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

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Crispin,

I did not know it was known the equipment from Aprovecho was having issues.
Maybe this is why there was a lot of problems with the PEMS calibration 
at Prakti.
I'll check with the guys at Prakti and see what's the update on that.

Best,

Xavier


On 2/19/17 15:50, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> "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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170219/bb42facd/attachment.html>