[Stoves] solar cooker response (changing thread name)
Roger Samson
rogerenroute at yahoo.ca
Mon Jun 12 12:42:37 CDT 2017
Yes solar thermal cooking is not very popular unless you are in fuel short and dry environment. I worked in central China (Gansu) and they had the leading program in the world at the time but it was still mainly used for boiling potatoes and drinking water. The locals still cooked their noodles and sauces on biomass stoves. Biomass stoves remained their primary stove with solar cookers a secondary appliance.
If you look at the numbers its electrical cooking fueled by solar panels that looks like its going to get very cheap. In terms of convenience and safety it doesnt get better than electrical cooking. I think it will largely replace gas stoves in the future.
regards
Roger
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 6/11/17, Anand Karve <adkarve at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Stoves] solar cooker response (changing thread name)
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Received: Sunday, June 11, 2017, 10:10 PM
We have a
lot of sunshine in India, and yet solar cookers are not very
popular in India. Our organization has sold more solar
dryers than solar cookers. We used to offer a very fancy
looking pyramid shaped dryer, but I have recently designed
one that just looks like a shelf covered by a sheath of
plastic film. It does not look as attractive as the
pyramidal one, but it offers a larger drying area per unit
floor space.YoursA.D.Karve
***
Dr.
A.D. Karve
Chairman,
Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com)
Trustee & Founder
President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
On
Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:
Philip: adding the
list, which I assume Philip intended.
On Jun
7, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
wrote:
Dear
Ron,It sure would help if you
could address the questions I raised, instead of referring
to some wiki web in support of your
position
RWL:
Not “some wiki web”. This is a long standing NGO
site, designed to educate about solar cooking.
It contains high quality material on all of Philip’s
comments.
Philip
RWL: Here I repeat in italics
the entire set of comments (NO “questions) from
Philip’s message on the 6th, with my new inserted replies
in bold. In summary, I think Philip has an inappropriate
view of solar cookers - which of course MUST have backup -
preferably from char-making stoves. See the full exchange
further down. I cited the SCI wiki material because it
fully covered all the responses I next make (and still think
are not needed).
1. Cooking is a personal
thing. Cooks like to be involved, to stir, to taste, to
season, to improve. Just sitting and waiting
is ‘wrong' RWL1: I like the
first part. I disagree that the average cook feels
it “wrong” to “sit and wait”. It is in no way
difficult to “stir, taste, and season” while solar
cooking takes place.
2. One
cloudy day, one family of unfed children, one less solar
cooker
[RWL2:
I conclude that Philip has done little solar cooking. I
have never heard of any solar cook anywhere who ONLY used a
solar cooker.
3. Nature
abhors a vacuum - monkeys, warthogs, porcupines, even
passers-by, found the food too attractive to leave in the
sun. [RWL3: Anyone
have any statistics on this “vacuum” problem? It
seems a stretch to say this is a problem only for solar
cooking.
There may be places in the world where
none of this applies, or where people have learned to use
the cookers when the sun shines, but it is not a general
solution to the cooking problem.
[RWL4: I have been
going to solar cooking conferences for 40 years - and never
recall anyone saying that solar cooking is a “general
solution”.
Since Philip wants
more of my personal views, let me add to my concluding
sentence “ There are plenty of
reasons for this list to be supportive of more solar
cooking. by noting:
Solar cookers are by
far the most healthy type of stove.
By far the best from a
forest preservation perspective. By far the lowest in
an atmospheric carbon addition sense.
I am not working as
much on solar cookers now as in the past - because they
can’t remove atmospheric carbon, as can char-making
stoves. (I keep looking for combined solar -
char-making systems.)
Ron
From: Ronal
W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.
net]
Sent: Wednesday,
June 7, 2017 5:08 PM
To: Discussion
of biomass; Philip Lloyd
Cc: Roger
Samson
Subject: Re:
[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of
Cookstoves Philip, list,
Roger: This
“Integrated” site is from 2005 or we would see TLUDs
mentioned I believe: http://solarcooking.wikia.
com/wiki/Integrated_Cooking_
Method . There
are plenty of reasons for this list to be supportive of more
solar cooking. Ron On Jun 6, 2017, at 1:19 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
wrote: I
recall a message 30 years ago "The future for much of
the world for clean cooking will be with cheap renewable
solar power." A few years passed, and I wrote "The
road to the North is littered with abandoned solar
cookers." We found:
1. Cooking
is a personal thing. Cooks like to be involved, to stir,
to taste, to season, to improve. Just sitting and waiting is
'wrong'
2. One
cloudy day, one family of unfed children, one less solar
cooker
3. Nature
abhors a vacuum - monkeys, warthogs, porcupines, even
passers-by, found the food too attractive to leave in the
sun.
There may be places in the world where none of
this applies, or where people have learned to use the
cookers when the sun shines, but it is not a general
solution to the cooking problem.
Philip Lloyd
Behalf Of Roger Samson
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:40 PM
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; ndesai at alum.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Fine Particulates from a
Selection of Cookstoves
I
just wish GACC would drop its obsession to push clean
cooking with fossil fuels as its lead strategy. It's a
low sustainability agenda subsiding fossil fuels and money
intensive. It's no better than a win-lose.
