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

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 28 21:51:53 CDT 2017


Xavier:

Apologies for my rather delayed response. The Lombardi et al. paper
"Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves (ICSs): A
review of state-of-the-art and further developments" (Biomass and
Bioenergy, 2017)

They say "The WBT is the most detailed protocol officially published." I
very much disagree. Some versions - in particular, those adopted by the
governments in India and China - may have official sanction. To my
knowledge the Berkeley-Approvecho versions in the US have no official
sanction. Research and activist community can agree among themselves what
is worth measuring, how to measure and report it, but at the end of that
all, who is ever going to provide warranties for purported savings in fuel
and life based on these methods and ratings?

Anyway, their paper is very significant. To some of us, the issues they
raise are age-old, just that the EPA mania has driven out all "inconvenient
facts" out of the discussion.

Examples, with my emphasis:

   - "..they (protocols such as WBT) still rely on classifying a stove
   design on a “Performance Tier” *as if the results were inherent to that
   particular design, independently from the fuel, the pot and the burn
   sequence, leading to misinterpretations and failures in technology
   selection*. A large part of tests published on the GACC Clean Cooking
   Catalog are in fact *missing wood type and moisture content details, yet
   Tiers ratings are evaluated in any case. The key concept to be highlighted
   is that no design can be considered as generally valid, since stoves do not
   have only intrinsic characteristics, but their performance are rather
   dependent on local circumstances, particularly as regards fuel consumption
   and emissions*."
   - "In addition to the above considerations, further reflections should
   concern the repeatability of results, the formulation of performance
   metrics and the statistical analysis of data. T*raditional boiling
   procedures are in fact characterised by large variability in test results,
   which other protocols try to address focusing on thermodynamic sources of
   uncertainty *(viz. boiling regime and evaporation), and in particular
   limiting the temperature to a given threshold and insulating the pot."

They end with "a possible research path for the definition of a standard"
that is a list of complaints about the theoretical vacuity of the metrics
and measurement protocols GACC has been pushing at TC-285, leave aside the
practical usefulness.

Thank you so much for identifying this very important piece of
peer-reviewed paper.

It's not just the historical abuse and the pretense of "official" of
various WBTs that are of concern; all metrics and protocols need to be
re-examined. EPA/PCIA have propagated a paradigm of "clean cookstoves" that
is basically hollow; they have more to do with bureaucratic power and
career interests, raising money, than to understand cooking and cooks.

The fundamental questions are:

1. To what extent is boiling water a proxy for cooking?

2. If fuel efficiency is ruled out as a significant metric, what does it
matter if WBT does not reliably predict "fuel savings"?

I don't know when "time to get to boiling" was removed as a metric of WBT
and PM 2.5 hourly emission rate was added in. To me, the former is relevant
and the latter has no rationale in the levels or the methods as I wrote
just now to the List.

Unless the UN Foundation is bound by some secret contractual agreement with
the EPA on pushing the IWA Tiers, targets and measurement methods at
TC-285, GACC needs to behave like a partnership to serve cooks via
designing stoves.

The idea that somehow an international standards-setting with two worthless
metrics will get all market agents in line and money will rain was a
deliberate lie - just so as generate hype. "Clean air will descend from the
heaven and millions of souls will be saved from premature ascent to the
heaven."

The Johnson-Chiang paper two years ago and then the "implementation
science" paper earlier this year were, I am now forced to conclude,
advocacy pieces for LPG and electricity, no matter what it would cost to
have complete transition from cooking fuel PM2.5 emissions.

I have no problem with advocating the use of LPG and electricity; I just
wish the claims for reducing wood demand and disease incidence had any
basis in facts. Biomass has multiple uses, PM2.5 have multiple sources, and
people suffer many diseases with many risk factors, analysis of
cause-effect relation of which is confounded by, well, confounding and
variability inherent in individual health.

Let's wait and see the results of DfID research project to GACC on
"Evidence Base". GACC claimed last November, The health, social,
environment, and climate benefits of clean and efficient cooking depend on
technology and fuel performance, degree of sustained use, and number of
households reached. These three areas (performance, adoption, and scale)
are the focus of the Alliance’s marketbased strategy. The Alliance has
developed *evidence-based models to estimate potential impacts *under
scenarios with major advances in each of these three areas." For
performance, they will need to produce evidence of fuel savings and
emission reductions by means of some test protocol. and also some protocol
for monitoring the disease consequences. (I don't know if such a protocol
for health effects even exists. But that is another story.)

Nikhil


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


On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Ranyee, everyone,
>
>
>
> Actually, I didn’t give you the right link to Francesco Lombardi’s paper,
> here it is below:
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X
>
>
>
> The old link refers to an old version prior to publication in the Biomass
> and Bioenergy journal.
>
>
>
> Please find the paper attached in pdf as well.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* Xavier Brandao [mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 2 juin 2017 19:55
> *À :* 'stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org'; 'rchiang at cleancookstoves.org'
> *Cc :* 'lcordes at cleancookstoves.org'; 'npenumetcha at cleancookstoves.org'
> *Objet :* [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
>
>
>
> 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@gmail.com
> <http://xvr.brandao%1f@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_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_
>    analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves
>    <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_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/
>
> 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&type=pdf
>
>
>    - The shortcomings of the U.S. protocol
>    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-parameters.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
>
>
>    - Systematic and conceptual errors in standards and protocols for
>    thermal performance of biomass stoves
>    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309689616_
>    Systematic_and_conceptual_errors_in_standards_and_
>    protocols_for_thermal_performance_of_biomass_stoves
>    <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%20Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/
>    2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertainty,%20Gorrity,%20M.pdf
>    <http://www.newdawnengineering.com/website/library/Stove%20Testing/Testing%20Protocols/American%20WBT,%20CCT,%20KPT/2014%20March%20WBT%204.2.x%20Uncertainty,%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
>
>
>    - Towards a standard for clean solid-fuelled cookstoves
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274706950_Towards_
> a_standard_for_clean_solid-fuelled_cookstoves
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170628/3376bee7/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list