[Stoves] Celebrate! First-ever international standard for laboratory testing of cookstoves published.

[Nikhil Desai]

Dear Ron:

I respect your enthusiasm for biochar, just that I don't think household
cookstoves for the poor would get to enough volume any time soon, by when
other alternatives for negative carbon may materialize, or that climate
vulnerabilities of the poor can be addressed more effectively and at a
lower cost.

By "all this", I meant the arguments between Crispin and you about
computation of stove efficiency for boiling water (*). I have said
repeatedly that I don't believe in boiling water, or about fuel-free,
cook-free, context-free stove testing. I am also against the Lima/IWA
performance metrics and tiers. I know there are grant-makers with appetite
for fantasy - say, DfID to UN Foundation - but I will believe in $35/tCO2
when I see it applied to all emissions, not sand castles like CDM and Gold
Standard.

By now I think there are enough failed stove models to fill a Trump
International hotel.  Made for bureaucrats and experts. That's why I asked
"whom" and set my standard at only 10% of what is claimed to be the
potential market.

You have a different faith, which too I respect. I just don't think getting
the right mathematical formulation is a sufficient condition for survival
of markets in products and rights or for solving the cooking problem for
the poor - which is adequate, nutritious food, not how it is cooked.

Incidentally, subsidies are transferring money,.not making money. Where the
subsidy goes is another question.  Somebody has to make that money before
it can be given away to stove advocates.   For all the theology of
PCIA-inspired IWA and WHO/Gold Standard shenanigans, we are no closer to a
billion dollar subsidy program for biomass stoves than we were 10 years
ago.

I am not even sure ISO TC-285 is adequately funded to finish its technical
work, leave alone national governments adopting and enforcing "standards".
This is a tragicomedy.


Nikhil

(*) Crispin says "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." I don't
remember reading in the draft ISO 19867-1 anything about specific cooking
tasks. I challenge you all to come up with 50 stove designs tested in five
different labs and in a year-long field test, for ten different specific
cooking tasks - baking, broiling, boiling and simmering, frying, and mix
thereof - for ten local dishes. I just got as life extension, but I doubt I
would see these results in my lifetime. Gas and electricity have met all
the incremental cooking demand for the world population growth since 1960,
and will continue to do so.


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


On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Nikhil,  cc  list and Crispin
>
> See inserts.
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Nikhil Desai <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> 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> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180703/d4cdd85a/attachment.html>