[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Fri Sep 29 12:04:12 CDT 2017

Dear Ron

Tiers have a value if they are a) based on something solid and b) have contextual relevance.

The IWA tiers failed on both counts: they did not have a sound physical basis, and there was no testing in a relevant context.

It doesn’t matter whose tiers they are, it matters if they are useful,. If they are not, they are not going to be applied during a selection process.

I have suggested to you a few hours ago that if you want to have a performance evaluation for char-producing stoves, create some. A char-producing stove is not in the same category as other stoves, so it needs its own rating system. That is what ‘contextual’ ratings are about. Apples with apples. You are going to get nowhere trying to have char-making stoves rated as ‘equal in fuel consumption’ to stoves that need half as much fuel. You will get somewhere calling for the stoves to be treated as a separate class of product that needs its own evaluation and certification mechanism.

In all cases, including the IWA and ISO and CSI systems, the question remains: If I use this product, what will the performance be? If the answer provided is not true, then whatever method is being used should be avoided. This is hardly news. If you buy a tape recorder that only records on the left microphone, you take it back and demand a replacement or your money back. Why then should a stove that has half the performance be given the rating of one with full performance? It is false advertising to misrepresent a product’s performance.

The IWA low power metrics of emissions per minute per litre simmered are in a different class. There is no metric like that which can be derived from first principles as there is no connection between the water mass simmered and the fuel consumed or the emissions from that fire. So if a stove has achieved ‘Tier 3’ on all metrics, some of which have no meaning, how can that be supported as a means of regulation and trade?  Just because regulators are working in the Third World does not mean they are idiots.

Have a look at the CSI Indonesia Pilot tiers of performance. There are three (no tier 0). They were very useful in deciding on the level of support a stove received and the benefits are clear in the field: the most stars a stove earned (up to a possible total of 3 x 3 = 9) the better everything is in the kitchen. Tiers are very useful but they have to be valid, relevant, correctly calculated and the levels set by a negotiated process. That means the levels are political decisions, while the testing is decided on a scientific basis involving validation, uncertainties and confidence one can have in the result.

Regards
Crispin

Nikhil and list cc Crispin

                I have no idea how RFPs are being handled, but it seems clear that the Philips stove (basically a TLUD) has been selected in (I think) more than one competition - and is highly ranked.

                It is hard to imagine that folks writing RFPs would not consider Tiers.  Agreed?

                I view the Tier system as a way of improving stove performance and believe that is happening.

                I don’t believe there is any need to wait for TC 285 declarations.

Ron

On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com<mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Ron:

Re: your " The answer to the first sentence is “Tiers”.

Is there a Request for Proposals for cookstoves for Tier 4 efficiency, just waiting for TC 285 declaration and adoption by US or some other donor? Are there participants here who would like to write such a proposal?
Nikhil

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
Crispin and list

Before responding,  I need to add a promised point on this topic about 1/3 the way down in a Crispin message in this thread from the 23rd.  He said, and my too-delayed responses are:
So the argument came down to, why is the char energy to be treated differently from other energy paths? There was no clear answer why it should be. Char produced can be a metric: mass delivered. The energy in the char recovered can also be a metric: char energy. No one has any problem with that. They are standard measures.
[RWL1:   The answer to the first sentence is “Tiers”.      Agreed on the last part - I don’t think anyone is questioning the quantities being measured.  It is only one (e3=e1/(1-e2)) that gives reasonable answers and is used widely that is under dispute..

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto: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/20170929/fff90d83/attachment.html>