[Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala
Nikhil Desai
pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 1 21:20:23 CDT 2017
I Xavier:
1. ISO is not the only body developing "standards". All national standards
institutions develop and revise standards, and private organizations also
devise standards to be voluntarily accepted. Why, just a few days ago, the
Gold Standard Foundation calls itself a "standard and certification body
<https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/who-we-are>" has floated Gold
Standard for Global Goals <http://Gold Standard for the Global Goals>,
for "future-proof
Gold Standard projects for changing market conditions, including the
emerging rules of the Paris Agreement and the aviation sector’s new market
mechanism CORSIA, as well as broader trends in corporate sustainability and
climate and development funding."
CDM and Gold Standard use of WBT, or any protocol for any metric that it
purports to but does not directly measure, are as important at this stage
as anything that develops out of the ISO TC-285. I don't know how many
countries with what market type and size would incorporate "international"
standards in domestic law and have the capacity to enforce them. We know
EPA will not, and that's that. Why EPA is indirectly - via GACC and ANSI -
is leading the TC-285 exercise is not exactly a mystery, just not out in
the open. (Ms. Penumetcha or Ms. Seitz, cc'd here, may want to share ANSI
contract scope of work with US Government or its agencies and theirs with
ISO.)
2. You ought to read Ms. Seitz' presentation at the IWA. She said:
a. An international standard is characterized by ""*consensus*: General
agreement, characterized by the *absence of sustained opposition to
substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by
a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all
parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.* (emphasis
added) and
b. A Standard, inter alia, "provides governments with a technical base for
health, safety and environmental legislation, and conformity assessment"
and "shares technological advances and good management practice"
Taking her word, what Ms. Seitz seems to be suggesting is that "opposition
to substantial issues" can be expressed by "concerned interests", not
necessarily limited to National Standards Bodies that participate in the
ISO process, and that the ISO process at least has an obligation to seek to
take into account (read that bureaucratese anywhich way you wish) "the
views of all parties concerned).
Therefore, I suggest that you prepare a document to be sent directly to Ms.
Seitz and Ms. Penumetcha (as GACC is officially contracted with ISO and
perhaps the US Government). I see no problem in requesting them to not only
dump WBT for reasons that you have raised but officially acknowledge its
limits. I think it is entirely permissible to write this in your personal
capacity, and you could share it with this group. Those from this group, in
their individual capacities, may endorse a petition.
Such an effort can also be taken to the D-Lab convenors at MIT for their
limited and short-sighted version of stove science progress.
Your view is"We have to take the time. To take the time to do the right
thing, to correct the past mistakes, to move forward, we have to take the
time to stop wasting time."
Just as I said to Crispin that "There is no there there" in Kirk Smith, et
al. GBD estimates or worse still, HAPIT, I am afraid there is no "We".
Despite GACC and World Bank claims about "stove sector" or "improved and
clean cooking sector", there is no official stamp on any testing protocol.
Yes, this applies to WBT in the US. I am not aware of any Federal Register
entry that designates WBT - or those who claim to test according to WBT -
as "certified" measure or entity respectively.
Wherefore, anybody who has been damaged by the use of WBT is entitled to
bring a claim in a US Federal court for relief against false claims or
other torts.
US claims to be a nation of laws. So US entities are bound by legal
agreements.
Nikhil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Ron,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your answer.
>
>
>
> First, I wanted to react to your comments in your last email. I agree with
> you, there are a lot of dedicated and decent professionals who worked hard
> to make a difference with cookstoves, who used the WBT and thought it was a
> good protocol.
>
>
>
> I am not trying to judge people, or tell where there was crookedness and
> manipulations.
>
> The WBT was basically the go-to protocol during years, because ... just
> because. It was there, so it’s only normal people used it and worked with
> it.
>
>
>
> And now that we have some serious scientific proof, deciding to not look
> at it, deciding to look away, would be something different entirely. Now
> that we know, there’s no looking away.
>
>
>
> So that’s why we need to focus on facts, and discuss this further, and go
> where discussion has not been yet.
