[Stoves] Work for 2018

[Frank Shields]

Dear Nikhil,

> On Oct 27, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Christa, Crispin, Frank: 
> 
> If "Start with the Fuel" is key to stove design -- makes sense, that's how I have seen in electric utility coal power plant design - does it not follow that an international standard or even a standardized protocol for stoves cannot be just for a stove but stoves for use with particular fuels? 
> 
> Even leaving aside the questions of service standard (what is to be cooked) and cooking sequence (what we in utility business would call "cycling" rather than "base load"), just from first principles of chemistry it makes no sense at all that every stove get an efficiency of emission rating independent of fuel. 
> 
> I suppose the analogy is more appropriate with vehicle engines -- fuel specs are fixed, engine is rated for efficiency and emissions, but the user is free to drive as much as s/he wants and waste as much fuel or cause as much pollution that comes with the choice. But a the fuel is varied too much, the engine is damaged. 
> 
> Who are these "international standards" of TC-285 meant to be applied to and what is sought to be controlled? It cannot be fuel efficiency, because there is an economic trade-off; people may buy cheaper fuels or cheaper stoves (like cars). Nor deforestation because wood has multiple uses and can be grown somewhere or the other. Nor exposure to disease-causing pollutants because such pollutants arise from many sources other than cooking fuel/stove. 

This is where I think you get confused. There is laboratory stuff and out-in-the World stuff. You mix the two. Us laboratory stuff people don’t care if the stove pollutes, does or doesn’t cook, what is the best fuel or if the stove easily tips over. We just make measurements and send them out in a report. The measurements can be used by you to compare one stove to another or to set standards, make purchases etc. The problem has been is that we have not been allowed to do our job. We need money to set up test procedures and research the process of taking measurements that pertain to the qualities YOU think important. 

> I am inclined to the view, “Start with the cook, and optimize fuel/stove to a service standard with some minimum efficiency rating and maximum pollutant emission rating."
> 
There is a problem with this. You end up not having a great choice fuel/stove combinations to pick and will not know the best one(s) until after a great deal of time and money is spent doing ‘field research’ if I understand what you are saying. But that is the only way it can be done at the moment because that list is non existent. AND you cannot state service standards, efficiency standards nor maximum pollution because we have nothing to pick from, we have not controlled all the variables and it may not even be possible to meet these with whats available on site. What are you going to say - no one can cook food today because the stoves are not up to standard? HaHa  You will have a better chance to meet your standards with a long list of possible stoves to pick from and the requirement for fuel these stoves use. Better would be for you to require the fuel used in stoves to be properly prepared for that stove.  We will give you that list of fuel qualities for you to use for a stove type once we determine them based on best performance. You determine if ‘Best’ is good enough. 

> Unless one is prepared to issue cooking licenses like driving licenses and ticket people for "stacking", deforestation. Or impose a Black Carbon tax. 

Just require the properly prepared fuel be used for the stove chosen. 


Regards

Frank


> 
> Nikhil
>  
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:15 PM, CHRISTA ROTH <stoves at foodandfuel.info <mailto:stoves at foodandfuel.info>> wrote:
> Frank, you basically come back to what late Paal Wendelbo always said: START WITH THE FUEL, stove design depends on and should be linked to fuel substance and shape. 
> The slide below is what I use in the Stoves101 for visualisation of that topic. 
> and Crispin is right: we need the predictable fuel behaviour meaning standardised processed fuels so that the stoves have a chance for a predictable performance. 
> There are years of science applied to the elaboration of liquid and gaseous fuels likeLPG and the fuels have to suit the elaborated standards, thus for the associated stoves it is easy to have a standardised performance if the fuel is predictable. it is not the stove that needs to be standardised. 
> The clean cooking system goes well beyond a stove, but it includes more variables like the fuel, the user and the environment and ventilation space.
> 
> 
> <Bildschirmfoto 2017-10-27 um 21.08.14.png>
> 
>> Am 27.10.2017 um 06:01 schrieb Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>>:
>> 
>> Dear Stovers, 
>> 
>> 
>>> The Pellet Fuel Institute is a fine example of proper use of a biomass fuel. They have the test methods, certified labs and fuel requirements for the pellets to be used in pellet stoves. If we were to market clean burning pellet stoves to a receiving site we would need to include a pellet making machine and make sure there is available the proper feedstock that results in the quality pellets required.
>>> 
>>>  We need to do the same with our other biomass stoves. Write up the requirements for the biofuel to insure clean combustion, develop methods to measure them, certify labs to  test them and make sure the receiving site has the biomass suitable and a program in place to prepare and distribute the proper fuel for the stoves being used. A lot of work and Cecil will be busy preparing the people at the receiving site for the changes.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  I’m thinking people collect the biomass and deliver it to a location where its dried and prepared for stove use. Then deliver it where needed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  The requirements for TLUDs will be different and requirements for briquette stoves different still. Biomass that is found to burn clean need be tested until we come up with limits for each stove classification. Perhaps for each stove depending how unique they are. So there is a lot of work to be done before we take them into the field.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  It may seem impossible but I see no other way that we can insure an improvement of air quality and most efficient use of fuel.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Frank
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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/20171027/b986ebcf/attachment.html>