<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:2028025158;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1187112034 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0mm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Dear Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I can’t keep track of who you are sending that to. I will continue here.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>NOTE: There is char remaining at the end of the batch. Crispin wants <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the unburned char to be counted as fuel used. Others want the char to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be valued as fuel for other stoves or as biochar or as atmospheric CO2 <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>removed. This debate is AN important question if discussing the amount <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of original FUEL that is used. But it is not THE important question <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>concerning the stove efficiency of ENERGY released (with some amount <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>captured in the pot so that ENERGY efficiency can be calculated).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I feel it necessary to add the words missing from the above:<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Crispin wants the unburned char to be counted as fuel used if that char cannot be considered fuel for the stove being tested at the time.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is not a fine point, It is basic to the rating and prediction of fuel consumption.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>In many cases (I am chasing a new one) the remaining char is fuel for another stove. Fine. That stove will be rated according to how it uses that char, and what is unburnable leftovers will be considered ‘consumed’ by that char burning stove. The point is no one gets to double dip on the energy, altering (lowering) the claimed fuel consumption by pointing out that the ‘energy used’ is a lower number. Used energy is always a lower number than available, but that should not distract us.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>We really do need to differentiate between the FUEL and the ENERGY, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>especially when a substantial amount of energy is not extracted from the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fuel, as is the case of the remaining charcoal.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Exactly! Thank you.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>This was not a problem when the only stoves available essentially took <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>all of the energy out of the fuel. But that is no longer the case and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>we need better definitions of "efficiencies".<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Well, in the 1980’s it was recognised as a problem and the Eindhoven Group and VITA both started discarding all remaining fuel as lost. They never, as far as I know, even tried using the leftovers that were burnable as part of the fuel in the next cycle, even when it was obvious that was happening on the ground. From what I can find, testes were always started with 100% new raw fuel.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>></span>With fossil fuels, we calculate that we get all of the energy released <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>from the fuel. BUT those are PROCESSED fuels like LPG and kerosene or <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>even "fuel oil". If you consider all of the original fuel (such as <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>crude oil), then there is a great amount of ENERGY in the "other stuff" <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that is not available via the stove. Should that be called "non-fuel" <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and be counted against the processed fuel's efficiency? No, not <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>really. Other derivatives of the crude oil have their own uses and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>values, of which some are not even for energy (such as asphalt).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is reasonable to make such a system analysis of the raw material. The point we face as testers is that we are asked what happens with this stove using that fuel. Period. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Charcoal made from wood fuel is no longer wood. And therefore the FUEL <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>efficiency denotes the 100% disappearance of the wood. But in terms <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for ENERGY efficiency, 100% of energy in wood = energy in charcoal + <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>E450c.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is one way to look at it.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Crispin argues that Fuel efficiency needs to be reported. This can be <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>important in areas of severe deforestation. But that thinking is <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>deficient in three regards:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Let’s look:<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>1. Tradition has used the term FUEL as if the amount of fuel could / <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should / must be equated to the amount of ENERGY that is released. But <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that equivalence is no longer the case when a significant "left-over" <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(by-product or co-product) is created, as in the case of the charcoal.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The view is correct for certain fuel types, but it is not for biomass because of the way it burns. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>2. Tradition has focused on wood as if it were the only biomass fuel <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that truly matters in cookstoves. That is no longer the case now that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pyrolytic microgasifiers that use many other forms of biomass are <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>acknowledged to be serious candidates as clean cookstoves. [And that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>acknowledgement is certainly less than 8 years old, and maybe not even <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>acknowledged by some still today. Sad but true.]<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Well….charcoal has long been recognised as a biomass fuel. How it was produced varied. Gasifiers have been around for a long time, making charcoal. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>3. Therefore, if FUEL conservation (or efficient usage) is the battle <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>cry of the testers for fuel efficiency, then the use of NON-wood fuels <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>means that the micro-gasifier stoves need to be credited with using NO <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wood from the forests and are therefore far superior than the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wood-burning stoves in regard to the saving of forests (and watersheds <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and animal habitats and biodiversity, etc.).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>That is unfortunately not the case – though some are still trying to make it (because it has certain merits). The availability of non-woody biomass is not a ‘given’ in many places. There are huge amounts of wasted biomass (burned to get rid of it) but that does not mean a generalisation is possible. Looking at the UNFCCC rules for what constitutes ‘sustainable biomass’ can lead to the conclusion that fuel efficiency (whatever the form of the biomass) is important. That is a general case, however there many places with an excess of something and others where everything is used. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>A policy manager might conclude that in their target region there is plenty of non-woody biomass and to save the forests from chopping, they will use the alternative. This does not have to be put into pyrolysers, it needs to be burned ‘somehow’ and a pyrolyser is one way to do it. It might be made into pellets or briquettes or powder. We should be technology neutral when making rules.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Summary statement and plea: Let's get off of the "wood standard" and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get on the energy standard.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>We can do that, if we do not at the same time create a rating method for stove performance that lies about the fuel consumption. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The issue for me has been that test methods have been mis-reporting actual performance and misleading programme managers who make decisions about what technology they want to support with their $$. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Stoves with equal performance shall receive equal ratings.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='margin-left:36.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Stoves with unequal performance shall not receive equal ratings. <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If the mathematics of the test method provides a rating that contradicts either of those rules, it needs to be investigated and corrected. If a metric is the actual problem, change the metric (calculate something else that <i>is</i> representative of performance). <o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>When it comes to mass of fuel consumed, the energy in it and so on, the lab is agnostic. There are no holy stoves and there are no holy fuels. The stove does what it does, emits what it emits, and consumes what it consumes. We just report it. Don’t shoot the messenger.<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre></div></div></body></html>