>
>
>
> *« Your statement that ISO is a black box answers many of the questions
> below. It is imperative that you learn how ISO works. Your best route
> would seem to be AFNOR - since you are French. I work only through ANSI -
> not ISO. »*
>
> I fully understood that, as Nikhil said in his last email, the ISO process
> is an intergovernmental one. There is a frame, and not every individual can
> join when he/she decides. That is perfectly fine. But I believe ISO
> committees are made to develop standards, to normalize. Based on scientific
> evidence that already exists. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe
> the ISO is meant to be the place where R&D happens. That’s what I was
> replying to Ranyee: « We should not wait. The R&D and the discussion on
> development of protocols have to also take place outside of the TC 285. »
>
> Telling me to temper my critiques and join the ISO if I want to discuss
> and develop protocols is a cop-out.
>
>
>
> On the other end, this List is one of the good places to foster R&D.
>
>
>
> Now the discussion is becoming interesting. We go nowhere if our
> discussions are only: « I think the WBT should be discarded! » « No! I
> think it is valuable! »
>
> We need to discuss why, present scientific arguments and
> counter-arguments, and make progress together.
>
>
>
> *« « The WBT IS valuable »*
>
> *« Can you explain what is valuable about the WBT? »*
>
> *« I speak selfishly when I note that TLUDs shine at the WBT. I suspect
> some don’t like the WBT because their favorite technology doesn’t shine.
> By shine and value I mean that the WBT is behind most of the tier rankings
> - which long ago were accepted unanimously as the right way to proceed with
> stove improvement at this time. To me the WBT is all about improvement.
> If you can’t measure something, it won’t be improved. I disagree
> with those especially who say that there is no proven connection between
> measured CO and PM values in the lab and in the field. If not obtained
> with today’s WBT, what test is to be preferred? (answer in next
> question.) »*
>
> Then, if I understand well your answers, you say that the WBT is valuable
> because:
>
> · the TLUD shine at it
>
> · it has tier rankings, who are the right way to proceed with
> stove improvement
>
>
>
> What if tier rankings are not scientifically valid?
>
> Lombardi and al. say in their paper of February 2017: *« An important
> consequence of these considerations is that the Tier of Performance of a
> given stove, assigned based on the results from WBT or similar protocols,
> may result in a not reliable performance indicator for technology
> selection. »*
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X
>
>
>
> *« If you can’t measure something, it won’t be improved »*
>
> Of course, that’s why we need testing, that’s why we need protocols. There
> are alternative testing protocols that do measure. They measure more
> accurately than the WBT does.
>
>
>
> « *I suspect some don’t like the WBT because their favorite technology
> doesn’t shine. »*
>
> Either you insinuate too much, or you insinuate not enough. Go ahead,
> let’s speak frankly on all subjects, let’s make some progress.
>
> Who does not like the WBT because their technology doesn’t shine?
>
> What are these technologies, what were the test results?
>
>
>
> *« The documents I found at your above cite were from the South African
> SETAR. I stopped reading when I read this sentence in the last of the four
> there: “A cooking session using a *
>
> *system with a heat flux rate of 2 W/cm 2 will boil 5 liters of water in
> under 25 minutes.” » *
>
> Why not read until the end? It’s not a long document. How can we discuss
> something if you are not even ready to read fully what is being discussed?
> No, it is not a boiling test. The water is not boiled, since it has been
> proved it was rendering the test results false. The water is the medium
> used to measure heat transferred to the pot.
>
> It is not about performing a cooking task (boiling water), falsely
> considered universal, and comparing (or being in fact unable to compare)
> how stoves fare doing that task. It is about understanding the power
> delivered by the stove.
>
>
>
> Please read the February paper from Lombardi and al. which explains well
> how different the protocols are.
>
> It also tells why the HTP and WHT are vastly superior to the WBT.
>
> The CSI is even better, because of the added element of contextuality.
