<div dir="ltr">Dear Ron:<br><br>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. <br><br>
<span style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">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. <br><br>By now I think there are enough failed stove models to fill a Trump International hotel. </span> 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. <br><br>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. <br><br>Incidentally, subsidies are transferring money,.not making money. Where the subsidy goes is another question.
<span style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Somebody has to make that money before it can be given away to stove advocates. </span>
<span style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">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. <br></span><br>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.<br style="font-size:small;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">
<br><br>Nikhil<br><br>(*) Crispin says "<span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">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." </span>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. <br><br><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><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Nikhil Desai</font></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">(US +1) 202 568 5831</span><font face="georgia, serif"><br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br></font><br></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 Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Nikhil, cc list and Crispin<div><br></div><div>See inserts.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><span class=""><div>On Jun 28, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-interchange-newline"></span><div><div dir="ltr">Ron: <br><br>A billion dollar question — what difference does all this make and to whom? <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[RWL1: I respond assuming by "all this" that you mean my 10 responses to Crispin. Summarizing those 10 is relatively easy - the only (repeat </b><u><b>only)</b></u><b> sentence below (the second sentence I asked under RWL1) - to which Crispin did </b><u style="font-weight:bold">not</u><b> later reply (61 minutes after yours - i.e. at 9:16 PM Mountain time): </b><b> I said: "<i>Please explain what equation you would give for this answer for a stove that has intentionally made char."</i></b></div><div><b><i><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></i></b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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?</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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?</b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>(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.)</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">And when will the cooks know?<br></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[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).</b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>But for sure there are cooks already who know - as in the Inyenyeri study with the Mimi Moto forced draft stove (see </b><a href="https://www.inyenyeri.com/development" target="_blank">https://www.inyenyeri.<wbr>com/development</a> and <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/552.html" target="_blank">http://<wbr>cleancookstoves.org/resources/<wbr>552.html</a>), <b>and some recent reports on stove acceptance by Paul Anderson </b>(see <a href="http://www.drtlud.com/" target="_blank">http://www.drtlud.com/</a>)<b>. 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..</b></div><div><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">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. <br></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[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.</b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>What were you driving at with this story?</b></div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Assuming you are correct, when will the first 50 million clean biomass stoves be exclusively used for two years and where? <br></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[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).</b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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. </b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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). </b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></b></div><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>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.</b></div><div><br></div><b>Ron</b></div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Nikhil<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_6084657262537574199gmail_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><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>------------<br>Nikhil Desai</font></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">(US +1) 202 568 5831</span><font face="georgia, serif"><br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br></font><br></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 28, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Ronal W. Larson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rongretlarson@comcast.net" target="_blank">rongretlarson@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">List and Crispin:<div><br></div><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>This is a partial response, due to press of other matters.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Please see inserts.</div><div><br><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 27, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span>Dear Ronal and All</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Just on comment:<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">>>“I hope this standard is the last nail in the WBT coffin.”<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442apple-tab-span">> <span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><b>[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.<br><br></b><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">The metric is “Fuel Fed” (please see the list of definitions).</div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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?</b><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[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.</b><span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL3: Is now and was in the WBT 4.2.3 and earlier versions. Cites on cheating have not been produced to my knowledge.</b><span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[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.</b></div><span><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[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.</b></div><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.<span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[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).</b></div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote></span><div><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span><b>[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). </b></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>It would help this list to have your explanation of how you know what to be true.</b></div><span><div><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[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.</b><span><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL9: I repeat my claim that Crispin has kindly repeated above: </b><b style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><i> "I can think of no reasonable rationale for such a position." </i> </b><b>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.</b><span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL8: I have asked for this "75" list several times and do so again. The ISO document that is being discussed <u>has</u> undergone agonizing review - by top experts.</b></div><div><span><b><br></b><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[RWL9: How about a specific cite and example quotes? I claim it quite likely that there is zero error in the consumption claims.</b></div><div><span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><blockquote type="cite"><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</div></div></div></blockquote><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></span><b>[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. </b></div><div><br></div><div><b><span class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>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.</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Ron</b></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span><div class="m_6084657262537574199m_-7494411321189096442WordSection1" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Regards<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Crispin<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">ISO TC-285 WG1, WG2, WG3, WG4.<u></u><u></u></div><div style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">P-member SABS TC-1043<u> </u></div></div></div></span></div></blockquote></div></div></div>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>