<div dir="ltr">Crispin: <br><br><div>I lecture you all the time "Do not rush to ascribe to conspiracy that which mere stupidity would suffice to explain." <br><br>But in this instance, I smell a rat. There seems to be a disconnect between EPA stove testing and cooking. Because there is nobody from the "cooking" business that is engaged. <br><br>This is so unlike anything I have ever observed in the past - from power plant and industrial boiler emissions regulations to even the residential wood heater regulations. As a regulator, EPA has to engage the industry it affects, understand the economic context of technology, evaluate control options that meet the basic "service standard" (certain type of steam, say) and justify them in terms of specific objective -- compliance with ambient air quality standards. <br><br>Here what has happened is that a small junket has been started up by EPA for cookstove testing when it has no jurisdiction over cookstove regulation in its own country - US - leave alone the rest of the world. Nobody has required it to engage the stove designers and users around the world. There is no service standard - there cannot be one for some "integrated" cooking solution. (There can be some for rice cooker, tortilla maker, griddle, grill, whatever; you have those for gas and electric appliances, which are NOT regulated by EPA by the way.) <br><br>Yes, a research junket with no sensible oversight. <br><br>But not without a purpose. The purpose is to acquire -- or pretend to acquire -- enough emissions data to go on justifying the preference for LPG and electricity. First begin by condemning solid fuels as "dirty fuels", then keep testing new biomass stoves so they can be dismissed as "not truly health protective" (Kirk Smith's mantra). <br><br>Of course, nobody is going to admit in public that this is the intent. Perhaps it is not, it is only the impact. <br><br>I too favor expansion of access to gas and electricity - and solar, biogas, as also biomass combustion devices that are "clean enough" and USABLE - but I don't need this raft of irrelevant data on particle size. <br><br>EPA and its contractor can go on doing what they wish, but we should recognize this drama for what it is -- a research junket. <br><br>Not everything that goes on in the name of science qualifies to be treated as such. And certainly not something that pretends to be science in service of public. I would be hard pressed to accept that EPA research junket - in collaboration with its contractors in Berkeley and in Approvecho - has done much for the 5 billion poor (cohorts past and future) that have subjected to IHME's Killing by Assumption. <br><br>If this is too opaque for people to understand, you and I need to design a webinar on designing new clothes for the emperor and the queens. <br><br><br>Nikhil<br><br><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------</font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">Nikhil Desai</font></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="georgia, serif">(India +91)909 995 2080<br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Dear Paul</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I generally concur with your comments about the selection. Jim, I have a suggestion: how about asking the stovers for recommendations for models and then do another set of tests?</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I am particularly pleased to see some parallel tests using far more realistic fuel moisture choices. I don't believe anything about emissions from a stove using fuel with 5% a moisture content. Fuel moisture has a powerful influence on emissions of PM and
VOC's. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I would recommend stoves that have had at least 1000 sales on a commercial basis (excludes stoves bought by an org and given away) and those which are seen by 'us' to be representative of the state of the art. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Included in that category are the TLUD made by Sujatha and one or more models from Prime and Dr Nurhuda. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Regards </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Crispin </div></font></span><div><div class="h5">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,'Slate Pro',sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div>Stovers,<br>
<br>
I previously asked:<br>
On 5/31/2017 11:22 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">11 fuel-stove combinations covering a variety of fuels and different stoves are investigated for UFP emissions and PNSD.
</blockquote>
I am interested in knowing if those 11 included what I consider to be the better versions of TLUD stoves, both natural draft and forced air.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have now seen the article, and provide comments ABOUT THE STOVES SELECTED. This is NOT about the quality of measurements, etc.<br>
<br>
1. For purposes of review comments, I am allowed to provide some selected information from the publication:<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:part1.C65C41C9.C10D9825@ilstu.edu" alt=""><br>
******************************<wbr>****<br>
Of interest (to me) are numbers 4, 6, 10, and 11. <br>
#4. Stove Tec Prototype. Lousy choice to be representing TLUD-FA stoves. This is old by TLUD standards.<br>
It was tested years ago with great results. Only one unit ever made, as far as I know..
<br>
<br>
#6. Belonio TLUD-FA (or FD) with rice husk fuel. Poor choice. Again, an older stove that did not go into
<br>
[much] production, and using a non-woody fuel when all other comparisons of solid fuels are wood.<br>
<br>
#10. Although Philips, it is a rocket stove, and not of main interest.<br>
#12. The Philips high-turbulance fan-jet stove. This is NOT designed for nor used in TLUD fashion.
<br>
<br>
Net result: This research tells us information that is of very little use and is not representative of the state of
<br>
the art of TLUD stoves, whether FA or ND.<br>
<br>
******************************<wbr>*********<br>
Crispin also guided me to another study by essentially the same group:<br>
"Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Fine Particulate Matter Emitted<br>
from Burning Kerosene, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and Wood Fuels in<br>
Household Cookstoves"<br>
Guofeng Shen,† William Preston,‡ Seth M. Ebersviller,§ Craig Williams,‡ Jerroll W. Faircloth,∥<br>
James J. Jetter,*,⊥ and Michael D. Hays⊥<br>
<br>
The solid-fuel (wood) stoves in this study were<br>
"(iii) wood (10 and 30% moisture content on a wet basis) in a forced-draft fan stove, and (iv) wood<br>
in a natural-draft rocket cookstove."<br>
<br>
Rockets did not do well (and not an issue with me). But the "forced-draft fan stove" that also was not optimal is
<br>
of interest to me. What TLUD-FA stove did they choose? An "Eco-chula XXL" which is seen at:<br>
<a class="m_-1495588955347442201moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ecochula.co.in/xxl.html" target="_blank">http://www.ecochula.co.in/xxl.<wbr>html</a><br>
<br>
I my opinion, that was a terrible choice, (large diameter gives worse emissions, and is not representative of household cooking) and therefore the TLUD-FA results of this study are not representative. From the TLUD perspective, this study only contributed
to the PERCEPTION (erroneous in my opinion) that TLUD-FA stoves are not very good.
<br>
<br>
The Mimi Moto TLUD-FA has been available since 2015. That would have been a much better choice.
<br>
And certainly the Champion TLUD-ND (available since about 2008) is the best choice for that category stove, but is never included.
<br>
<br>
FYI, Except for the BEIA project in Uganda with the Mwoto TLUD-ND, I have never been asked about what TLUD stoves might best be include in testing or in research projects. Never. Not by EPA or CSU or Aprovecho or Berkeley or D-Lab or anyone else.
<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="m_-1495588955347442201moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="m_-1495588955347442201moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="m_-1495588955347442201moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>