>
>
>
>
>
> You listed the experts that are, according to you, currently, as of now
> September 2017, still advocating continued use of the WBT:
>
> · Jim Jetter
>
> · Ranyee Chiang
>
> · John Mitchell
>
> · Tami Bond
>
> · Michael Johnson
>
> · Kirk Smith
>
> · Tom Miles
>
> · Andrew Heggie
>
> · Dean Still
>
>
>
> Ranyee Chiang said we were beyond the WBT.
>
> I have talked with Jim Jetter and he did not come accross to me as,
> currently, a strong supporter of the WBT anymore.
>
> I talked to Tami Bond, and she said that the WBT had things to be
> criticized, and that we needed to move forward, and not look backward (the
> WBT). I don’t think she strongly supports the WBT.
>
> I talked to Kirk Smith in Delhi, and he didn’t seem to have an opinion,
> neither for nor against the WBT.
>
> Dean Still is strongly supporting the WBT and its use.
>
>
>
> So I have a feeling this leaves only a handful of people.
>
>
>
> Of course, what we need is for this people to express publicly what they
> think about the WBT. And better, why.
>
> Can the above-mentioned persons react?
>
>
>
> *« If it is not yet clear, I am claiming you are in a small minority
> of “experts”. »*
>
> I am no expert, I never claimed to be. I am not fond of the expression.
> Who establishes who is an expert? On what basis? Anyone is entitled to
> his/her own opinion, and can express it, no need to be an expert.
>
>
>
> I don’t think I am in a minority, I think your claim is incorrect. It is a
> claim that has often been made, to try to minimize the fact that there are
> a lot of people tired of the WBT. Usually, the claim was that Crispin was
> alone.
>
> Well Crispin is the only one who is outspoken. Not the only one unhappy
> with the WBT.
>
> From my exchanges prior and since the advocacy initiative, there is a far
> larger number of people who are not happy with the WBT than people thinking
> we should still be using it. Certainly far larger than the list above.
>
>
>
> Many people from the stove sector, from various countries and
> organizations, senior professionals, not new comers, have expressed to me
> their support to the initiative. I am not sharing their names, since most
> of these people have not expressed the desire to be quoted publicly. They
> are busy in day-to-day work, they are involved in partnerships, they are
> applying to funding. They do not wish to enter a heated and public debate.
>
>
>
>
>
> *« What is so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI nor HTP?*
>
> *All “the experts” I trust are advocating continued use of the WBT. »*
>
> You are not answering the question. Some « experts » say we should use the
> WBT. Other people say the contrary, offer alternatives. The « experts » do
> not look at critiques. They do not look at the alternatives. They keep
> advocating continued use of the WBT.
>
> This is unscientific. They overlook the critiques, they overlook the
> alternatives, they keep using a much criticized method while not looking on
> the sides.
>
>
>
> What is so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI nor HTP?
>
> How you compared the CSI and HTP in your post makes me think actually, all
> that is done by a WBT can be done by the CSI and HTP.
>
>
>
> *« My concern was about making char and using the “denominator” equation -
> which seems to be the main dispute which I have been having for years with
> Crispin. And also you?? »*
>
> I don’t have an opinion on the denominator equation. I was convinced by
> Tami and Crispin’s answers previously on the subject.
>
>
>
> *« **[RWL7: Apologies if I didn’t respond, but I do know that I
> contacted many of the principal authors (and I think Riva) and think I
> might have reported. I am pretty sure that the basic WBT approach was not
> in doubt with them. »*
>
> I don’t remember that you reported on the Stove List that you had
> contacted the authors. When was it ?
>
> I have to fully disagree here: the WBT protocol is very much in doubt with
> Riva and Lombardi! It is the whole point of their articles.
