[Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT
Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
crispinpigott at outlook.com
Fri Jan 26 10:08:09 CST 2018
Dear Ron
One small correction:
“All the protocols mentioned below already do boil water.”
Not all the test below boil water. IS 13152, the Indian national test, does not boil water, it heats water. The SeTAR HTP efficiency test, now adopted as the ISO lab test, has no requirement to boil water and almost always does not. Heating and pot-swapping gives far more accurate results than a boiling test. Remember, the Indian test was written after a careful review of the WBT, correcting many of its obvious flaws.
There is no need to boil water to estimate how long it would take to do so. Pure math. Requiring, as the WBT does, that a certain mass be boiled, sometimes leads to ridiculous results.
I do not know why you are insisting that the ISO is enthusiastic about the any particular thing. People sometimes hold their nose and abstain from voting. Sometimes they vote yes to end the pain of participation. Sometimes they vote yes because the package is tolerable or misunderstood. Sometimes things are put in over the objections of 90% of the experts. Surely you are aware of that.
The ISO cooking stove standard is voluntary. The ISO has no power to apply it to anyone or anything. Just as I pointed out before, there is no such thing as an “ISO certificate” for stoves (or anything else). That is not their function.
Your comment about a tier and a ‘char making stove’: You know full well the rating is for the consumption of fuel “sourced outside the system” (if you would bother to read the definitions). A char making stove’s need for fuel can be larger than an open fire – the usual baseline for CDM projects.
A typical value for the open fire fuel consumption is 1100 g to being 5 litres to a boil (10% efficiency, 3% evaporated). The Quad II is a TLUD char making micro-gasifier. It was tested at the CREEC Laboratory and the results made public by Paul Anderson, the designer. It was loaded with 16% moisture fuel and consumed 1964 g of it, producing 185g of char, per load. The dry fuel input was 1650 g, about 50% more than an open fire. The WBT reports that it uses 626 g of fuel.
Lest there be any doubt, here is the relevant section of the report:
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D39702.B75EABC0]
Note that it does not say ‘dry fuel equivalent’. The correct thermal efficiency is 19% but it reports it to be 42% (average of three tests). Obviously the low power efficiency is meaningless as is the specific fuel consumption number. (Zhang 2014)
What clearer evidence could there be that the WBT lies about the fuel needed to replicate the test sequence? If I have a stove that needs 50% more fuel to run than an open fire and I report that it uses 43% less, it is a lie!
If you want to report that it uses 1650 dry grams of fuel and produces 200 g of char. Be my guest. If the ISO test is applied in some manner so that stoves consuming more than the baseline are claimed to need 40% less fuel, then the whole drafting exercise will be rendered worthless. If there is some sneaky way to claim that a stove needs 38% of the fuel it actually needs, then “the experts’, including you as a participant in WG4, have failed in their duty to provide a useful Standard.
If you don’t think you have a duty to prevent misrepresentation and fraud, think again. A stove that consumes more fuel than the baseline but delivers multiple benefits can be advertised exactly as that. To demand that a Quad II using 1650 g of dry fuel be placed in a fuel consumption comparison metric (fuel efficiency) beside those that use 500 or 600 is untenable.
If your stove does something clever, say so. No cheating about how much fuel is needed to do it.
It is quite possible the WBT mathematics to produce claims for a pair of stoves that are together over 100% efficient. That violates certain thermodynamic laws. Violation it for one stove is not permissible either.
Ron, why don’t you propose a new tier for char making stoves that reflects reality instead of trying to get high consumption stoves rated on the same scale? Pick a task, report the fuel consumption, report the char produced as a % of fuel mass, and report the energy in the char as a % of fuel energy. Then you won’t be embarrassed year after year for claiming that a stove that uses 50% more fuel than the baseline uses 40% less.
Note to Paul Anderson: You asked for a specific example of a TLUD char maker that uses more fuel than the baseline. The example (you have the files already) is your Quad II tested in CREEC in Uganda, Aug 2012.
