[Stoves] Fuel qualities as the limiting factor, and getting rid of WBT (Was: Frank on helium surrogate)

Traveller miata98 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 27 03:21:55 CST 2017


Frank:

Excellent. Small pieces from you have advanced the quality of discussion -
advancing some claims that I was in no position to make as an amateur in
combustion science. Thank you so much.

I too have been thinking for some time that the limiting factor is
homogeneous fuel.  From public policy viewpoint, it is much easier to
subsidize fuel when stoves are already being used. It is not so easy to
pick fuel standards and design subsidy mechanisms, but it is a more
promising avenue than capital subsidies for mere stoves that may not be
used much or don't perform the way users want or public policy rationale
may justify.

Another way of looking at it is that modern biomass stoves with processed
homogeneous fuel may easily out-compete unsubsidized LPG in non-household
markets in some places. I long ago tired of hearing "2 billion people",
"300 million households", basically saying that poor people are poor and
women ought to be doing all the cooking in individual households, not buy
foods or develop community kitchens. (All the blood that spilled from the
hearts of chatterers professing concern for the poorest went waste, as the
numbers rose to 3 billion people and 600 million households over the last
20 years. Ron here hasn't yet told me whose meals - and how many - were
cooked with super-duper biomass stoves in the last 30 years of this list.)

Very few people have paid attention to fuel chemistry, composition of gases
and particulates, and variations therein over time and across places. Very
little of what Ron is fond of calling "stove science" is really much of
science. (Yes, it's a damning charge but I will burden of proof on those
who disagree.)

Inadvertently you have shown not only that the Emperor has no clothes, he
also has no limbs.

When you say "A lot can be improved if the available fuel is sized and
moisture controlled over anything else we do.", you are also saying (to me)
that Cecil's comment that the IWA process is premature was on the mark.
Obsessing over stoves and ignoring the fuel and the cook has been the
hallmark of the "biomass stovers" movement over the years; I have had
enough, but then what am I?

***********
Now about WBT. As a bystander, I got sick of WBT 30+ years ago and it has
been so abused (another post), I do think everything should start from
scratch. GACC and IWA have thoroughly abused the scientific process.

Did anybody ever ask what testing protocols were used for the so-called WHO
emissions database upon which IHME GoBbleDygook was concocted and in turn
used to justify the silly WHO IAQ Guidelines for Household Fuels Combustion?

BAMG prepared a Stoves Inventory for GACC, uncritically throwing numbers.
That is how herds receive wisdom these days; who cares what was done so
long as numbers can be put in computers and global doom can be predicted?

There is just too much of a political mess with some standard WBT. As Tami
says, TC 285 national members can vote against the final product. I think
that a final product should not be voted against just because the testing
protocol was CONCEPTUALLY wrong. It's not a question of tweaking equations
or producing something that Fabio Riva, et al. may argue gives sufficient
predictability in field performance.

Time to throw WBT Up in Smoke, at least for IWA purposes. No point cribbing
about results from the past; just trash it all and start anew.

All Xavier is asking is that GACC disavow WBT. Anybody who wants to use WBT
is free to do so.

It will take a couple of years before other tests are "proven" useful. I
hope Crispin, GERES, you, can start testing stoves that have already been
used in actual homes or shops for cooking or water/space heating.

****
Now, I need some graphic understanding, but let me ask you a dumb question
- which gases come in at the primary and secondary levels?

I have two reasons to ask:

a) the importance of fuel chemistry (instead of some pre-specified wood,
having a range of locally used biomass or new processed biomass) at various
stages of combustion; and,

b) specific toxicity of gases (I am annoyed to no end with this
"equitoxicity" assumption of Burnett et al. 2014 that then gets plugged
into the IHME GoBbleDygook, into WHO pronouncements of Tiers and Emission
RateTargets).

Nikhil



---------
(India +91) 909 995 2080


On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:

> Nikhil,
>
> The surrogate is all about learning more about the conditions for the best
> combustion. Then using it to ‘read’ what is taking place and monitoring
> adjustments that are made. I think more can be done measuring the gases
> just before the secondary. Not after. And the surrogate allows for very
> accurate measurements as the solid turns to a gas - IF IT WORKS!
>
> It is obvious (to me) that the limiting factor now is providing a
> homogenous fuel for the stove. A lot can be improved if the available fuel
> is sized and moisture controlled over anything else we do. Once that is
> done the next step is study the combustion.
>
> We cannot make and present a test procedure now. We have more work to do
> and that means money and a good lab to do the right work. Labs also need to
> stay in business and that means to have samples received, work done and
> payments made. That is why I do not suggest we give up on the WBT until we
> assign the labs another task to do regarding stove testing. It will not be
> good to lose the stove testing labs. There will be plenty of work for them
> to do if what I am thinking ever takes place.
>
> With all the modern testing equipment I believe we can take biomass stoves
> to a new level. Once we know what gas mix we want and the adjustments
> needed to achieve that we can really fine tune these little stoves. But
> just a pipe dream?
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170127/5f3ddc4f/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list