>
> These are the issues with the WBT, listed in their February article:
>
> *« Some of WBT critical issues remain unsolved. In particular, the main
> weakness of the WBT concerns its real-life relevance. As a matter of fact,
> the protocol prescribes to test the stove for a fixed combination of burn
> sequence (high-power and low-power) and pot dimensions. This limits the
> test relevance to just that particular setting: when any variation of these
> parameters e which deeply affect the system performance e is introduced,
> results may significantly differ. Criticism about WBT concerns also the
> repeatability of the protocol, with a number of researchers claiming that
> it would need to be reviewed in terms of accuracy. The WBT is a controlled
> laboratory test, thus supposed to be characterized by good repeatability
> and to be effective in comparing different stove designs. Nevertheless, the
> choice to bring the water to the boil preventing the use of the lid e that
> is made in order to better approximate a typical cooking task e is not
> functional to this purpose. As a matter of fact, uncertainties related to
> temperature reading and vaporisation in the boiling region lead to high
> variability between test replicates. In order to improve the reliability
> and replicability of the tests, the latest version of the protocol includes
> the section “Changes to Testing Conditions to Improve Repeatability”, which
> refers to different fuels and pot characteristics. However, eventual
> changes involving other parameters (pot insulation and maximum water
> temperature), which deeply affect test variability, are not mentioned. Such
> problems give evidence of an unsolved conflict between the declared purpose
> of the WBT (viz. to be a design-phase test, not intended to be
> representative of real-use performance), and a general tendency to use the
> results form WBT as a significant means to select the most appropriate
> cooking stove for a given context. A lot of debate has been made around
> formulation of metrics, primarily on thermal efficiency (Table C3), which
> is often interpreted as the most immediate and distinctive stove
> performance parameter. Studies from Bailis et al. highlighted how relying
> on WBT thermal efficiency outputs, regardless of the relative importance of
> high and low power cooking tasks among the target population, can lead to
> misleading interpretations. Furthermore, Zhang et al. and Jetter et al.
> questioned the scientific meaningfulness of thermal efficiency at
> simmering. Indeed, this phase is characterised by highly variable steam
> production, which represents a heat loss in the energy balance but
> positively contributes to the efficiency value in the actual formulation of
> thermal efficiency. Finally, some unsolved issues concerning statistical
> significance of data are worth mentioning. WBT 4.2.3 includes “Statistic
> Lessons for Performance Testing”. The appendix specifies that the minimum
> number of test replicates for each model of stove should be three, although
> it is reported that this number of replicates is not necessarily sufficient
> to determine a stove performance within a certain confidence interval.
> Nevertheless, Wang et al. noticed how a great majority of published studies
> are performed using a number of replicates that is equal or less than
> three, perhaps due to a misinterpretation of the Appendix message as “only
> three tests are needed”, regardless of variability and confidence interval.
> Wang et al. investigated this topic using a simplified version of the WBT
> 3.0 and demonstrated that more than 5 replicates are likely to be required
> to avoid impractically large 95% confidence intervals and that even more
> replicates may be required to demonstrate a statistically significant
> difference in performance between two or more stoves. »*
>
>
>
> *« do you have an answer to the questions about the rationale of some
> calculations raised by Zhang et al.?*
>
> *[RWL: Give me more to go on. »*
>
> There is a lot on that, please read:
>
> · 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).
>
>
>
> *« [RWL: Yes I can support the use of just three tests - if they
> are “relatively” close together in all tier statistics. If one test if
> vastly different than the other two, then additional testing should take
> place. The main reason for accepting three is trying to keep costs low. I
> gather that one can make some useful statistical importance with just two
> tests. »*
>
> Studies have proven you wrong. This is statiscally inaccurate.
>
>
>
> In your answers to my 3 questions, you said the uncertainties are
> acceptable. I felt you said the WBT issues are acceptable.
>
> We are talking about critical issues here, not something that can be
> brushed off so easily.
>
>
>
> *« [RWL: Where do I go read that? (It is getting too late to find, read,
> and report back). This one looks important. »*
> Please ask Crispin about it. I don’t think it is public.
>
>
>
> *« **[RWL: Please correct me if wrong, but I don’t believe this test is
> at all applicable to cook stoves; it may or may not have some value for
> cook stoves - but I doubt seriously that this testing involves boiling
> water. »*
>
> I believe it is. See with Crispin.
>
>
>
> *« I don’t yet see it worth my while to review any of these. Pleas give a
> better cite for your top two of the above and I will try to report on its
> relevance to the issue of retaining the existing WBT. »*
>
> I don’t know which one are the top two. They seem all relevant.
