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

Fri Jun 23 13:10:29 CDT 2017

Tom:

To my knowledge, the KPT and the CCT were not reported in the stoves
catalog nor the IWA in January 2012.

This is significant because it is the IWA and the WHO Guidelines for Solid
Fuel Use - both relying on WBT - that laid down the performance metrics,
and sanctified the test protocol.

I would be very happy to see KPT and CCT applied to different types of
stoves in different contexts and then have a contextually relevant (i.e.,
according to fuel, cook, and food) measurements that can then be assigned
some Tiers and aspirational Emission Rate Targets.

What we have is a subversion of method. I sent you my outline of
alternative metrics -- I didn't go into protocols -- in my piece from late
December. Apart from Anil and Crispin, I saw no comment. I assume that the
rest of the list doesn't care or is tired of WBT anyway.

Why, I see here
<http://ofenmacher.org/files/4314/0376/3573/WBT_Version_3.0_0.pdf> an
announcement by Rob Bailis et al. in 2007 (on WBT 3.0.0):

"This modified version of the well-known Water Boiling Test (WBT) is *a
rough simulation of t*he cooking process that is intended to help stove
designers understand *how well energy is transferred* from the fuel to the
cooking pot." (emphasis added)

Ok. It is a rough simulation for heat transfer. Not much else. They further
say:

"In order to be applicable to many different types of stoves, the WBT is *only
a rough approximation of actual cooking*. It is done in controlled
conditions by trained technicians. Therefore, it can’t provide much
information about how the stove performs when cooking real foods. To get an
understanding of how the stove performs cooking foods cooked by local
people, stove testers should use the Controlled Cooking Test (CCT) that has
been developed in parallel with this test. Similarly,* the WBT can’t be
used to accurately predict actual changes in fuel consumption* among
families who adopt an improved stove. A Kitchen Performance Test (KPT),
which compares fuel consumption in households using the improved to
households using a traditional stove, should be conducted before drawing
any conclusions about changes in fuel consumption among real stove-users."

Why, even the WBT 4.2.3 version
<https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/399-1.pdf> I
see starts out " It is intended to measure *how efficiently a stove uses
fuel to heat water* in a cooking pot and the quantity of emissions produced
while cooking."

And CSU
<https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/73-1.pdf> in
its irrational exuberance "to refine and standardize the well-known Water
Boiling Test (WBT) *to serve as a global standard*" also recognized,

"Specific variables such as stove design, fuel type, altitude, climate,
cooking application, and end-user cooking and fueling habits *can
dramatically affect overall stove performance. *For this reason, no single
test provides a complete measurement or predictor of stove field
performance. Used together, the following three tests do provide a more
complete picture. While this standardized protocol focuses on the EPTP, it
is important to understand how it relates to other tests of stove
performance." (emphasis added; the tests listed are ETPT, CCT and KPT).

Whoever in the world gave this group the authority to claim that boiling
water is cooking? Just because you heat water in a "cooking pot" (define a
cooking pot!!) doesn't mean it is cooking. Nor is efficiency the Holy Grail.

Power plant steam generators understandably measure fuel efficiency. But I
doubt EPRI will accept some EPA- or Berkeley-blessed protocol.

Given Bailis, et al. (2007) cautions if nothing else (see Xavier's recent
posts and Crispin's earlier references to Fabio's work), it is
unconscionable -- and legally impermissible -- for GACC, Gold Standard, and
the aDALY computers at BAMG to go on imposing the WBT for formal
transactions.

I don't have any particular knowledge that GACC required the use of WBT in
investment projects in different countries it claims to have promoted
"clean cookstoves", but then I have heard no disclaimer from Ranyee either
that it has never done so. But if the host countries chose to be fooled, it
is their problem, not GACC's.

Rather, it is the CDM and voluntary carbon markets where the Gold Standard
interference in demanding WBT may become more than just "gentlemen's
agreement".

I don't have enough knowledge of ISO procedural rules, and I am assuming
ISO isn't going to enshrine the WBT in its declarations of "voluntary
standards". Researchers are free to do what they want; when public money is
involved, they must get a legal cover.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Jiddu,
>
> The WBT (boiling and simmering) is not a stand-alone measure of a stove.
> Taken together - the WBT, Kitchen Performance Test, and Controlled Cooking
> Test -what specifically would you change to simulate stove performance
> while
> cooking?
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Jiddu alexander
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 2:26 AM
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting, the
> WBT
>
> Dear Nikhil,
>
> Any stove developer is entitled to use whatever performance testing
> protocol
> for their product development. However, the WBT has in my view been the
> standard (maybe less so since all the stovelist discussions).
> Most new players joining the field (funders, companies, universities,
> etc.) will generally gravitate to using the WBT. This leads automatically
> to
> the fact that many stoves are being developed and optimised using the WBT
> protocol.
>
> My opinion is that a stove optimised using the WBT protocol is almost
> certainly not optimised for field performance, it has a random influence on
> field performance. Not only because of CO, PM or efficiency, also due to
> boiling and simmering phases. Further more it contains bad science (of
> which
> simmering is a big part) that confuses scientists who come into the stove
> field.
>
> You mentioned:
>
> a) I see no reason to care if WBT is unreliable about efficiency and fuel
> savings. Has WBT use harmed anybody? I am still waiting for an answer.
>
> I think the WBT harms stove development in many more ways than we can
> imagine, partly as my opinion describes above.
>
> The GACC has a responsibility because so many players (th companies,
> funders, etc.) will follow their advice. I don't think a proper shift away
> from the WBT can be achieved without an official declaration by GACC.
>
> Best,
> Jiddu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170623/a14ff463/attachment.html>