The future for much of the
world for clean cooking will be with cheap renewable solar
power. It is dropping in price at 20%/year. Check out this
video how it will be a disruptive technology for the entire
energy sector.
Clean Disruption - Why
Conventional Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by
2030 - Oslo, March 2016 https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM&feature= youtu.be
The nice
thing about solar powered cooking with electricity is that
in much of the developing world, lunch is a big part of the
thermal energy demand for cooking. Many overburdened women
simply re-heat food for dinner to save labour and fuel.
Renewable power from solar energy is a great fit. You can do
most of your cooking when power is cheapest and most
reliable. We need to see more cookstove innovations around
renewable solar including integrating solar thermal and
electric cooking and heat retaining devices.
regards
Roger
------------------------------
--------------
On Sun, 6/4/17, Nikhil Desai
<pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
wrote:
Subject: Re:
[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of Cookstoves
To: "Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
org>
Received: Sunday, June 4, 2017,
1:56 PM
Tom:
I agree. It is the US,
Europe,
and Japan experience from the 1960s
and the 1970s that I learned the history of clean air
legislation and regulation across the board. Later, while
working on domestic coal use in China, Vietnam, South
Korea and Mongolia that I realized how the easiest quick
gains were in industrial and power plant
shutdowns/relocation, city gas rehabilitation, and just
plain new urban habitats. Towns and villages were and are
still a problem as far as ambient air pollution goes. In
India, peri-urban pollution from wastes, brick-making,
chemical spills is tremendous.
Why, the last I checked in
2015, India did not even have emission standards for
coal-fired power plants.
(The government had
proposed some draft standards for all "thermal"
power plants, without any mention of averaging periods or
measurement protocols).
And GACC fantasizes
regulating
500+ million stoves in this
environment? Oversight by its "implementation
science" experts with not a quantum of real life
experience in regulatory compliance?
Wow. It takes
such courage to believe in GACC and "clean
cooking solutions".
I sent
you one
e-mail with different way of looking at stoves. As far as
the "way forward" goes, I do truly believe
people need to first be prepared to break away from the
decades long obsession with poor households (without
understanding the cooks and their immediate environments,
interests, assets) and energy efficiency. It is only by
saying "NONE OF THIS ANY MORE" that they will
turn to something else.
I see
such
energies rising in some quarters. Please be patient. I
will design a strategy to spend $20 m to raise and spend
$1 billion. Spending money well is not at all easy. And if
there is no money to spend, why bother devising a way
forward? Isn't the whole donor class taken in by TC
285's "international standards"?
Isn't GACC looking to
raise $500+ m in Delhi this October? Why
don't we ask how it has spent money to date and how it
plans to spend it in the future, other than holding
"summits" for black carbon to advocate banning
of coal?
I beg your pardon and
patience.
Nikhil
------------------------------
------------------------------ ------------
Nikhil Desai(India +91) 909 995 2080
Skype:
nikhildesai888
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at
10:26
PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com>
wrote:
Quantifying improvements
in
the complicated environments of
households is clearly a challenge but stovers on this list
see improvements from their efforts which is why we keep
working at it.
If you weren’t
around
Europe and the US in the 1970s you
wouldn’t appreciate how much wood stove and industrial
emissions regulation has helped air quality and public
health. Ask any asthmatic.
We can blog
all day but where
are the suggestions for a
path forward? What do you propose?
Where is
the data? What is the expected outcome?
How can existing forums be
used to raise the issues and propose solutions?
Who are the peers who should review the process? If you
were to pick a team who would they be? How are the peers
different than those intimately involved in design,
development, testing and policy who we see here, at Ethos,
or in Warsaw?
Crispin has made a
start
below. Tom From: Stoves
[mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.b
ioenergylists.org]
On Behalf Of Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: Thursday, June
01, 2017
1:18 PM
To: Stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.o
rg>
Subject: Re:
[Stoves] Fine Particulates from a Selection of
Cookstoves Dear Nikhil I think the idea of a webinar
on the subject is a great idea.
What has
been emerging on this list over the past few months is a
much more professional look at what is needed in the
servicing of the domestic energy sector. It is
important to get straight what the problems and
opportunities are, and what solutions can be implemented
on what time scale. While you have made repeated
mention of the health angle and the current hubris being
based on the suspect work and methods of people you have
personally know for years. That makes your perspective
invaluable because no one else here has that, or chooses
to remain silent. You were absent when I was making a
very loud fuss about the sophomoric conceptual errors in
the WBT and the refusal of Aprovecho and Berkeley (they
were de facto in charge of it at the time. The result was
resistance from the EPA (PCIA at the time) and the authors
of course. After a purpose-convened conference in Seattle,
the EPA relented, basically on the say-so of Kirk Smith
who used as an escape route the fact that the WBT 3.1 had
never been peer reviewed. That led to the development of
WBT4. It took a long time and WBT4.x has most of the
original errors buried in the WBT sine 1985 so that cannot
be called a success. You have had a lot more authority
to challenge the IHME and aDALY (wild) estimates because
you worked with this crowd and know that they themselves
laugh and chortle about how ridiculous the numbers
are. Suppose we took a different tack this
time: lay out the basic lessons in a series of
topics and post them here. Get volunteers to agree to
provide input sections. Ask the EPA to host them under
the Winrock label but require that you chair the events,
or Harold Annegarn or someone with equal experience in the
world of physical testing. If that doesn't appeal
to them, ask the WB to host them.
