[Stoves] stoves and credits again

[Nikhil Desai]

Ron:

I was just curious what drives heated debates about Tiers.

You know my skepticism about fuel efficiency as a relevant metric - I don't
see it tied to any directly measurable impact that has universal
applicability (rate of deforestation, climate, women's time and safety,
whatever). Hence I don't really bother with efficiency test protocols,
though I happen to be allergic to WBT from the very first time I reviewed
the literature, back in 1983 (and then some occasionally as seen from World
Bank reports and projects).

However, my major discomfort is with WHO hourly average PM2.5 emission
rates from solid fuel combustion. I can't see any evidence-based logic here
converting such hourly average rates in to annual exposures, net of other
sources of PM2.5, and then to some "health benefit". That's where HAPIT
comes in, of course; it falls on the weight of its own burden of
assumptions and assignments. (That is, unlike a kilo of wood going farther
because of efficiency, there is no aDALY without a baseline DALY and a
computed aDALY for the duration of a stove intervention. Nobody can weigh
an aDALY, which is why I am ready to sell my DALYs.)

If you believe IWA Tiers are cast-in-stone, I am afraid there room for
disagreement. I don't believe the IWA or test protocols (WBT) are legally
adopted in any donor country, so I would be glad to challenge any official
RFP that demands Tier 4 performance from biomass cookstoves and puts them
through WBT protocol.

Where do Biolite, Envirofit, etc. go to get their emission rates officially
certified in the US? Is there a federally recognized "test facility" for
cookstoves in that size range?

I may be ignorant, but I am not incurious.

Nikhil



On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net
> wrote:

> 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> 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> 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.. *
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170929/eeeab1f4/attachment.html>