<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=utf-8"><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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
mso-fareast-language:EN-CA;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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 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 Nikhil<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><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>You have done that now - with the claim "<span style='color:#1F497D'>Many countries already have stove performance standards. In order to have an ISO standard replace a national standard, it will have to at least as good a job because it will displace it."</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>Permit me to ask - <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>a) How many of these are for solid biomass stoves alone, without specifying fuel quality and utilization practices? <span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Well there is slightly narrow but I would say there are a range of answers. Let me explain:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>If you mean standards (at all) for biomass burning stoves, there are a lot for space heating and few for cooking, and those few for cooking are not compulsory save in a few countries. China probably has the most because they have industry standards, city standards, provincial and national standards. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I have repeatedly seen in publications claims that the Berkeley WBT (now under the custodianship of the GACC) is an ‘international test’. We all know there is no such thing. Any test one claims is supported by a reference in the IWA 2012:11 is blowing smoke if it has not been externally, expertly reviewed (as required by that self-same document). There was established no mechanism for reviewing test methods. To claim that the WBT 4.1.2 (which has lots of errors) be being referenced in the IWA is ‘accepted’ is a clear case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading">special pleading</a>. There is no international WBT. If we take the most popular, or the most used, or the most used for the most stoves, only India and China even have a test on the table. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The interesting thing is that India’s test is mathematically reasonably sound (though it still has about a dozen category errors) and the Chinese test is the one most correct and has a test cycle that is reasonably realistic. I would say the same for India’s but someone wrote into it years ago that they should use totally dried wood which completely changes the PM emissions. In consequence, if you want your stove to ‘pass’ in India, you have to build it to pass the test, not to be clean and efficient.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The same applies to the EPA test – a well-known and complained about aspect they have to face and deal with. At the moment there are multiple groups working on that. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>b) What difference have these performance standards for solid biomass stoves made in the markets for stoves and for fuels? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The biggest difference is between compulsory standards (the EU, China and South Africa) and voluntary standards (India, USA, Canada). I am referring to more than cooking stoves because there are almost no compulsory biomass cooking stove standards anywhere. The heating stove market is really hopping in North America with the advent of pellet stoves. The performance is good, reproducible and the metrics have some validity. Some states have compulsory standards.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>For cooking, compulsory in order to be marketed? I think even in China there are places you can sell and buy stoves that are not compliant. Perhaps someone can confirm that. In some cities/provinces there are compulsory regulations. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The effect: mostly China has concentrated on energy efficiency – i.e. fuel saving. That was the most important thing. Now they are concentrating on emissions, particularly of PM. Watch that space as they are still working on it. For the first time domestic coal stove and wood stove standards are becoming aligned. Not completely, but it is happening because of an interest in PM.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>In short, what "job" have the existing standards done? Who bothers if a new one does any? <br><br><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The cooking stoves with the most regulations are LPG and gas, with kerosene following behind. South Africa has two compulsory standards for heaters, lanterns and cooking stoves, (not cooking alone) and they are strongly focussed on safety, not emissions. There is a CO/CO<sub>2</sub> requirement (<2%).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><br><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>I suspect the composition of solid biomass fuel types and qualities - twigs to dung, grass to charcoal - has changed in most countries but nobody has bothered to document the changes, or the changes in operating practices of stoves and the influence, if any, of the supposed "national stove performance standards" on price of eggs. A few million dollars more for such expert trips to blind alleys? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Correct. Things that change are:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Kitchen architecture<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Fuels<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Fuel use behaviour<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Cooking patterns, particularly faster cooking foods in urban settings<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Co-firing with dung is becoming more common as the wood resources in some area goes unreplaced. Tajikistan is a good example of that. And Malawi.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Pot sizes and materials are evolving<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Meals are more common and smaller, generally speaking<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>One of the stresses with standards is the conflict (as I see it) between the designers and engineers who want internal measurements they are interested in v.s. the overall performance metrics regulators need. The VITA WBT was designed for designers. SANS 1243 and 1906 are designed for regulators. Ostensibly ISO 19867 is for regulators but it contains a great deal more.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Did you see the paper we are now just starting to discuss? I think your long term involvement in this field means your input on the PM toxicity and exposure, dispersion, disease response and the modelling of it will be valuable to this group discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Thanks for your interest<br>Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>