The C4D
website can host the outputs. With a proper review of
how to get the health-related metrics identified, and what
does and does not constitute a valid calculated number, we
will save a lot of time and money. I think there has
been enough demonstration that there are things seriously
wrong with the concatenated steps that lead to the IMHE
numbers to point to this need.
I am
not
saying we can cure the witchcraft of the aDALY
business, but consider the alternative, using the WBT as
an example. The WBT had irreproducible results and
anointed stoves that failed to perform in the field
anything like they were claimed to have in the lab. No
surprise there. The
WBT4 process started
off well, then a group from Aprovecho and Berkeley and the
University of Colorado went off on their own and
produce a slightly updated version retaining nearly all
the systematic errors of v3.1. Significantly, Kirk
doesn't use it, presumably because it has not been
peer reviewed and/or he did, and it is not fixed.
Either way after all the shouting and rewriting
was done, we as a stove community were no better off. Five
years later Xavier is still trying to get the GACC to
forswear it and admit that all the past test results were
defective. Now what will happen if the health angle is
not corrected on the first major repair job in a decade?
We have very successfully brought large amounts of money
into the domestic cooking and heating sector,
internationally. How is it going to look if expert
reviewers start digging into the swamp of aDALYs and IHME
before we have a chance to drain it? Surely there are
legitimate ways of applying performance and stats to
budgets legitimising stove programmes without just making
things up? Of course there are. At present there is so
much institutional risk in stove projects many of the
big-ups shy away with vigour.
They know the
aDALY numbers are cooked up like a boiled ham. If we
have to reconstruct the justifications from scratch and
first principles, so be it. A good place to start is
within our community of enthusiasts and servicing
personnel. How about some more ideas? You should think
about how you could train field investigators using
webinars.
RegCrispin Crispin: I
lecture you all the time "Do not rush to ascribe to
conspiracy that which mere stupidity would suffice to
explain."
But in this instance, I
smell
a rat. There seems to be a disconnect
between EPA stove testing and cooking. Because there is
nobody from the "cooking" business that is
engaged.
This is so unlike anything
I
have ever observed in the past - from
power plant and industrial boiler emissions regulations to
even the residential wood heater regulations. As a
regulator, EPA has to engage the industry it affects,
understand the economic context of technology, evaluate
control options that meet the basic "service
standard" (certain type of steam, say) and justify
them in terms of specific objective
--
compliance with ambient air quality standards.
Here what has happened is
that
a small junket has been started up by
EPA for cookstove testing when it has no jurisdiction over
cookstove regulation in its own country - US - leave alone
the rest of the world. Nobody has required it to engage
the stove designers and users around the world. There is
no service standard - there cannot be one for some
"integrated" cooking solution. (There can be
some for rice cooker, tortilla maker, griddle, grill,
whatever; you have those for gas and electric appliances,
which are NOT regulated by EPA by the way.)
Yes, a research junket with no
sensible oversight.
But not
without a purpose. The purpose is to acquire --
or pretend to acquire -- enough emissions data to go on
justifying the preference for LPG and electricity. First
begin by condemning solid fuels as "dirty
fuels", then keep testing new biomass stoves so they
can be dismissed as "not truly health
protective" (Kirk Smith's mantra).
Of course,
nobody is going to admit in public that this is
the intent.
Perhaps it is not, it is only
the impact.
I too favor expansion of
access to gas and electricity - and solar,
biogas, as also biomass combustion devices that are
"clean enough"
and USABLE - but I
don't need this raft of irrelevant data on particle
size.
EPA and its contractor can go
on doing what they wish, but we should recognize this
drama for what it is
-- a research
junket.
Not
everything
that goes on in the name of science qualifies to be
treated as such. And certainly not something that pretends
to be science in service of public. I would be hard
pressed to accept that EPA research junket - in
collaboration with its contractors in Berkeley and in
Approvecho - has done much for the 5 billion poor (cohorts
past and future) that have subjected to IHME's Killing
by Assumption.
If this is
too
opaque for people to understand, you and I need to design
a webinar on designing new clothes for the emperor and the
queens.
Nikhil
------------------------Nikhil Desai(India
+91)909 995 2080
Skype:
nikhildesai888 On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:59
AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com>
wrote: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,
PhDEmail: psanders at ilstu.eduSkype:
paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072Website:
www.drtlud.com _____________
_________________ _________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a
Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.or
g
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your
List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.or
g/mailman/listinfo/stoves_list
s.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and
Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.o
rg/
______________________________
_________________
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/
______________________________
_________________
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
More information about the Stoves
mailing list