Regards
Crispin
Zhang 2014: “KEY DIFFERENCES OF PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOLS FOR HOUSEHOLD BIOMASS COOKSTOVES”, (here<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6827753>)
Yixiang Zhang, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott, Zongxi Zhang, Hongyan Ding, Yuguang Zhou, Renjie Dong
List and Xavier:
On Jan 25, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com<mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Ron,
« a. What are some characteristics of the new test you propose to replace the WBT? »
What do you mean by characteristics?
[RWL1: By “characteristics” I mean a serious difference in the test procedure from what is now going through (with strong support) the ISO process.
All the protocols mentioned below already do boil water. What many protocols that you laud don’t do is make any attempt to even measure char produced. It is ludicrous to tell a stove producer who is marketing a char-making stove (which happens also to be cleaner and more efficient even ignoring char - with high Tier rating in all categories) that you’re sorry - but the approved stove protocol for that country says you must ignore all char when you calculate a Tier.
Possible replacements of the WBT are the CSI and HTP, protocols to be found here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Fdrive%2Ffolders%2F0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=vIK%2Byffm1MyfaUesPpT0RFyX5cuFoTwVMu%2F99%2Ff3Xkk%3D&reserved=0>
[RWL2: I don’t believe that either the CSI or HTP approaches (both from South Africa) says anything about measuring (and accounting for) charcoal production at this above site. I found one reference to the fact that charcoal should be treated as unusable. I also found evidence that Crispin made a change (or a recommendation) involving charcoal in 2013 - but the documentation you suggest his so inferior to that I have seen from WG2 that it is pathetic.
So as near as I can tell, char production is not considered in either the CSI or HTP methodologies; if so, can you give a specific reference (page and line).
For sure the Chinese and Indian test methods do not.
I think the protocol documents are quite detailed. What is not clear in the document, what clarifications would you like to have?
[RWL3: They are in WG2 outputs - much less in everything else I have seen. I want a clarification on how charcoal is to be handled in your preferred test methodology. Especially as it relates to Tiers.
« b. What happens to the Tier system that is now based on the WBT? »
The Tier system is also put into question. I guess there will be a need for a replacement.
[RWL4 Remember the Tier approach was unanimously (I think) recommended at the Lima meeting. What do you (or anyone) find fault with about Tiers? You are proposing to drop a main reason there is an ISO process at all.
There is one question: is a Tier system absolutely necessary?
[RWL5: Clearly “No" - not absolutely necessary. But very helpful to achieving better stoves - I think the answer is a clear yes. And your answer to this question is what?
Why do we need a Tier system for?
[RWL6: To achieve better stoves. (I’d go further and say so stoves can help take carbon out of the atmosphere. Not agreed to by some on your list.)
Can we develop better stoves without it, or not?
[RWL7: I think the evidence is strong that Tiers are helpful. Kirk Harris says they are. This is a very complicated topic and we need a shorthand.
Groups who want to and can buy stoves - are using the tiers. Tiers are easy to understand.
If it is indispensable, then the Tier system must mean something, it must be reliable.
[RWL8: The vast majority of the experts working in WG2 of the ISO285 process are telling us that it is reliable.
You are not giving any rationale for dropping them - but it seems clear you are opposed to them.
« c. Assuming that this comes up at the ETHOS meeting starting tomorrow - how would you recommend GACC handling that vote, if there is one? »
I would recommend that the GACC discuss openly and transparently this question, and that the participants give their opinion.
[RWL9: Good - agreed. I hope this comes up for serious discussion at ETHOS and someone can report back on the discussion (and any “vote” if there is one). I am claiming here that you have enrolled a very small subset of test experts. I am predicting an overwhelming favorable discussion - and that GACC should heed that discussion.
I would recommend everyone to read the studies and the alternative protocols, first. If no one knows what the problem is about, it is difficult to talk about solutions.
