduled to fold.
What has boiling water done for TC-285 along the lines of
"affordability while allowing for differences in local conditions and user
behavior?"

I rest my case. TC-285 was invented to have an excuse for wasting time and
money - to create an appearance that something useful was being done, while
an "interim tiered rating system" using WBT was forced upon anybody who was
gullible enough or afraid of offending Secretary Clinton.

TC-285 has zero relevance and should be disbanded. Maybe that would happen
when EPA funds for GACC and ANSI run out. Mere WBT and arguing about DE is
a red herring.


Nikhil


On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Xavier, list and ccs
>
> I guess (being the only individual named) I have to take up the
> challenge.  This is no fun.  I respond because I  find your position on the
> WBT to be devoid of value.  I apologize for trying to get this out on the
> day you sent it - and it is late.
>
> My evidence on the validity of the present WBT (especially including the
> “denominator equation”  - “DE” =  e1/(1-e2) is below in several parts.  If
> you respond, please refer to my numbered points, so we can best understand
> your reasoning.
>
> Part I- the WBT and DE
> a.  There are hundreds of articles using the WBT, with no issue of its
> validity.   Those that don’t use the DE also assume there is no char worth
> keeping track of. I don’t see how that can be a valid reason for not using
> a DE (and I think they all national stove documents use something like a
> WBT).
> b.  I know of no article in a peer-reviewed technical journal that gives a
> rationale for WBT or DE’s discontinuation.  The topic seems unique to this
> list
> c.  Working group 2 of the of the ongoing ISO TC-285 process recently
> voted overwhelmingly to retain the “DE”.  I am not aware of even
> unpublished critiques that make sense (and I ask for such to be part of
> your response).
> d.  Working group #1 had a very small group ( I’ve heard 7?) carry a
> virtual tie in saying that the DE should be removed.  Last night, WG#1’s
> leader,  Professor Tami Bond said I (nd others) could forward an
> explanatory private memo.  Others can forward more, but I think these
> sentences are important re the WBT and DE
> "*There is a current draft in Working Group 2 regarding controlled
> laboratory testing (it has a formal name that I can’t remember). Its
> product is under revision after responding to comments from national
> standard bodies, and has not been published yet. Some of its features have
> received some of the same criticisms as were provided on the WBT that is in
> wide public use, yet other contents are different, as happens through
> discussion.”*
> Dr.  Bond is not here arguing for removal of the DE, but (unfortunately)
> there will be some confusion because of a very small number who are
> misinformed about the DE and voted in an irrational position that has benn
> rebutted by the vast majority of those involved in this ISO process.
> e.  I say misinformed because both Professor Phillip Lloyd and Crispin
> showed a few months ago they did not know how to use the DE,  (Dr. Lloyd
> pulled an arbitrary number out of the air in his use of the equation).
> f.  It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that stove
> testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT)  are unnecessary.  They
> mostly also seem to couple the WBT with un-needed procedures for CO and
> particulates (because they don’t believe widely reported health
> statistics).  I say they are valid because they are so widely used.  Often
> used to save governments money (unhealthy citizens are drains on national
> economies).  These rejections of the utility of pollutant measurements are
> almost identical to efforts to downplay climate impacts - caused by
> pollutants.
> g.  Something like the WBT is used virtually everywhere.  The only places
> where I believe the DE is not used is where they have not considered
> char-making to be possible or intelligent or some other unfathomable
> reason.  I challenge anyone who believes cha-making has the least bit of
> value to give some other means for bringing char-making into the valuation
> of a stove.
>
> Part II.  Tiers       Turning to use of the DE as used in the tier
> structures (and I believe this is the main beef of those opposed to the WBT)
> a.  It is true that I argue for the WBT because char-making stoves turn
> out well using the DE.  Exceedingly well.  It seems that those who argue
> against the WBT and DE are associated with stoves that don’t do as well.
> b.  I do so now for climate reasons (earlier for forest preservation,
> health, time-saving and money-making reasons).  My experience on this list
> is that a large majority of those who put down the WBT and the DE have zero
> concern about the climate impacts of inefficient and polluting stoves (and
> especially charcoal-using stoves).  Such beliefs lack appreciation of
> climate science; those persons must also have other motives - probably
> money related.
> c.  I claim the Part I arguments justify its use and I am convinced the DE
> is totally valid (and can only be obtained through a WBT. So I ask all who
> respond to this to propose a better means of helping advance stove
> performance than the tier approach with its present use of the DE results.
> If not tiers, what?
> d.  This list has finally had this week a TLUD story from Bangladesh that
> fully justifies use of the WBT and DE.  If the DE was dropped from the tier
> system (as some on this list have proposed), then the work of Julien and
> his collaborators would be much delayed.  To the disadvantage of those
> finding a new source of added income.
>
> It’s late.  I may have to add more - on Lima for instance.
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Frank,
>
> Ahah, there is indeed a pattern, you might have noticed it is usually the
> following:
> 1.  Someone, usually Ron or a member of the GACC, EPA, Aprovecho, D-Lab
> or Winrock, innocently drops « WBT is a great protocol to make stove
> improvements » or « you know, there are many supporters of the WBT »,
> somewhere in a post, a handbook or a toolkit
> 2.  Then, some of us howls in indignation, especially me. I start to rant
> and sound like a broken record. Then I hand over, once again, the pile of
> evidence, and ask some very simple straightforward questions.
> 3.  Suddenly the one in 1. very kindly tells me, in a
> « ho-it-would-be-so-great-to-have-you-there » fashion, to:
> a.  Join the ISO-TC 285 discussions
> b.  Join a certain conference in the United States
> c.  Or becomes suddenly completely mute
> Often it is a., b. then c.
> 4.  Then a few months pass by, and one beautiful day, we are back to step
> 1.
>
> At this point it’s not a rabbit hole, it’s more like a rabbit loop, a
> rabbit loophole.
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] De la part de franke at cruzio.com
> Envoyé : jeudi 7 décembre 2017 21:56
> À : ndesai at alum.mit.edu
> Cc : Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and
> cookstoves]
>
>
> Dear Nikhil, Stovers,
>
> Always great news when we start a new year talking WBT. That because it
> means we are not still down some rabbit hole someone has sent us to wallow
> around for a few years on some useless idea only to come to the surface and
> find us where we started (NOWHERE). But now starting at NOWHERE we must be
> careful we are not diverted down another rabbit hole. Make sure all project
> proposals involve the 6-Box system or parts of it. That involves both Field
> and Lab work. Because that is the only way we get control over the
> variables and move forward. A lot of work needs be done.
>
> Regards
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Garanti
> sans virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171209/e49c9e71/attachment.html>