[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
kgharris
kgharris at sonic.net
Fri Jun 2 23:56:47 CDT 2017
Paul and All,
Thanks Paul and James for the clairifications.
Choosing state of the art TLUD-ND stoves to use in a survey, as advised by
the leaders in the field is the wisest way to go. Going back years to get
stoves and data is a bad choice since TLUD-NDs are experiencing dynamic
improvements today. The improved new TLUD-ND stoves are well thought
through, well designed, and have gone through the long and difficult
development
stages with acceptance from their target populations. I am happy to read
that the
best production stoves will be included in future surveys.
Kirk H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
<stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott"
<crispinpigott at outlook.com>; <ndesai at alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
> Jim,
>
> Thank you for the corrections. I have never seen or used either Stove 4
> or Stove 10, but I should have remember #4 and paid more attention before
> sending my comments. So I change my earlier comment:
>
>> THIS IS OUT: #4. Stove Tec Prototype. Lousy choice to be
>> representing TLUD-FA stoves. This is old by TLUD standards.
>> It was tested years ago with great results. Only one unit ever made, as
>> far as I know..
>
> THIS IS IN: #4. Stove Tec Prototype. Acceptable choice for showing
> low emissions of TLUD-ND stoves because it was tested in earlier studies,
> but it is not reprsentative of existing, in production, TLUD-ND stoves.
> #4 is old by TLUD standards.
> It was tested years ago with great results. Only one unit ever made, as
> far as I know..
>
>
> Further Interpretations.
> On the summary Figure 5 of the article (I think I am not allowed to paste
> it here, but maybe Jim as a co-author of the artilce might be able to put
> that one Figure 5 onto a Listserv message), there are 3 measurement scales
> relating to particulate sizes:
>
> 1. PM measured as <2.5 MICRO meter Which is < 2500 nm. This is the
> most used measurement about bad particulates
>
> 2. UFP (Ultra fine particles) measured with diameter less than 100 nm
> (Nanometer). 100 nm = 0.1 micrometer.
>
> 3. Fractions of particles smaller than 30 nm. [This is a fraction or
> percentage, with values for Alcohol and LPG (42 to 22% respectively being
> not much differenent from the Jiko Poa (rocket) stoves with low moisture
> and high moisture wood. Even the 3-stone fire at about 46% . So I do
> not know much about interpreting those results, and make no further
> comments about these fractions.]
>
> A. In PM2.5 and UFP, the 3-stone fire is the worst or second worst, and
> the three burners Alcohol and LPG and Kerosene (all very industrially
> processed fuels) are the best. No surprises there.
>
> B. Of all the units with solid fuel (wood and 1 with rice husk and one
> charcoal), the two best (lowest emissions) are the Philips high-turbulance
> (fan-jet) stove (which is not operated as a TLUD stove) and the Stove 4
> TLUD-ND with pellet fuel. Clearly lower PN2.5 readings (about half of the
> readings for rice husk and charcoal. YES, they beat CHARCOAL in the
> PARTICULATE MATTER emissions. The forced-air Philips and the TLUD-ND
> have PM<2.5 about 90 to 100 units (mg/MJ), about 1/7th of the PM 2.5 of
> the 3-stone fire (over 700) and MUCH less than the 460 to 520 units of
> the two rocket stoves. .
>
> C. The wort result result in PM<2.5 was the #10, the low moisture wood in
> the Philips Natural Draft, which was NOT a rocket (side feed) stove, and
> might have been operated as a TLUD-ND. Even if operated as a TLUD-ND, it
> was not a good representative.
>
> COMMENT: I believe that other TLUD-ND stoves (Champion, Prime/Nurhuda,
> Harris Wonderwerk, Peko Pe) will work as well or even better than Stove
> #4. We will need another study to show that. But at this point based on
> the reported research, ONCE AGAIN the TLUD stoves are the BEST of the
> wood-burning devices. AND it was done with NATURAL DRAFT. We need to
> see good comparative testing that also includes the Mimi-Moto and the
> FAABulous and experimental TLUD-FA stoves.
>
> NOTE: This is comparative testing. The results can also be expressed in
> the Tier terminology. (or should that be spelled TEAR
> terminology??(wink). By comparison, LPG and alcohol are cleaner than
> the TLUD stoves, but TLUDs are getting cleaner and cleaner, AND they have
> advantages that LPG and alcohol and kerosene can never have. Factor in
> the issues of fuel supply, fuel price, stove price, and many other things,
> it is high time for the stove community to take notice of the TLUD stoves
> and to get into gear to support them.
>
> I am available to assist anyone regarding TLUD advancement.
>
> 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 6/1/2017 6:58 AM, Jetter, James wrote:
>> Dear Paul and Crispin:
>>
>> We welcome recommendations from you and the stovers for models to test in
>> the future, depending on priorities and the availability of resources for
>> our testing.
