[Stoves] Celebrate! First-ever international standard for laboratory testing of cookstoves published.
Paul Anderson
psanders at ilstu.edu
Tue Jul 3 07:31:40 CDT 2018
Ron,
Thanks for that well-stated reply. I hope that many readers will
digest what you have presented.
My comments are restriced to only the discussion of equations and their
meanings. (How we arrive at 50 million char-making stoves is a vastely
dirrerent topic.)
The explanation by equations might be better understood or at least
illustrated with a few sets of number based on actual stove typess (see
reference to the triangular graph mentioned in your message.).
You wrote:
> *To repeat, the equation under discussion is used without apology
> throughout the new ISO 19867-1 document.
> *
Maybe give a few specific references / page numbers. But I for one
will not be checking that.
> *I believe I have stated that the correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in
> part because it is identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D = inefficiency
> and B = A+C+D - as can be deduced from viewing what's going on in a
> triangular diagram.
> *
Maybe it is time to show such a triangular diagram (in which any
position in the triangle shows the three numbers that total 100%).
What are the three components? You have 4 letteres A B C D. and
what does each one mean in the real world? I am trying to understand
the concept of D as "inefficiency", which is being added to A, but D is
a negative number .
I am guessing that the produced charcoal (Just just happens to be
convieniently called "C") is zero for sstoves that do not produce char
and something like 20% if measured as weight or 30% if measured as
energy. Is this making sense? Please explain further.
> *And Crispin continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
> efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of
> what would be expected if char (variable C) had NOT been produced. *
Further elaboration on that would be helpful.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 7/3/2018 1:13 AM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
> Nikhil, cc list and Crispin
>
> See inserts.
>
>
>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Ron:
>>
>> A billion dollar question — what difference does all this make and to
>> whom?
>
> *[RWL1: I respond assuming by "all this" that you mean my 10
> responses to Crispin. Summarizing those 10 is relatively easy - the
> only (repeat *_*only)*_*sentence below (the second sentence I asked
> under RWL1) - to which Crispin did *_not_*later reply (61 minutes
> after yours - i.e. at 9:16 PM Mountain time): ** I said: "/Please
> explain what equation you would give for this answer for a stove that
> has intentionally made char."/*
> *//*
> *Since he chose not to give us an answer on the 28th, this will give
> him (and I hope you and others) another shot at an approach
> alternative to that in wide and continuing use. I expect no answer
> from Crispin, since he apparently disputes the validity of even
> trying. To repeat, the equation under discussion is used without
> apology throughout the new ISO 19867-1 document. I believe I have
> stated that the correctness of e3 = A/(B-C) is in part because it is
> identical to e3 = A/(A+D), where D = inefficiency and B = A+C+D - as
> can be deduced from viewing what's going on in a triangular diagram.
> And Crispin continues to mis-state what e3 is. It is NOT the
> efficiency for the test providing A,B, and C. It is a statement of
> what would be expected if char (variable C) had NOT been produced. I
> ask Crispin again to supply a better statement for what the efficiency
> would be if char had not been produced. Ot alternatively, what
> equation would he use to compare char-making stoves with all others?*
> *
> *
> *The above was only to set the stage for my (and I hope to hear from
> others) answers to your important questions: "what differences and
> who cares". Tor me, the difference is largely in whether we are able
> to assign tiers. If you (anyone) don't think it important (or wise or
> permissible) to compare a char-making stove to a non-char-making
> stove, you (anyone) will reject tiers. It is much easier to reject
> tiers if you can discredit the equation (the only equation) that
> allows comparisons. The concept of tiers was endorsed (I think)
> unanimously in Lima some 5-6 years ago. And this question was known
> fully at that time. I think tiers are critical to stove improvement.*
> *
> *
> *I contend that even if there were no such thing as tiers, it would
> still be helpful to have this denominator equation - as the equation
> contains the terms showing exactly where the energy is distributed.
> If you don't measure the weight, you won't know the energy in the
> char - and you can have no idea of the true inefficiencies.*
> *
> *
> *Lastly - "to whom": This equation and the tier system it allows is
> obviously important information to both buyers and sellers.
