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

Sun Jan 22 19:54:34 CST 2017

Xavier and List:

	See inserts below.

	Briefly summarizing -  none of your recommended papers gave any insight into the validity of the “denominator equation”.  Before anyone sends me additional papers related to any Water Boiling Test,  I would greatly appreciate being told that they address this charcoal-value equation in some way.

> On Jan 19, 2017, at 5:11 PM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Ron,
> You are raising interesting points.
> Thanks for sharing the documents of the Lima consensus. It was in 2011. Now we are in 2017. Signatories might have changed mind.
> Please note that there is also a certain state of mind with people working on the ISO: "ISO standards are good for the stove sector. Therefore we have to reach an agreement, as soon as possible. Also we put a lot of work in it, so we'd like to be done with it."
> This is understandable, but one should not take decisions in haste, without firm scientific basis. Once the ISO standards will be set, it'll be too late. There won’t be a way to change them, or it'll take years and years.
	[RWL1: Could be, but changes are supposed to be much easier than the first approval - I hear.  Can you make a guess as to how long starting over would take?

> So, OK to set standards for stoves, but not at all cost. That's what Crispin has been trying to say, but he has too often be seen as a hindrance. My opinion: I'd rather have no standards than bad standards. Bad standards would be devastating. It doesn’t matter if it takes time, ISO standards have to be scientifically valid, or they should not exist.
	[RWL2:   My involvement in this process has been engendered by a concern that char-making stoves (which I see as being desired for many applications) can be hurt through modifying 4.2.3 re this “ denominator equation”.  So far that has not happened.  But I see rejection of the “denominator equation” as having that potential.  I consider that equation to be “scientifically valid”.  I haven’t heard your view on that topic.
	See more notes on the seven attachments - for which I thank you.
> If they are still nowadays supporting the WBT, I’d like to hear the signatories of the consensus tell us on this list why the WBT is a good protocol, and why we should keep using it. 

	[RWL3:  As I said earlier - I will be reporting this in about a week
> "And, from what I hear, essentially one person alone (Crispin) is critiquing it."
> Crispin is not the only one, trust me. We are a big group, and it is growing. His critics of the WBT find an echo especially with the project implementers, who find the WBT inadequate, and are struggling with testing. Implementers are quiet on the Stove List, they are very busy with day-to-day operations. So was I during more than 3 years when I was with Prakti in India. Plus, the state of mind of implementers is: "anyways, Crispin is on top of that, he is leading the fight, and people in the TC 285 are probably discussing these matters. This is the job of researchers, this is not our job.”

	[RWL4:  I am sure there are many critiquing WBT 4.2.3, but no-one has yet supplied a reference on the “denominator equation” - which I believe is the ONLY way to get valid stove comparisons.  I’m anxious to see their reason why -  Crispin has yet to give me a reason - much less a convincing one.  Nor anyone else.  Can you give it a try?  What would you replace this equation with?

> Please find a list of the studies where the issues with the WBT have been mentioned or studied in detail:
>  
> ·   Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone fire cookstoves, Riva F., Lombardi F., Pavarini C., Colombo E., 07/09/2016
	[RWL5:   I have not gone into this one in detail - as there is no mention of the “denominator equation”.  My concern is that I don’t see a discussion of the costs of achieving very high reliability on a result.  I think the stove industry will generally be happy with three tests - especially if they are paying for them.
	Also, the emphasis here is only on the efficiency computations - whereas the hard (expensive) part of all the WBT measurements is the data on CO and particles.
>  
> ·   Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass cookstoves, Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1–11, Zhang Y, Pemberton-Pigott C, Zhang Z, Ding H, Zhou Y, Dong R., 2014
	[RWL6:  Similar - also trying admirably for high precision - but I think asking for more than is needed.  Again only looking at efficiencies - and never on the “denominator equation.

>  
> ·   Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy SustainableDev 2007; 11:57–70. Bails R, Berrueta V, Chengappa C, Dutta K, Edwards R, Masera O, et al., 2007, 
	[RWL7:  This had a fee, but I am part of a group able to get some papers like this.  I found nothing on the “denominator equation”.

