[Stoves] Stove testing -

[Frank Shields]

Nikhil,

Biomass will be burned for cooking and heat long after we are gone. And we haven’t even begun to realize the potential of the biomass stove. Pellets, pressed biomass, wood chips, as well as other means to prepare and standardize the fuels. Then we have electronic to control the gasses and fans to spin using heat from the stove and many other ideas people will come up with as new controls come on the market. But an improvement can only be determined by a controlled measure. Without a measure we just talk about how it burned so nice. And we go in circles as we have been doing for the past ten years. It will happen It just won’t be us doing it. 

Frank










> On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Frank: 
> 
> As things stand, only Gold Standard Foundation is offering aDALYs, using Kirk Smith's HAPIT, a thinly veiled marketing tool for LPG or "Tier 4" (ISO protocols, whatever they are).
> 
> THAT is the measure of "truly health protective" Kirk Smith is marketing (i.e., HAPIT, not any stove as such). 
> 
> While Gold Standard demands WBT, no technical improvement in stoves have much value. 
> 
> So, public donors for bulk procurement as well as private middlemen such as Gold Standard and CDM need to get away from WBT. 
> 
> The stakes are not small.  
> 
> Nikhil
> 
> PS: Gold Standard sells aCO2 and aDALY monitoring and certification services in its own name (no public authority required). aDALY may not require any stove testing, since - to my knowledge - DALYs were not based on any emissions, just concentrations. Pretty much like WBT - a fuel-free, cook-free metric so as to raise propaganda hell.  
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Nikhil writes:
>> 
>> . The real task is to see whether a "truly health protective" biomass stove can be marketed at scale in the next five years.
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> Crispin writes:
>> 
>>  At first blush, because the EPA wanted to create a set of tiers for performance similar to the ones they have for other industries, and to embed the WBT as the go-to test method 
>> 
>> before it was seriously challenged in academic circles. Obviously it was already being challenged by the private sector.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Frank writes:
>> 
>> To achieve the goal Nikhil mentions we only need to replace the Go-To test Crispin mentions with something that is not flawed, is robust, simple and information provided on; Biomass >> to >> Task (6-Box system) such that the test can be 
>> 
>> repeated at different labs. This Go-To test is the core for all the other parameters like Tiers, PM2.5, energy eff., selection for a receiving site, health & safety, measurements for making improvements. Etc. Etc.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We NEED a Go-To test before we can do anything else. That’s what needs our full attention IMO.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Frank Shields
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>> Keith Day Company, Inc.
>> 1091 Madison Lane
>> Salinas, CA  93907
>> (831) 246-0417 <tel:(831)%20246-0417> cell
>> (831) 771-0126 <tel:(831)%20771-0126> office
>> 
>> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>  
> 
> 

Thanks

Frank

Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office

franke at cruzio.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171001/d8374b1d/attachment.html>