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

Fri Jun 2 12:54:38 CDT 2017

Dear Ranyee,

It's been some time since I wanted to get back to you about the Round Robin
Testing (RRT).
You have now answered all my questions, and I thank you for that, but in
fact, we still don't know much about the RRT.
The details of its methodology and its results seem confidential and
reserved only to the participating testing centers.

You say that the only protocol being used in the RRT is the "advanced WBT".
What is the "advanced WBT"? Is it the last version, the WBT 4.2.3?

As it's been demonstrated by the studies, which I listed again at the bottom
of this email, the WBT has serious fundamental errors that render it of
little use for stoves comparison nor development. None of the WBT versions
have solved these errors, for these errors are intrinsic to the WBT.

You said "All protocols have flaws and trade-offs that address different
priorities.  My personal decision is that there is room for every person,
every testing center, and all protocols to improve, and that's why my focus
has been on facilitating collaboration and moving forward."

I think this is misrepresenting the true picture. You are putting all
protocols on the same level, but they are far from being equal. The WBT is
much more problematic than the others, and cannot give a clear idea of stove
performance.
As mentioned by Lombardi and al., testing should be contextual:
"In fact, as more and more studies seem to demonstrate, performance
evaluation is not merely concerned with the stove, but rather depends on an
integrated Cooking System, composed of: stove design, fuel and moisture
content, burn cycle and type of pots used. The concept that relying on a
fixed testing procedure it is possible to predict performances of a specific
stove in any circumstance is totally misleading." 
It is the responsibility of the GACC to give a honest picture about the
state-of-the-art in stove testing, because not all protocols are the same,
no.
Doing that is perpetuating the mistakes, again, and again, and again. It is
blending what works okay with what doesn't work at all. It is making no
distinction between the imperfect and the very broken.

You have told me that the third party organization managing the RRT is
CLASP:
http://clasp.ngo/
I don't know if CLASP has the technical expertise to work on testing
protocols issues and improvements. But it seems that within the RRT, they
are only given the WBT to work on, so they might not be able to see that
there are better alternatives.

It's been now more than 4 months, and we have shown how flawed is the WBT,
how there exists other, better, alternatives for stove testing, like the
CSI, for example.
We are also seeing that the GACC answer and actions on such an important
issue have been, and are still, falling very short.

We don't think anything positive nor useful will come from the RRT. It is
difficult to understand why today, in 2017, any time and resources are spent
on producing WBT results that will have a very high variability, and will
not be exploitable, nor help draw any conclusion on testing matters. We
don't think this action by the GACC is up to the challenge of making stove
testing reliable.
We hope the ISO TC 285 can help solve this, but so far it has been a very
long process, and we know very little of what is happening there, and how
the issues are addressed.

We have waited more than enough from the GACC for solutions that never came.
We are not willing to wait any longer, and are now calling for a
collaborative, open, transparent effort to improve cookstove testing.

Those who are interested can contact me (xvr.brandao- at gmail.com) or Crispin
Pemberton-Pigott (crispinpigott at outlook.com).

Best regards,

Xavier

*	Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in experimental analysis
for improved and traditional three-stone fire cookstoves

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagati
on_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_th
ree_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagatio
n_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_thr
ee_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves

*	Key differences of performance test protocols for household biomass
cookstoves. Twenty-Second Domestic Use of Energy, IEEE 2014:1-11.
 <http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/>
http://energyuse.org.za/document-archive/

To access the file, select DUE [Domestic Use of energy COnference]. Select
DUE 2014. Select PROCEEDINGS. Select paper by Zhang etal (PDFs arranged
alphabetically).

*	Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove
interventions: experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project.
Energy Sustainable Dev 2007;11:57-70. 

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&t
ype=pdf>
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.783&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf

*	The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol
 <http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd>
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1534&context=etd

*	Influence of testing parameters on biomass stove performance and
development of an improved testing protocol

<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-p
arameters.pdf

*	How many replicate tests are needed to test cookstove performance
and emissions? - Three is not always adequate.

<http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-et
-al._final.pdf>
http://gadgillab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/D-13-00075-Wang-et-
al._final.pdf

*	Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for
thermal performance of biomass stoves

<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptua
l_errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stove
s>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_Systematic_and_conceptual
_errors_in_standards_and_protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves

*	Quality assurance for cookstoves testing centers: calculation of
expanded uncertainty for WBT

<http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%2
0Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncerta
inty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf>
http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%20
Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertai
nty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf

*	Key factors of thermal efficiency test protocols

<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1
&type=pdf>
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1000.3936&rep=rep1&
type=pdf

*	Towards a standard for clean solid-fuelled cookstoves

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_a_standard_for_cl
ean_solid-fuelled_cookstoves 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170602/431bb37c/attachment.html>