[RWL10: I would urge that GACC make no moves of any kind until they and we can see what WG2 has come up with - and the objections that remain. I am sure there will be some who disparage the “denominator equation”: e3 = e1/(1-e2) = 1/(1+i/e1) have not understood why it is imperative to use it (and especially to get Tiers).
I have put a fair amount of time into this - and willingly admit I have no idea “what the problem is about”. It IS very clear that some think the “denominator equation” is dead wrong - and there are some who can’t stand Tiers.
Then the participants could express what are their needs in terms of testing,—-
[RWL11: The needs seem clear to me - to compare stoves - so as to effectuate improvement. (and the WBT and Tiers have been successful in that.)
and what they think are their potential difficulties in transitioning from the WBT to other lab protocols.
[RWL12: Again - no new method has been proposed that I know of. Years have been spent in a horribly tedious process dictated by ISO rules. So without something specific to consider, in the presence of strong support for the WG2 output - it seems clear to me that there are huge “potential difficulties in transitioning”. Time is wasting - and we don’t have time
As I said previously, I don’t think there are many difficulties in making this transition.
[RWL13: And you also said you have not been involved in the (I think) successful WG2 effort.
And if some participants want to work towards the development of new and better protocols, more adapted to their needs, then that should be encouraged too.
[RWL14: Absolutely - and ISO processes say how that can be done. But it makes zero sense to stop when you are almost done (on the key - WG2 - portion), with something that has received wide approval. I repeat, your group, from my knowledge (mostly at ETHOS meetings and stove camps, but also as the first coordinator of this list), is in a small minority.
« d. What is your response to an observation that this appears to be a reaction against char-making stoves? »
Who makes this observation?
[RWL15: For one - me. I see no-one promoting char-making stoves on your list.
This call is not a reaction against any technology. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing against char-making stoves, much on the contrary. I think Moulindu Banerjee project in North-East India is a formidable success story.
Char-making stoves will survive the end of the WBT.
[RWL16: Sure, but you are calling to restart a 5 year process. We don’t have time for such non-sense.
If there is a need for a new ways/protocols to measure their benefits, then we should foster such work.
[RWL17: That is already embedded in what you are calling to start over. A huge amount of work has gone into the WG2 report that we will soon see. I see very good work coming along from the other groups as well - but they are not WBT oriented
Ron
Best,
Xavier
De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Ronal W. Larson
Envoyé : jeudi 25 janvier 2018 22:59
À : Discussion of biomass
Objet : Re: [Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT
Xavier, list and ccs
Four questions:
a. What are some characteristics of the new test you propose to replace the WBT?
b. What happens to the Tier system that is now based on the WBT?
c. Assuming that this comes up at the ETHOS meeting starting tomorrow - how would you recommend GACC handling that vote, if there is one?
d. What is your response to an observation that this appears to be a reaction against char-making stoves?
Ron
On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:24 AM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com<mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Anh, dear Michael,
Thank you for your comments.
I feel that sentence in the call is not clear. Of course, we are not talking about punishing those who are currently using the WBT in their projects, nor taking away stoves that have been developed with WBT, and are or have been disseminated.
Funders have funded projects which testing protocol basis was the WBT, stoves have been developed, fine. There are, still, despite the WBT mess, good stoves and good projects that were developed. Certainly, as we discussed previously, a lot of potential has been wasted because of unreliable results. But past is past.
Now, funders and donors are preparing new grants and programmes. Today, there is no excuse that a project or programme success depends upon a testing protocol that was at multiple times demonstrated erroneous and unreliable. This shouldn't happen anymore.
We cannot fund projects anymore based on a protocol which is, literally, a roll of the dice.
Does that sound reasonable to you? If not, why?
Thanks again,
Xavier
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Dwebmail&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=POhbfVyR4q26%2FtRBlclW2bfPQa7yz2oE2jdJmywYZUw%3D&reserved=0>
Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fsig-email%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dlink%26utm_campaign%3Dsig-email%26utm_content%3Dwebmail&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=POhbfVyR4q26%2FtRBlclW2bfPQa7yz2oE2jdJmywYZUw%3D&reserved=0>
On 25 January 2018 at 09:25, Michael N Trevor <mntrevor at gmail.com<mailto:mntrevor at gmail.com>> wrote:
In the middle of the Pacific with what are they going to do come take away my stoves?
