[Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3

[Crispin Pemberton-Pigott]

Dear Norbert

In fact I have a number for you – forces out by the need to match some emissions per ton burned used by the JICA team in Ulaanbaatar which is doing the air shed modelling.

The metric is mass of PM2.5 per ton burned. It makes no reference to the energy in the fuel per kg or to the efficiency of the stove (which is why it is a dumb metric). All the same, I believe the incoming EPA target (2022, possibly delayed?) is 13 g/ton burned. Perhaps you can correct that number.

The current crop of space heating and water heaters (hydronic heaters) is 0.09 kg per ton, or 0.7% of the future EPA target for wood stoves.

Properly accounted for, meaning considering the energy available in a ton of fuel and the efficiency of the stove at delivering it, the metric is mass emitter per MJ delivered (MJNET) and the number is 6 mg for the high power only, flat-out heating test (SEET Lab, UB) and 0.4 mg for the Hebei Farmer’s heating and cooking sequence.

Because these test sequences are contextual they are not directly comparable, save with similar tests in the neighbourhood. So the relevant comparison is a relative on: how much is the reduction compared with the baseline. In the case of the UB flat-out high power test, the reduction is just over 99%.

Regards
Crispin

From: Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> On Behalf Of Norbert Senf
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 12:03 PM
To: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stoves Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3


On 7/5/2018 9:01 AM, Harold Annegarn wrote:

Dear Paul, Andrew and list

I would like to add my voice to a request for coal stoves (home cooking and
heating) to be added back to the discussion topics for stove list.

I agree with Andrew's comments that the diversion into climate change was
way off topic and should not be part of this list. But the fact that such
abuse occurred is not to my mind valid reason to blacklist the entire
domain of coal stoves. There are are of the world where coals (of various
types) are the dominant energy carrier, and the techniques for clean
burning stoves, whether coal or modern biomass, rely on the same underlying
principles of physics, chemistry and industrial design.

Please do not allow populist sentiment against coal as a  source of long
term climate pollution detract from the near-term necessity to burn it as
cleanly as possible until the longed for utopia when we all live in a
pollution free planet, with no war, hunger or inequality (or smelly
domestic combustion fuels!).

I would second Prof. Annegarn's request. My own interest lies in clean burning heating stoves. Our particular
learning curve, which includes PM measurement, has resulted in cordwood burning stoves that are
twice as clean as pellet stoves (in terms of "EPA PM number").

We do have a wood burning cookstove at home, and have been cooking on it for the last 45 years,
so cookstoves are also of interest.

On the combustion side, I have learned a lot from Crispin, and he serves on our Masonry Heater
Association technical committee. I follow his coal burning adventures with interest. I first met Dr.
Tami Bond online on this list in the 90's, when she was pursuing her PhD studies on coal burning stoves in
China. Crispin's PM numbers for coal burning stoves sound too good to be true, so I look forward
to getting the "EPA PM number" some day, for an apples-to-apples comparison with wood.

--
Norbert Senf
Masonry Stove Builders
25 Brouse Road, RR 5
Shawville Québec J0X 2Y0
819.647.5092
www.heatkit.com<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heatkit.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5d5c88fd7efd4a50f8ab08d5e290ed96%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636664034435024186&sdata=JJXuMnFDzxt43g3fN5nKrW3VrHSUiot9FQHEglFQRB8%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180705/c29d2040/attachment.html>