>>
>> Following are minor clarifications on Paul’s comments, below.
>>
>> Stove 4 was a natural-draft (not forced-draft) TLUD with pellet fuel.
>>
>> Stove 10 was a natural-draft (but not a rocket) stove - not a side-feed
>> stove.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jim
>>
>> From: Crispin Pemberton-Pigott [mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:29 AM
>> To: Paul Anderson <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; ndesai at alum.mit.edu;
>> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> Cc: Jetter, James <Jetter.Jim at epa.gov>
>> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
>>
>> Dear Paul
>>
>> I generally concur with your comments about the selection. Jim, I have a
>> suggestion: how about asking the stovers for recommendations for models
>> and then do another set of tests?
>>
>> I am particularly pleased to see some parallel tests using far more
>> realistic fuel moisture choices. I don't believe anything about emissions
>> from a stove using fuel with 5% a moisture content. Fuel moisture has a
>> powerful influence on emissions of PM and VOC's.
>>
>> I would recommend stoves that have had at least 1000 sales on a
>> commercial basis (excludes stoves bought by an org and given away) and
>> those which are seen by 'us' to be representative of the state of the
>> art.
>>
>> Included in that category are the TLUD made by Sujatha and one or more
>> models from Prime and Dr Nurhuda.
>>
>> Regards
>> Crispin
>>
>>
>> Stovers,
>>
>> I previously asked:
>> On 5/31/2017 11:22 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 11 fuel-stove combinations covering a variety of fuels and different
>> stoves are investigated for UFP emissions and PNSD.
>> I am interested in knowing if those 11 included what I consider to be the
>> better versions of TLUD stoves, both natural draft and forced air.
>>
>> I have now seen the article, and provide comments ABOUT THE STOVES
>> SELECTED. This is NOT about the quality of measurements, etc.
>>
>> 1. For purposes of review comments, I am allowed to provide some
>> selected information from the publication:
>>
>>
>> **********************************
>> Of interest (to me) are numbers 4, 6, 10, and 11.
>> #4. Stove Tec Prototype. Lousy choice to be representing TLUD-FA
>> stoves. This is old by TLUD standards.
>> It was tested years ago with great results. Only one unit ever made, as
>> far as I know..
>>
>> #6. Belonio TLUD-FA (or FD) with rice husk fuel. Poor choice. Again,
>> an older stove that did not go into
>> [much] production, and using a non-woody fuel when all other comparisons
>> of solid fuels are wood.
>>
>> #10. Although Philips, it is a rocket stove, and not of main interest.
>> #12. The Philips high-turbulance fan-jet stove. This is NOT designed
>> for nor used in TLUD fashion.
>>
>> Net result: This research tells us information that is of very little
>> use and is not representative of the state of
>> the art of TLUD stoves, whether FA or ND.
>>
>> ***************************************
>> Crispin also guided me to another study by essentially the same group:
>> "Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fine Particulate Matter Emitted
>> from Burning Kerosene, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and Wood Fuels in
>> Household Cookstoves"
>> Guofeng Shen,† William Preston,‡ Seth M. Ebersviller,§ Craig Williams,‡
>> Jerroll W. Faircloth,∥
>> James J. Jetter,*,⊥ and Michael D. Hays⊥
>>
>> The solid-fuel (wood) stoves in this study were
>> "(iii) wood (10 and 30% moisture content on a wet basis) in a
>> forced-draft fan stove, and (iv) wood
>> in a natural-draft rocket cookstove."
>>
>> Rockets did not do well (and not an issue with me). But the
>> "forced-draft fan stove" that also was not optimal is
>> of interest to me. What TLUD-FA stove did they choose? An "Eco-chula
>> XXL" which is seen at:
>> http://www.ecochula.co.in/xxl.html
>>
>> I my opinion, that was a terrible choice, (large diameter gives worse
>> emissions, and is not representative of household cooking) and therefore
>> the TLUD-FA results of this study are not representative. From the
>> TLUD perspective, this study only contributed to the PERCEPTION
>> (erroneous in my opinion) that TLUD-FA stoves are not very good.
>>
>> The Mimi Moto TLUD-FA has been available since 2015. That would have
>> been a much better choice.
>> And certainly the Champion TLUD-ND (available since about 2008) is the
>> best choice for that category stove, but is never included.
>>
>> FYI, Except for the BEIA project in Uganda with the Mwoto TLUD-ND, I have
>> never been asked about what TLUD stoves might best be include in testing
>> or in research projects. Never. Not by EPA or CSU or Aprovecho or
>> Berkeley or D-Lab or anyone else.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>> Email: mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu
>> Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
>> Website: http://www.drtlud.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.8013 / Virus Database: 4776/14526 - Release Date: 06/01/17
>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list