[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 29 15:06:54 CDT 2017


To record agreement: "A char-producing stove is not in the same category as
other stoves, so it needs its own rating system". (A failure of IWA and
TC-285).

Now a question - Granted, "The IWA low power metrics of emissions per
minute per litre simmered are in a different class." Why does it matter
that "there is no connection between the water mass simmered and the fuel
consumed or the emissions from that fire"? Emissions stand on their own,
for the task  under consideration, with the given fuel and environmental
conditions (wind, ambient temperature, humidity, etc.)

The fundamental weakness is in linking such emissions - on an hourly
average computation leading on to annual average, which is what WHO
guideline for IAQ is (perhaps a daily max, I forget) - to health. There is
not an iota of "first principles" or medical evidence of causality between
household solid fuels emission rates and, say, non-communicable diseases.

Only propositions and narrowly crafted studies or pal-pampered "evidence
reviews" done by WHO.

The latest "study" is

How indoor air pollution is leading to stunted growth in India’s children
<http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/how-indoor-air-pollution-is-leading-to-stunted-growth-in-india-s-children/story-2LrX34JQjgMJvzMLptkSrJ.html?platform=hootsuite>
*- *India has 61 million stunted children and there is evidence that
exposure to indoor air pollution from burning solid fuels increases the
probability of stunting among children. Anca Bailetti and Prateek Mittal,
Hindustan Times 18 September 2017.

 Or Breathe easy: Indoor pollution more harmful than earlier thought
<http://www.hindustantimes.com/health-and-fitness/breathe-easy-indoor-pollution-more-harmful-than-earlier-thought/story-CwHOT2D8tTn5KEYePX9lpL.html>
Hindustan Times 16 April 2016. (It's not about cookstoves, but it cites the
mantra that indoor air pollution was linked to 403 million deaths in 2012).

Whatever experts say must be right if not enough people care to read and
disagree. Science by eyeballs and votes.

Nikhil

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


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> 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> 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.. *
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170929/6a197128/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list