>
>
>
> So, do you know any reviews about the WBT?
>
> Not ETHOS presentations, actual reviews about the validity of the protocol.
>
>
>
>
>
> *« For time reasons, I have chosen not to read the other two documents at
> your recommended site. »*
>
> We cannot make progress if we don’t look and spend time considering
> alternative testing protocols.
>
> We certainly shouldn’t be wasting hours discussing: « oh, there are no
> alternatives and let’s wait for the ISO to develop something, at some
> point. » when we don’t even want to look at what stands before our eyes.
>
>
>
> What I fail to understand is the fact you are, Ron, setting your eyes for
> the first time on the CSI and HTP protocols, that are alternatives to the
> WBT.
>
> I have the feeling you are not the only one, I feel some are supporting
> the WBT, thinking it is the only option we have, that there exist no other
> alternatives. Yet they have never even read the alternatives. A scientific
> mind should be curious and ready to challenge their assumptions, all the
> time. Science is always evolving.
>
> The HTP exists, if I am correct, since 2010.
>
> 7 years!
>
>
>
> Ron, I hope you will really take the time, to read the protocols and the
> studies. It is not so long.
>
> It is really important, and you might see some really interesting points
> being made.
>
>
>
> We have to take the time. To take the time to do the right thing, to
> correct the past mistakes, to move forward, we have to take the time to
> stop wasting time.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *De :* Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net
> <rongretlarson at comcast.net>]
> *Envoyé :* jeudi 31 août 2017 06:16
> *À :* Xavier Brandao
> *Cc :* Discussion of biomass; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Karin Troncoso;
> Tom Miles
> *Objet :* Re: [Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas
> stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala
>
>
>
> Xavier and ccs
>
>
>
> Thanks for a courteous reply with good questions. See a
> start below. (Start because you gave me a lot of homework. Thanks
> especially for providing a great set of cites at the end (but no time yet
> to review any.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
>
>
> « *The ISO process is open to every country - and is progressing well
> mostly (I listen in from time to time). »*
>
> The gates are open, but I don’t know how to pass through them. Sally Seitz
> and Ranyee Chiang kindly asked me if wanted to get updates from the TC 285
> discussions, I said yes. Several times. I am still waiting. I asked the
> AFNOR in Paris, but it doesn’t seem like having France as part of the TC
> 285 is one of their priorities.
>
> The ISO is a black box to me. If anyone can direct me to regular sources
> of information or ways I can join, I’d be most thankful.
>
>
>
> *[RWL1: Your statement that ISO is a black box answers many
> of the questions below. It is imperative that you learn how ISO works.
> Your best route would seem to be AFNOR - since you are French. I work only
> through ANSI - not ISO.*
>
>
>
> *I presume Sally and Ranyee thought that you would start with
> AFNOR. Updates have been given at the last several ETOS meetings and I
> have written about those updates (which were very well done). We are going
> to miss Ranyee.*
>
>
>
> *Can anyone help bring Xavier and AFNOR together? I repeat
> to Xavier - until you are part of the ISO process - you will be making a
> mistake in decrying it.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *« The WBT IS valuable »*
>
> Can you explain what is valuable about the WBT?
>
>
>
> *[RWL2: My favorite on this topic is Jim Jetter. See
> presentations at several ETHOS meetings. I speak selfishly when I note
> that TLUDs shine at the WBT. I suspect some don’t like the WBT because
> their favorite technology doesn’t shine. By shine and value I mean that
> the WBT is behind most of the tier rankings - which long ago were accepted
> unanimously as the right way to proceed with stove improvement at this
> time. To me the WBT is all about improvement. If you can’t measure
> something, it won’t be improved. I disagree with those especially who say
> that there is no proven connection between measured CO and PM values in the
> lab and in the field. If not obtained with today’s WBT, what test is to be
> preferred? (answer in next question.)*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *« and should stay until replaced with something better »*
>
> There is already something better! Better is not right word: there is
> already something valid, as opposed to the invalidity of the WBT. There’s
> be something valid for a long time.
>
> There are the CSI method and HTP protocol.