>  
> ·   The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol, Robert Pendleton Taylor, 2009
	[RWL8:   This definitely looking at the “denominator equation” (that I am trying to protect) - but NOT finding fault with it on theoretical grounds.  Only writing on the big inaccuracies possible with if one assumes that the energy density of char is always 1.5 times that for biomass.   I agree - and this seems to be supportive - as this does not today apply to 4.2.3.  Both energy densities are today being measured (at considerable extra expense) - never assumed.
>  
> ·   Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and development of an improved testing protocol. Energy Sustainable Dev 2012; 16:3–12. L’Orange C, DeFoort M, Willson B., 2012
	[RWL9:   Not sent, but downloadable (non-fee) at https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testing-parameters.pdf <https://envirofit.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2012-influence-of-testing-parameters.pdf>

	I enjoyed this paper;  much good background.  Here is a pertinent sentence:   An energy transfer test such as the WBT or the revised protocol presented here, alternatively, allows for more control and repeatability but may fail to capture the nature of how the stove will perform during real use

	Unfortunately, this paper also does not mention the “denominator equation”.

>  
> ·   How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance and emissions? — Three is not always adequate. Energy Sustainable Dev 2014; 20:21–9. Wang Y, Sohn MD., 2014
	[RWL10:   This one not sent to me.  I found (non-fee) at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7nz614g4 <http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7nz614g4> .  The full list of authors is
Yungang Wang1,, Michael D. Sohn1 , Yilun Wang2 , Kathleen M. Lask3 , Thomas W. Kirchstetter1,4, Ashok J. Gadgil1,

	Here is a key sentence on the number issue:  A literature survey of recent laboratory cookstove testing in peer-reviewed journal articles shows widely different numbers of replicate tests (Bailis et al., 2007; Jetter and Kariher, 2009; Jetter et al., 2012; McCarty et al., 2008, 2010; Roden et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2007).

	As I understand 4.2.3, the number “3” is not mandated.  I can well understand wanting extreme precision in every data point - but this can be achieved by looking mostly at the top potential winning stoves if there is a competition.  I see little reason for this precision for stoves that need improvement.  There is a strong preference here for 5 replications.

	The “denominator equation” does not appear at all.

> ·   Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for thermal performance of biomass stoves, Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Zhou Y, Riaz A., Pemberton-Pigott C, Annegarn H., Dong R., 2014
	[RWL11:   This expressed the greatest concerns - mostly allied with yours.  But again, only (I think) two oblique mentions of the “denominator equation”,  using the word “charcoal” only twice - in neither case relative to this equation.
	I also see mostly (entirely?) here a concern on what is reported - NOT on what is measured nor how it is measured.
			Two others of the seven you sent are subsets of this one.
>  
>  
> ·       Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of expanded uncertainty for WBT, Gorily M., Trujillo G., 2013
	[RWL12:   Not received - and I couldn’t find by googling.  I hope someone can send me this one.
> I sent you some papers by email. I believe there are other sources as well, I'll keep gathering more data.
> To my knowledge, none of these papers has been discussed and criticized on a scientific basis by WBT supporters. I am assuming it is because they make a point.
	[RWL13:  Well now I have critiqued one set.   I found very little to justify big changes in 4.2.3 - and nothing related to my reason for wanting to defend the “denominator equation”.     The next sentence is mine and I still stand by it.  I believe all of the papers you have cited are making relatively small corrections to 4.2.3 - such as the number of replications and suggesting small changes to outputs
>  "I contend that lab testing is imperative. I contend that there is no better lab test that boiling water.  Who has a better approach?" 
> There are other protocols for lab testing: at Prakti, we have been using a slightly modified version of the Heterogenous Testing Protocol. We use contextual testing as well. I believe the Uncontrolled Cooking Test and the CSI Water Heating Test are good as well. They do everything a WBT does.
	[RWL14:  Please send me a copy of these three or cites - but only if they have an alternative to the “denominator equation”.  None of these three employ water boiling?
>  
> Best,
>  
> Xavier
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170122/ae0aade2/attachment.html>