[Stoves] Real results with TLUDs in India --- was Re: CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock)

[cec1863 at gmail.com]

Dear Paul and Crispin, 

I have little to contribute to your respectful and cooperative review of potentially hard data from the field about the superior performance of TLUD stoves and the resulting upsurge in demand to purchase these efficient cooking and charcoal making stoves in particular stove markets in India.

I simply want to celebrate ‎the civility of your exchange. Stove science is surely advanced by listening to, understanding, and learning from each other. Such exchanges will surely lead to rapid advances in stove science as we agree on how best to test stove performance from the perspective of the stove user and also from the perspective of the stove scientist. 

Bravo Paul and Crispin. Onward (or as we African say: Phambili comrades, a luta conuinua!!)

Cecil the Cook
‎
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 10:33 AM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Reply To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Real results with TLUDs in India --- was Re: CO2 drawdown (Re:Jock)

Dear Paul

You are hitting the right nails on their heads. 

>1. Very poor people living in eastern Darjeeling Districe, West Bengal, India are eagarly accepting the Champion TLUD stoves, with a waiting list for each new batch. And there are 12,000 of those same stoves in constant use in Deganga, WB, for up to 4 years. 

That is great news. I would appreciate the economics of the stove (not the fuel part, the stove cost) to be shared. It is very important to have understood that because a stove does something people want, they will find the money to buy it. People are paying $100 in Uganda to get a Biolite stove so as to generate a small amount of electricity. Why? Because it does something they want. 

BTW I have a report from Sujatha that about 60% of the fuel being burned to make charcoal to sell is not waste from factories, it is regular wood. Early on I heard it was furniture waste. This is an important thing to track. 

 >It seems that much of the rejection is by Westerners who believe they know what the poor people think and want. Time will tell.

Rejection by whom? Who rejects TLUD's? Not me. I design and promote them and teach the building of them. In two weeks I will be checking on customer comments to see how they can be improved. 

>2. The calculations of the fuel use reduction for the same cooking tasks in Deganga were measured with a scale in the field in Deganga. Average usage of nearly 9 kg went down to about 4 kg. I call that better than 50%. AND the families are selling their charcoal for important monthly income. 

If it was a direct measurement that is a credible and excellent result. You may remember a discussion we had, with calculations, which showed how high the heat transfer efficiency would have to be to reduce the fuel consumption while simultaneously producing a portion of charcoal from the fuel consumed. If you were able to get some fuel mass, moisture contents, char mass and energy value numbers it could be published showing where the fuel and energy goes. 

The value of this is to provide targets for performance. Out of that may come some sensible rules for reporting the performance of such stoves, and of course the fuel consumption. 

>No WBT involved.

If so that is why you are getting realistic numbers. Actual consumption, actual char yield, actual cooking. If you have some numbers for masses, we could show the value/mass chain without additional study. Do you know the details of the measurement method?

>Deganga TLUD usage has been verified for each of the past four years by third-party examiners for the carbon credits. ---- There is no reason to be knocking the TLUDs because of calculation issues regarding the WBT.

Well, do you realise how rare this is?  I am not knocking TLUD's. I keep saying that, I am knocking the incorrect rating of stoves using the WBT. Obviously that goes for any similar calculation that under-reports fuel consumption. You are reporting the actual consumption based on the mass of fuel measured, right? Was that made using a CCT or KPT?

Were you aware that there are CDM calculations that 'credit the energy content of the char' by deducting it from the denominator? Are you sure they are not doing that? 

I know that you have a long-standing interest in getting the right answer, not necessarily a convenient one. When you cite the fuel consumption above you mention both field measurements AND the CDM, is that from a CDM assessment based on the methods listed on their website, or was is based on measurements of fuel mass entering the home?

A quick way to check is if the mass of fuel consumed is claimed to be 4 kg, and the production of char is X grams, and the cooking efficiency is known. 

You have been the most forthcoming member of the list when it comes to sharing raw data from char making stoves. Can you share the documentation for the CDM determinations? That would be really helpful in demonstrating how the stoves and the income stream functions. 

Thanks for inspiration
Crispin 


_______________________________________________
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/