>
> They are here, I sent the link to you long ago:
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?
> usp=sharing
>
>
>
> Tell me why you think they cannot replace the WBT?
>
>
>
> *[RWL3: *
>
> *The documents I found at your above cite were from the South African
> SETAR. I stopped reading when I read this sentence in the last of the four
> there: “A cooking session using a *
>
> *system with a heat flux rate of 2 W/cm 2 will boil 5 liters of water in
> under 25 minutes.” **Sounds like a WBT to me - and the ISO process is
> encouraging such diversity in different countries. But ISO has accepted
> the challenge of an international version - not mandated to be used by
> everyone. Somebody please tell me I am missing something on WBTs.*
>
>
>
> *The first (HTP) document similarly measures water
> temperature rise - albeit a little differently. I view the accuracy of the
> results to be so dependent on the user that whether it is one run with
> water loss in an uncovered pan or only concentrating on the regime where
> water loss is minimal and rate of temperature rise makes little difference
> to me. I am using the term WBT to mean that a water-containing pot is
> involved. I may be wrong but this HTP test seems to assume there is no
> production of charcoal. I predict this lack will cause a change at some
> point (and may be the reason we hear little favorable about TLUDs from
> South Africa (even though there are several capable TLUD manufacturers in
> South Africa. I hope they will chime in on the value of a stove test that
> assumes charcoal has no value.*
>
>
>
> *For time reasons, I have chosen not to read the other two
> documents at your recommended site. Apologies in advance for that lapse
> and for apparently not saying something earlier about this site - which
> seems to strongly support the use of pots of water in stove testing (as do
> EVERY other test procedure I am aware of). No reason to talk of cooking
> rice or boiling oils- when boiling water is so universal.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom, this question is also addressed to you, since last time, I think you
> were saying there wasn’t yet an alternative.
> What is so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI nor HTP?
>
>
>
> *All “the experts” I trust are advocating continued use of the WBT.*
>
> Ron, can you please list all the experts who, now, today, still advocate
> continued use of the WBT?
>
> I know there is you, and there is Dean Still with whom I discussed over
> emails.
>
> Can you please name these experts Ron?
>
>
>
> *[RWL4: As I have said before, I consider Jim Jetter as
> especially knowledgeable. John Mitchell, also of EPA, knows a huge amount
> about stove testing. Look at who has spoken at ETHOS meetings on these
> topics. Ranyee Chiang will be hugely missed at GACC. Professor Tami Bond
> is great - as well as some of her graduate students. Berkeley is full of
> competent stove people - starting with Dr. Michael Johnson. See *
> http://berkeleyair.com/about-us/staff/ *for others who really know their
> stove measurementstuff. I am not claiming support from Professor Kirk
> Smith, but his name is on at least one paper with Jetter. And both DoE
> and EPA funded 3-4 groups - mostly at Universities. I won’t try to mention
> all their names, but they are at schools such as CSU and U Washington.
> Again - see their presentations at ETHOS. No guarantee they support the
> WBT - but I look forward to hearing if any of those mentioned disown it.*
>
>
>
> *On this list, I especially list Tom Miles and Andrew Heggie
> as likely supporters of the WBT. *
>
>
>
> *Dean Still has been in this a long time and I also trust his
> judgement - which in part goes back to a premier early stove investigator -
> Dr. Sam Baldwin. I have talked to Sam quite often and have never heard
> any concern that the WBT was inappropriate. My concern was about making
> char and using the “denominator” equation - which seems to be the main
> dispute which I have been having for years with Crispin. And also you??*
>
>
>
> *One person I am excluding from this list is myself. I have
> no experience with monitoring either CO or PM. I especially
> like measuring water evaporated because I have made a lot of progress
> on char-making stove improvement by using a simplified WBT. I have heard
> Kirk Harris say the same.*
>
>
>
> *Apologies to anyone I missed or mislabeled.*
>
>
>
>
>
> You are talking about « Crispin’s » experts. I cannot help but think about
> the people who reviewed the CSI and HTP and highlighted the problems with
> the WBT.
>
> The 2 (long) lists are below this email.
