[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

Sun Feb 19 08:50:54 CST 2017

"For $3,000 ARC will test your cook stove in our Oregon lab and provide an ISO certificate of Tier performance ratings."

To my knowledge ARC is not an ISO certified lab. They are not empowered to issue 'an ISO certificate' of any kind.

The only lab I know for sure that is testing domestic stoves in a developing country that is ISO certified is the SEET Lab in Ulaanbaatar. The certificate is for ISO 17025, something achieved shortly after the lab director and manager both received their PhD's in stove testing.

‎The SEET Lab is therefore able to conduct tests (with any protocol) and issue an 'ISO' related certificate of performance.

There is no set of ISO tiers for cooking stoves because there is no ISO standard (yet).

To obtain ISO 17025 certification the lab is required to replicate the results of another qualified lab (plus a lot of other things). As is now widely know, labs using the WBT have been unable to replicate their own work within the requirements of the IWA 2012:11, let alone the WBT results of another lab. ‎The first reason for this is the WBT produces inherently uncertain outputs because of conceptual errors leading to improper calculations of metrics. That is the reason the GACC should disavow it.

The GACC has been giving LEMS equipment to RKTCs funded by earmarked grants from Shell. ‎Todd reported the persistent problems with that equipments when he had to deal with them. My experience is with LEMS not PEMS, so I can't comment. I do know that Aprovecho, GACC, CSU, the EPA and Berkeley are aware of a review of that equipment which concluded that it cannot place a stove on a benchmark above tier 3.5, were it to exist, due to sensitivity and accuracy limitations. That is independent of the WBT protocol issues.

The implications of this are obvious. How can one lab replicate the result of a tier 4 stove if both are using equipment that cannot do it confidently in the first place.

So this issue of testing and rating and certificates has some issues with both smoke and mirrors.

Regards
Crispin

Dear Nikhil,

  1.  I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who did what, how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was among the parties who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement at the IWA meeting. In the agreement, the writers wrote the sentence: "the WBT is not the only valid protocol". I don't know who said the WBT was valid in the first place. It has never been reviewed, as far as I know. But we were given this agreement to agree upon. I think the GACC has most often communicated about the WBT than other protocols, but that would be understandable, the WBT is quite convenient to use, and quite easy to learn. It was one of the main protocols, with the CCT and KPT, that was taught to the Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC. But testers usually don't do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too many efforts to organize and it takes too much time. I believe it was mostly the VITA WBT, but I believe the GACC promoted also other protocols.
     *   The abstract Tom sent us is really interesting on how the WBT is commonly viewed: "as per the world standard protocol WBT 4.2.3"
     *   I think the GACC was supporting and promoting the updating of the WBT:
        *   http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/02-28-2013-new-version-of-the-water-boiling-test-released-at-ethos-conference.html
        *   http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/03-25-2014-stove-testing-update-release-of-water-boiling-test-protocol-4-2-3.html
        *   It is said here: "The Alliance and partners have been working over the last few months to finalize updates to the Water Boiling Test (WBT) to address comments from a public comment period on the WBT 4.1.2."
        *   Was there the same support for development of other protocols?
  2.  I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of other supplier of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?

Another point: some people think the WBT is still good as a tool to develop stoves. I don't believe that is the case, and additionally I would like to remind everyone that the WBT has been used for years, and is still used to certify stoves, not only to help the first phases of their development. The WBT would say if a stove is clean or not, if it's good or not, regardless of the fuel and regardless of the cultural context.
The website of the Aprovecho Research Center says:

"For $3,000 ARC will test your cook stove in our Oregon lab and provide an ISO certificate of Tier performance ratings. The same tests results can be submitted to the Gold Standard as part of the carbon credit requirements."

I didn't know we could get ISO certificates for a stove tested.

As I said, what is the past is the past. What counts is what the GACC and us all do from now on.

Best,

Xavier

On 2/19/17 14:00, Xavier Brandao wrote:
Dear Nikhil,

  1.  I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who did what, how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was among the parties who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement at the IWA meeting. In the agreement, the writers wrote the sentence: "the WBT is not the only valid protocol". I don't know who said the WBT was valid in the first place. It has never been reviewed, as far as I know. But we were given this agreement to agree upon. I think the GACC has most often communicated about the WBT than other protocols, but that would be understandable, the WBT is quite convenient to use, and quite easy to learn. It was one of the main protocols, with the CCT and KPT, that was taught to the Regional Testing and Knowledge Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC. But testers usually don't do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too many efforts to organize and it takes too much time. I believe it was mostly the VITA WBT, but I believe the GACC promoted also other protocols.
  2.  I think the GACC was supporting the updating of the WBT:

  1.  I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of other suppliers of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?

Another
As I said, what is the past is the past.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170219/e7e3c68a/attachment.html>