I dare you to try it---
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Anh Nguyen <ntanh72 at gmail.com<mailto:ntanh72 at gmail.com>> wrote:
You said in your call "as well as stop funding or supporting projects, programmes and companies who use the WBT". So in your view, everyone who use WBT should be punished regardless of what good they are doing for the world?
Sorry, I can not and will not support such call.
Anh
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com<mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
Dear everyone,
I would like to share with you this call, which is the continuation of the initiative that was addressed to the GACC.
So a few of us have decided to make a call to the stakeholders of the stove sector, to stop using the WBT, and to use and develop scientifically valid protocols instead.
Please find the documents of the call attached.
Please find below the list of the call signees:
* Adam Creighton, Independent consultant
* Ashiq Ahamed, Senior Project Manager, TIDE
* Camilla Fulland, Senior Adviser and former CEO of Prime Stoves, Norad
* Cecil Cook, Independent expert, Stove anthropologist
* Crispin Pemberton-Piggott, Adjunct Professor, China Agricultural University
* Harold Annegarn, South Africa Adjunct Professor, North West University
* Jan-Carel Diehl, Assistant Professor - Design for Sustainability, Delft University
* Jiddu Broersma, Technology Officer, Prakti
* Jorund Buen, CEO, Prime Stoves
* Miel Alanna, Independent consultant
* Mouhsine Serrar, CEO, Prakti
* Nikhil Desai, Independant expert
* Nithya Ramanathan, CEO, NexLeaf
* Partha Talukder, Business Manager, Prakti
* Paul Medwell, Associate Professor, University of Adelaide
* Peter Scott, CEO, Burn Manufacturing
* Robert J van der Plas, Independent expert, University of Adelaide
* Sujatha Srinivasan, Director, Servals
* Todd Albi, General Manager, Silver Fire
* Vahid Jahangiri, Deputy Director, ILF
* Wouter Kersten, Co-ordinator Context Variation by Design
* Xavier Brandao, Independent
If you have comments, questions, remarks about this call, don’t hesitate to react.
If you believe this is important, join us! And contribute to a much needed change in stove testing and research.
Thanks!
Xavier
Xvr.brandao at gmail.com<mailto:Xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=0rBKSikLwSzbQRu3%2BppehwrLot4PGos9zUQ7A6XhpwI%3D&reserved=0>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=RXpHaxaEjACHH9X0%2FIQ88QhisJQj%2FiQEghsD5CR7M8I%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=0rBKSikLwSzbQRu3%2BppehwrLot4PGos9zUQ7A6XhpwI%3D&reserved=0>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=RXpHaxaEjACHH9X0%2FIQ88QhisJQj%2FiQEghsD5CR7M8I%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=0rBKSikLwSzbQRu3%2BppehwrLot4PGos9zUQ7A6XhpwI%3D&reserved=0>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=RXpHaxaEjACHH9X0%2FIQ88QhisJQj%2FiQEghsD5CR7M8I%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=0rBKSikLwSzbQRu3%2BppehwrLot4PGos9zUQ7A6XhpwI%3D&reserved=0>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099214531&sdata=RXpHaxaEjACHH9X0%2FIQ88QhisJQj%2FiQEghsD5CR7M8I%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.bioenergylists.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fstoves_lists.bioenergylists.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099370796&sdata=ZqcVqwP3wDShBxqYleIn%2B%2B3lL7vhl%2Bu74Yxp7OLDm6Q%3D&reserved=0>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstoves.bioenergylists.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf27feb02aff147b06e1108d5645d090c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636525273099370796&sdata=kX2mnFDaWbOJ0vg%2BIWaQsp6kYNL%2B5KI2UAsRtvROgdg%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180126/8610f2a1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19700 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180126/8610f2a1/attachment.jpg>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list