>
>
>
> *[RWL5: I’ll get back to this - but I repeat that South
> Africa seems to support the general concept of monitoring the change in
> water properties in pots sitting on stoves.*
>
>
>
> Ron, can you please critique their work? Critique the reviews or the
> studies? What is it that you don’t agree with?
>
> Ron, or anyone, can you please share a list of reviews of the WBT protocol?
>
> As you said Ron, the WBT has been used for decades. It shouldn’t be
> difficult then to get a list of reviews by external researchers showing how
> scientifically valid the WBT is.
>
>
>
> *[RWL6: I can assure you that Jim Jetter, who has written
> extensively on stove testing, defends the WBT. He also leads the ISO
> effort - which WOULD NOT be finishing if there were any doubt as to the
> validity of the WBT. If it is not yet clear, I am claiming you are in a
> small minority of “experts”.*
>
>
>
> 7 months ago, the 26/01, I asked you Ron on this List several very
> specific questions, referring to the WBT issues.
>
> You never responded.
>
>
>
> *[RWL7: Apologies if I didn’t respond, but I do know that I
> contacted many of the principal authors (and I think Riva) and think I
> might have reported. I am pretty sure that the basic WBT approach was not
> in doubt with them. What was in question was only (??) how many
> replications needed to be made to ALWAYS achieve what they considered a
> minimum level of accuracy.*
>
>
>
> I ask you these questions again, they refer to the text of the paper of
> Riva and al., paper that you can find here:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308898807_Fuzzy_
> interval_propagation_of_uncertainties_in_experimental_
> analysis_for_improved_and_traditional_three_-_Stone_fire_cookstoves :
>
>
>
> Ron, in the WBT,
>
> - do you contest the role of thermodynamic uncertainties (viz.
> variable steam production and boiling point determination) on results
> repeatability? Can you ensure there are no uncertainties?
>
>
>
> *RWL: I cannot so ensure - since most of my efforts along
> these lines was more than 20 years ago. I am sure that there are
> uncertainties, since many properties DO vary with altitude. But I have seen
> no uncertainty that applies to placing stoves at a single testing center
> into incorrect tiers (as measured to tenths of a tier). Boiling point
> determination can be different - but when you run for an hour, this is of
> disappearing importance, compared to who did the testing. And, if you
> don’t use a WBT, what do you replace it with?*
>
>
> - Of if there are, can you ensure they have no effect on results
> repeatability? How?
>
>
>
> *[RWL: I believe the existing uncertainties are acceptable -
> being much smaller than other known causes for measurement differences.
> Is there any group anywhere that has avoided all the concerns you think
> exist? A much bigger error for me lies with those who claim you should
> ignore the weight of any charcoal produced.*
>
>
>
> -
> - do you have an answer to the questions about the rationale of some
> calculations raised by Zhang et al.?
>
>
>
> *[RWL: Give me more to go on.*
>
>
> -
> - do you support the statistical approach recommended by this
> standardised laboratory-based test (the WBT) to evaluate, communicate and
> compare performances and emissions of tested stoves, i.e. using the
> arithmetic average of three replicate tests? How do you guarantee this
> statistical approach ensure good comparison of stove performances?
>
>
>
> *[RWL: Yes I can support the use of just three tests - if
> they are “relatively” close together in all tier statistics. If one test
> if vastly different than the other two, then additional testing should take
> place. The main reason for accepting three is trying to keep costs low. I
> gather that one can make some useful statistical importance with just two
> tests.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *The arithmetic average is not the only data that should be given - each
> result should be (and is usually, I believe) given. *
>
> -
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
>
>
> *Reviews of the HTP and CSI*
>
>
>
> The HTP was officially reviewed by an external expert group as required by
> the IWA 2012:11. The World Bank office in Beijing commissioned SGS
> Netherlands which provided a report after investigating the equipment, test
> protocol and calculations.
