[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Mon Jan 23 13:57:11 CST 2017
Crispin,
You wrote:
> With question of science there are interchangeable things: fuel is a
> proxy for energy and convertible.
and
>
> Because tests are conducted with a fuel. Any fuel can be converted
> into a quantum of energy. Fuel efficiency and energy efficiency are
> the same thing,
>
You and I discussed this before, and you have changed your position.
Let's just agree to disagree. I am finished with this discussion.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 1/23/2017 1:11 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Paul
>
> *>*FUEL is not the same as ENERGY.
>
> With question of science there are interchangeable things: fuel is a
> proxy for energy and convertible. If I say I need 20 MJ of energy I
> can calculate how much rice hull that is, or oak.
>
> Same in reverse. I am not sure what you are getting at about word
> games. These matters are taken seriously.
>
> >And I accept that wood that has been turned into gases and charcoal is
> no longer wood.
>
> Good so far.
>
> >But the Char is still with significant ENERGY, and that is what needs
> to be stated.
>
> Good so far, the same can be said for wood. It has significant energy
> and it also needs to be known to make an efficiency calculation.
>
> >If CREEC is following the same terminology as the other testing
> centers, so be it.
>
> The terminology comes in the form of the WBT spreadsheet and protocol
> document. They were just following orders. It is not their fault.
>
> >The line should be labeled "energy efficiency."
>
> Ouch, no it is not. Any common understanding of energy efficiency
> (name any device or vehicle) has no subtractions in the denominator.
> There are 3200 references in the EU standards to ‘energy efficiency’
> and they refer to the delivered work and the total input.
>
>
> >You wrote:
>
> The appropriate metric for that [cooking] is the 'cooking
> efficiency', which considers the amount of fuel needed and the
> cooking accomplished.
>
> >Why would you say FUEL?????
>
> Because tests are conducted with a fuel. Any fuel can be converted
> into a quantum of energy. Fuel efficiency and energy efficiency are
> the same thing, The calculation is done using Joules.
>
> >We all know that people do not cook with FUEL.
>
> All people cook with what is termed an ‘energy carrier’. They cannot
> contain ‘energy’ in their hands. There are many energy carriers. (It
> is a surprisingly common term).
>
> >They cook with the ENERGY that comes from the fuel.
>
> Technically they cook with some of the energy that is released by from
> the fuel.
>
> >TLUD stoves (char making stoves) do not release all of the energy from
> the fuel.
>
> No stove burning solid fuel releases all the energy from the fuel.
> Please recall what the goal of the reporting metric is: most people
> ask for the fuel efficiency which can be represented exactly using the
> energy efficiency (or ‘overall energy efficiency’ if you like).
>
> You are looking for a metric that communicates the benefits of a char
> making stove. That benefit is the char itself – you guys have said
> that repeatedly. So…report the char. Characterise it. It is a benefit.
> It does not alter the fuel efficiency/energy efficiency number for
> that stove which is also the cooking efficiency if it is a cooking stove.
>
> I am very clear that Ron wants it to result in a ‘higher number’ so
> the energy efficiency, in terms of how much fuel is needed to operate
> the stove, appears better than it is. I have understood that from the
> start. You cannot mis-report the fuel consumption. You can report the
> fuel consumption and also the char production. But you can’t weasel
> the energy in the char into a better fuel consumption number, because
> making char does not reduce the amount of fuel consumed. That is not
> complicated.
>
> >As I said, "playing with words." I refer ONLY to the topic of char
> that needs to be taken into account.
>
> Taken into account to report what? The fuel consumption? You have
> agreed it is not the same as ‘fuel’. Fine. Then it is not going to
> raise the fuel efficiency. Now what? What are you going to call this
> char energy? I have proposed calling it the char energy retention
> efficiency (CERE) so that a stove which produces more char per input
> of fuel while maintaining the cooking ability gets rewarded with a
> higher CERE number. If it also cooks better it can have a higher
> cooking efficiency.
>
> If it cooks better should it get a higher CERE number? Of course not.
> The char production didn’t increase.
>
>
> >And you said that I would agree that knowing "heat transfer
> efficiency" woud not be helpful to me. I disagree. It is certainly
> useful to know how well a stove gets the heat transferred into the pot.
>
> I said it would not help you find a metric that reports the efficiency
> of char production. Of course the HTE is helpful, but not to
> regulators or buyers, any more than the efficiency of second gear in a
> car. It is the whole package that delivers the fuel efficiency number.
>
> I also suggest you could report the market value of the input fuel and
> the output char. If the ratio of char/wood is greater than 1, it is a
> money maker. That is a highly contextual market value but still, it
> would drive sales if there is a benefit.
>
> Please read the formulas again where cooking and char production are
> combined.
>
> (B+C)/A
>
> Give it a name, ask that it be reported. How about ‘Energy Benefit’?
> That could be used to report space heating as well because some stoves
> do that. For the on in the example the Energy Benefit would be 75%,
> and the breakdown of that would follow: 12.5/25/37.5
>
> That gives the buyer a clear indication of what they are getting.
> Maybe they want to see that middle number a lot higher and are not
> worried about cooking (cooking efficiency is not important in
> Kyrgyzstan – the heat tea water only, most of the time.)
>
> Remember you have to clearly define what constitutes ‘char’ as it is
> only a portion of the residual solids. ‘Opinion’ cannot factor into it
> much. It is hard to regulate opinion.
>
> Regards
>
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170123/0ac5269b/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list