[Stoves] Back into action

Thu Sep 7 00:33:24 CDT 2017

Philip:

Real world? How much thermal energy in poor people's household goes to
boiling or simmering water in the real world? Where, when, how?

Until experts agree on metrics that are relevant to household users of
immense diversity - in access to fuels, relative costs and qualities,
timing and duration of cooking and space/water heating - why get stuck on
boiling water? To please each other to get peer approval rather than user
vote, or compete against each other to win awards?

I am not being cynical. I remember more than seven years ago, the Lighting
Africa project of IFC awarded prizes to some models of solar LED lanterns.
Many other varieties were on display at the show. It would seem that the
transition from kerosene and candle lighting to solar LED lanterns (with
phone/battery charging capacity) was such an easy marketing job that donors
would pick the opportunity to do some bulk procurement and partial-grant
finance for retail distribution. But not much happened, to my knowledge.
Some companies built retail commercial chains, some (in India, especially)
filled state governments' bulk orders for free distribution (has also
happened elsewhere), and some low-quality lights flooded many retail
markets in some African countries.

I had dreamt that getting ""international standards" for donor projects
would solve the basic lighting problem in five years. No such luck. (The
latest Annual Report of the GOGLA
<https://www.gogla.org/sites/default/files/recource_docs/b_-_gogla_annual_report_2016-2017.pdf>
- Global Off-grid Lighting Association - shows only that it spent some 1.4
m Euros; nothing on the size of the market).

Let's see how alternative protocols and metrics are adopted by which
countries and whether stove usability is approximated by ISO Tiers (I
imagine they somewhat correspond to the IWA 2011:12?)

Could GACC end up like GOGLA - a project reduced to an industry
association, surviving on minimal funding of its own?

Forgive me if I am pessimistic about donor finance for better biomass
cookstoves for poor households. World is awash in liquidity, but in wrong
hands. When we see recitations of 3 billion people using solid fuels on
traditional stoves (uncontrolled combustion of unprocessed biomass or
coal), and x million DALYs attributed to such use, we are only throwing
numbers around. There is very little in the ""expert space"of WHO and IHME
about these people except as statistics. There are some pictures of women,
as if that is all one needs to define women's lives.

With that level of realism, I trust experts will invent anything but a
useful stove. Some investment in characterization of markets and women's
lives, the role of cooking and feeding in family life and cultures, could
teach experts realism.

Nikhil

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

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Philip Lloyd <plloyd at mweb.co.za> wrote:

> "The WBT was a successful program to compare stoves and allow the stoves
> with the best potential to be picked for further consideration in the real
> World. It was only flawed in the test method used."
>
> I could be wrong, but I know of no stove showing best potential by the WBT
> that realized that potential in the real world.
>
> Frank accepts that the test method was flawed.  Some of it, e.g. the
> simmering test, was not merely flawed, it was outright unsound.
>
> Using a metal block instead of water in a cooking vessel will probably
> overcome the problem of estimating the time to boil, but it removes the
> test
> even further from the real world.
>
> Prof Philip Lloyd
> Energy Institute, CPUT
> PO Box 1906
> Bellville 7535
> Tel 021 959 4323
> Cell 083 441 5247
> PA Nadia 021 959 4330
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Frank Shields
> Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 5:03 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Subject: [Stoves] Back into action
>
> Stovers,
>
> The WBT was a successful program to compare stoves and allow the stoves
> with
> the best potential to be picked for further consideration in the real
> World.
> It was only flawed in the test method used. Lets correct these problems and
> get the WBT back to central to our many faceted program.
>
> 1) It needs to relate to the fuel planned to be used. I suggest the energy
> in the Volatile Fraction to be the total energy released to the secondary.
> The Fixed energy to be the maximum  char making capability of the fuel.
> Results of percent energy used (if that is at all important?) is based on
> the volatile energy fraction and the Percent char produced a percent of the
> maximum for that biomass. That will please all three groups; TLUD, Rocket
> and Ron : ).
>
>
> 2) We need to have it measured for the many different tasks that the stove
> might be used. I suggest developing a Task Cube. This a solid metal
> (platinum, aluminum, steel, titanium) of something that will last. Cubed to
> exact measurements, Drilled and taped to fit a thermistor to record the
> increase in temperature. Place this block in with different foods being
> cooked and record the temperature profile. Develop the profile that needs
> be
> obtained for each task. Sell the Task Cubes to labs where they can place
> them in boiling water or sit on a hot surface then follow the temperature
> profile to determine if the stove will work for that task and when the task
> is completed.
>
> So we go from the actual fuel (well sort of) to the actual task (well sort
> of). The program is (or was) already set up and used so should be quick to
> get it running again. Purpose it to provide Cecil Cook (and others) with a
> list of stoves from an unbiased source and with best chance for success
> into
> the field so they can do the things they do. And provide the opportunity
> for
> every stove designer to get their stove  compared with others.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170907/cd725670/attachment.html>