>
>
>
> *[RWL: Where do I go read that? (It is getting too late to
> find, read, and report back). This one looks important.*
>
>
>
> The Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project test method for approving stove
> performance is the HTP before the CSI contextual portion was added, though
> the test conducted is in fact based on current observed practice. The
> Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project test method has been reviewed and/or approved
> by:
>
> - Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Prof Tseyen-Oidov
> and others
> - Ulaanbaatar Clean Air Project, Operations Manager & Chief
> Engineer, Ms D Tsendsuren
> - Dr B Odonkhishig and Dr Jargalsaikhan Buriad, head and Director,
> respectively, of the SEET Laboratory in Ulaanbaatar
> - SGS Laboratories, Netherlands (who conduct most of the stove
> tests for EU certification), WB contract
> - Team experts under Akeo Fukuyama, from the Environment Division
> of JICA contractor Suuri-Keikaku Co. Ltd.
> - Millennium Challenge Account – Mongolia (MCA-Mongolia is the
> local branch of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, USA) which
> spend $20m on stove subsidies based on the results of the tests
> - National University of Mongolia, Prof Lodoysamba, Innovation
> Manager, Department of Research (nuclear physicist and air quality expert)
> - GTZ building energy efficiency program in Ulaanbaatar, headed by
> Ruth Erlbeck (reviewed by her head technical man and a young German MSc
> physicist Mr Henning Schulte-Huxel who wrote a lot of the chemical balance
> calculation block on the FUELS tab)
>
>
>
> *[RWL: Please correct me if wrong, but I don’t believe this
> test is at all applicable to cook stoves; it may or may not have some
> value for cook stoves - but I doubt seriously that this testing involves
> boiling water.*
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> The CSI Test Protocol which includes the contextual test method appended
> to the HTP test method and calculations has been reviewed by:
>
> - World Bank technical review team for Indonesia (their infrastructure
> engineer and technical reviewer)
> - College of Engineering, China Agricultural University (CAU), Prof
> Renjie Dong, head of the National Key Laboratory for Biogas, reviewed it at
> the request of the Senior Economist heading the CSI-Indonesia Pilot
> - Yixiang Zhang, PhD candidate, College of engineering, CAU. He has
> published several reviews of certain aspects of the test method and its
> calculations.
> - Degan Ostogic, Lead Energy specialist (engineer) in the WB Energy
> and Extractives supervising the CSI-Indonesia Stove Pilot, he also required
> a demonstration of the method in action.
> - The head of stove testing at a Western nation’s national
> regulatory body has reviewed the method for generating the Technical Test
> from a set of Cooking Tests. This provides the contextual element of the
> CSI Method.
> - Prof Harold Annegarn, nuclear physicist, then at the Department
> of Geography Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of
> Johannesburg
> - Engineer David Beritault, formerly with GERES, for years the head
> of the Cambodian stove testing lab and now with CARITAS Switzerland, made a
> very detailed review of the concepts and calculations underlying the
> method. He is a co-author of ISO TC-285 WG2, 19867 Part 2.
> - James Robinson, BSc (Eng), MSc (Eng), MSc (aeronautics), former
> head of the SeTAR Centre, University of Johannesburg.
> - Dr Tafadzwa Makonese, Head of the SeTAR Centre, Research Village,
> University of Johannesburg
> - Indonesian BNI (National Standards Body technical committee) made
> a conceptual review with the intention of replacing their current Draft
> National Standard (which at present uses an early SeTAR Centre heat
> transfer efficiency test protocol, the forerunner of the HTP.
>
>
>
> *[RWL: I haven’t had time to review any of these, but note
> again that the CSI test does involve boiling water. I don’t yet see it
> worth my while to review any of these. Pleas give a better cite for your
> top two of the above and I will try to report on its relevance to the issue
> of retaining the existing WBT.*
>
>
>
> *The following list looks quite interesting, but too late to
> try to look at any, much less all. I’ll try to get at these ASAP, but
> would appreciate knowing of those that take specific exception anything I
> have said above.*
>
>
>
> *Xavier - please tell me where I have let you down in the
> above. Anyone else find my responses insufficient?*
>
>
>
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>
> -
>
>
>
> *Papers pointing at issues with the WBT*
>
> - 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170901/1d42d1ee/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list