> Char-making started off (early 1990's) being interesting to me as a
> way of helping remove pressure on forests, where traditional
> char-making is often now illegal - because traditional char-making is
> so wasteful (and harmful to the environment in many ways). Next came
> a period of selling char-making stoves on health grounds - still the
> primary interest of many stove activists. Next came a period of
> realizing that stoves that make char are also time savers. And of
> course, my present emphasis on the carbon-negativity aspects of
> char-making stoves. I contend all of these positive attributes that
> follow from the simple equation A/(B-C) = A/(A+D) should be important
> to something approaching 100% of the global population. Who should
> not want a stove that accomplishes all those ends?*
> *(Aside - I learned this week of a char-making stove design that has
> MUCH larger turn-down ratio. In a month or so, we should all hear more.)*
> *
> *
>> And when will the cooks know?
> *[RWL2: Very shortly after we have international agreement on a
> tax/fee/subsidy available to technologies that are carbon negative.
> When do you think that might occur? I am guessing maybe five years.
> It will occur sooner wherever the benefits of biochar become better
> known (an example is what we have heard from Julian Winter in
> Bangladesh).*
> *But for sure there are cooks already who know - as in the Inyenyeri
> study with the Mimi Moto forced draft stove (see
> *https://www.inyenyeri.com/development and
> http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html), *and some recent
> reports on stove acceptance by Paul Anderson *(see
> http://www.drtlud.com/)*. The Inyenyeri cooks only knew part of the
> advantages of the stove - emphasizing cleanliness and time savings,
> but not money earnings (because the needed initial (not perpetual)
> subsidy or biochar advantage is not yet available..*
>
>> I am reminded of a classmate who sought to prove the instability of
>> capitalist system by showing the third derivative of the aggregate
>> production function was of the wrong sign.
> *[RWL3: I have no idea why this is in here. I talked many decades
> ago with Dennis Meadows and another author of "Limits to Growth".
> Believing the "Limits" story, I believe your classmate was off in the
> order of the derivative. Since I believe there is zero possibility
> of continuing ever onwards to an infinitely large GNP, without knowing
> anything about your classmate's project - I might guess the right
> answer is the first or second derivative, depending on what is being
> varied. The point of this answer is of course to emphasize the
> importance of char-making stoves to getting on to a sustainable path.*
> *What were you driving at with this story?*
> **
>
>> Assuming you are correct, when will the first 50 million clean
>> biomass stoves be exclusively used for two years and where?
> *[RWL4: I consider only the char-making stoves to be clean enough to
> worry about, so I answer only for char-makers, and accept your further
> stipulations of 50 Million and 2 years. This of course depends on my
> answer to your 2nd question on cooks understanding en masse the
> benefits of making (not using) charcoal. The current growth path for
> biochar is approximately doubling every two years. With a subsidy
> near $35/tonne CO2 (already seen in some times and places), then this
> will approximately allow a 6 month payback if the char can be sold for
> $200/ton of char (20 cents per kilo of char).*
> *I am not going to worry about your word "exclusively" - but rather
> that the char-maker is the primary stove - because it is the cheapest,
> cleanest, most time-saving stove and I see no reason for a
> rural low-income user (maybe 2 billion in that category) to use
> another. So my guess is about 10 doublings (ten years) to grow from
> about 50 thousand users to 50 million. We might be at 50,000 such
> stoves already, but will be shortly. It took PV about 50 years to
> reach cost parity (in the 1970's the cost was $100/Watt); char-making
> stoves are already much closer to cost parity. *
> *To check a bit - your 50 million stove number, multiplied by about 4
> users per stoves and dividing by about 2 billion potential users is
> getting up to about 10% acceptance. I don't expect to stop at 10%
> when the user can make money (and save time, health bills, forests,
> etc). *
> **
> *Again, thanks for allowing me to make my sales pitch for both
> char-making stoves and biochar - based here on the importance of the
> equation (and WBT and tier structure) I have assumed you are asking
> about.*
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>> Nikhil
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Nikhil Desai
>> (US +1) 202 568 5831
>> /Skype: nikhildesai888/
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Ronal W. Larson
>> <rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> List and Crispin:
>>
>> This is a partial response, due to press of other matters.
>>
>> Please see inserts.
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
>>> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Ronal and All
>>> Just on comment:
>>> >>“I hope this standard is the last nail in the WBT coffin.”
>>> > *[RWL: I hope you are willing to change your mind on "coffin",
>>> per the above. What I do hope will soon be dead is the Chinese
>>> stove standard which says to treat intentionally-produced char
>>> the same as unburned fuel or ash. I think the same for the
>>> South African standard. I can think of no reasonable rationale
>>> for such a position.
>>>
>>> *
>>> I think you may be misunderstanding something about how
>>> calculations are made in the ISO test method. One of the most
>>> important metrics for stove performance is assessing the amount
>>> of fuel fed into the stove in order to accomplish a task such as
>>> baking 1000 cookies or boiling 200 ears of corn.
>>> The metric is “Fuel Fed” (please see the list of definitions).
>> *RWL1: I suggest you misunderstand my misunderstandings.
>> Please explain what equation you would give for this answer for a
>> stove that has intentionally made char. I think you are
>> suggesting here in this answer (and below) that there is nothing
>> wrong with the present Chinese approach to pay zero attention to
>> intentionally produced char. True?*
>>
>>> The mass of fuel fed was carefully written to capture the
>>> quantity of fuel needed to accomplish some cooking task. Whether
>>> the stove produces char or not is a secondary point. IT is easy
>>> to report the amount of char produced, and there are metrics for
>>> doing so. It is the amount of char produced per kg or per dry kg
>>> of fuel fed.
>> *[RWL2: You leave out that it is not at all easy to provide the
>> energy (not the weight) of that char. Both are of interest.*
>>> Importantly, the cheating that has been taking place using the
>>> WBT is not brought to an end. If I look for the amount of fuel
>>> fed into the stove per replication of some task, be it the
>>> standard one or a relevant one, I will find the amount of fuel
>>> needed to do so. If there is a secondary product such as
>>> condensate, char, heat that can be used for a secondary purpose
>>> such as space heating, or electricity, these are all recorded in
>>> an appropriate manner.
>> *[RWL3: Is now and was in the WBT 4.2.3 and earlier versions.
>> Cites on cheating have not been produced to my knowledge.*
>>> The cheat that was with us for so long, claiming as the WBT1.x,
>>> 2.x, 3.x and 4.x that a stove did not consume fuel because it
>>> emerged from the cooking session in the form of char, is gone,
>>> thankfully. Please refer again to the definitions.
>> *[RWL4: This is erroneous. Please give the (exact)
>> language anywhere that suggests the "did not consume" . Please
>> don't ask others to go find something they don't believe exists.*
>>
>>> That ‘char deducted’ formula that you refer to is an energy
>>> calculation that relates to the fraction of energy in the fuel
>>> fed that was released (theoretically) during cooking. It no
>>> longer refers to the mass of fuel fed, as it once did.
>> *[RWL5: This paragraph makes no sense. There is no theoretical
>> release in the equation being used to give a number to allow
>> comparing char-making stoves with those that don't. All the
>> numbers going into that computation are given and all have been
>> in theist WBTs I know about. In the Chinese official test
>> procedure, the char is wished away.*
>>> This is a major advance in testing methods. Only the stove
>>> testing groups used the erroneous ‘char-deducted’ formula. When
>>> searching the literature for some example elsewhere in industry,
>>> not a single one could be found because the claim was
>>> fundamentally misrepresentative. That has now been cleared up.
>> *[RWL6: Again a paragraph that makes no sense. Please give
>> exact language from anywhere on what you are talking about. I
>> think it is the "denominator equation" - which still exists in
>> the latest ISO version - I think adopted with essentially a
>> unanimous vote of many countries (not individuals).*
>> *
>> *
>>> The remaining mentions of the WBT are for PR purposes only. Not
>>> a single voice supporting the use of a “WBT-like” test was
>>> raised in the ISO process. In fact it was put to a vote in
>>> exactly that form, in those words: “WBT-like”. No one wanted it.
>>> Now, it is only for the organisations who supported the WBT for
>>> so long to be given enough space for them to quietly drop it
>>> while pretending that it was a valid method all along. To do
>>> otherwise would be to admit they were cheating donors. We do not
>>> have to extract that pound of flesh.
>> *[RWL7: This is a long way from what others have told me
>> occurred. So I will break here to hear from others (who I hope
>> can also join in). *
>> *It would help this list to have your explanation of how you know
>> what to be true.*
>>> The ISO Standard is not anyone’s standard – it only has meaning
>>> when a country adopts it, or adapts it. Any country
>>> contemplating adopting this document as a national standard will
>>> have to consider how it will be implemented, and whether all of
>>> it or some of it will apply. When it comes to things like fuel
>>> efficiency, which is important in some regions, it is likely the
>>> national standards body will apply its collective mind to what
>>> portions of this massive document they will use. As anyone
>>> reading it will quickly see, it is unnecessarily complex, and
>>> requires numerous pieces of equipment that are very expensive if
>>> one is to have a reasonable level of confidence in the result.
>>> Because a national standard provides a warranty of performance,
>>> it is pointless to have as a test method something that doesn’t
>>> provide it.
>> *[RWL8: I claim none of this paragraph is true. I have skimmed
>> it; Crispin says he has not. A country that chooses to ignore a
>> work that has taken such effort will lose a lot of credibility in
>> science circles. This took many years to balance complexity with
>> completeness.*
>>> People seeking lower cost and more accurate alternatives may
>>> consider adapting Indian IS–13152, China’s NB/T 43008 – 2012, or
>>> the CSI test method which has been used internationally in some
>>> form since 2009.
>> *[RWL9: I repeat my claim that Crispin has kindly repeated
>> above: **/ "I can think of no reasonable rationale for such a
>> position." / **To report results on a stove designed to make char
>> without measuring the char, because the national standard says
>> so, is unbelievable. That couldn't happen if offending
>> countries adopt the new ISO procedure.*
>>>
>>> The WBT 4.2.3 contained, when it does, some 75 systematic errors
>>> as well as its much-discussed conceptual errors. We do not know
>>> yet how many are contained in the ISO-19867-1 because it has not
>>> been reviewed conceptually or systematically. Because the test
>>> method is novel, (untested) problems with its implementation
>>> will have to be resolved at the national adoption level, if it
>>> turns out to be acceptable ahead of other options.
>> *[RWL8: I have asked for this "75" list several times and do so
>> again. The ISO document that is being discussed _has_
>> undergone agonizing review - by top experts.*
>> *
>> *
>>> The problems created by the WBT remain, however, as witnessed by
>>> the recent release of the second edition of the Micro-gasifier
>>> Handbook which makes barley any mention of testing and includes
>>> multiple references to ‘performance’ based on the obviously
>>> erroneous fuel consumption claims of the WBT.
>> *[RWL9: How about a specific cite and example quotes? I claim
>> it quite likely that there is zero error in the consumption claims.*
>>> For anyone who is new to this topic I recommend reading the
>>> CREEC Lab test of the Quad II stove (featured in that Handbook)
>>> which shows that the fuel fed per replication of the test is 1.3
>>> kg (as received) and claims a dry wood fuel consumption of 636
>>> g. I will read it again, but I think the handbook does not
>>> address this issue squarely and it must in the next edition.
>>> Char production is a secondary benefit and can negatively affect
>>> the fuel consumption rate. Advocates should not shy away from
>>> discussing it. A good example of how to handle secondary
>>> benefits is heating stoves, which are assessed on the basis of
>>> the cooking provided, the heat provided, and the combination.
>>> Where char is an additional secondary benefit, it should also be
>>> listed in the form of carbon mass, if it is for sequestering,
>>> energy, if it is for fuel, or total surface per gram if it is
>>> for “activated” uses.
>> *[RWL10: Crispin here totally misses everything possible about
>> char-making stoves. More on this if he wishes and gives cites so
>> we don't waste more time on something agreed upon in the new ISO
>> test procedures. *
>>
>> *Measuring char-making capabilities of a cook stove that excels
>> in emissions and other ways is probably a real problem if one is
>> into coal-consuming heating stoves.*
>> *
>> *
>> *Ron*
>>
>>> Regards
>>> Crispin
>>> ISO TC-285 WG1, WG2, WG3, WG4.
>>> P-member SABS TC-1043__
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180703/d216ffe0/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list