List, cc Crispin, Paul, and Jim
See below ----- Original Message ----- From: "Crispin Pemberton-Pigott" <[email protected]> To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:06:09 AM Subject: Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests. Dear Paul Here is the problem restated slightly better without prejudice re other biomass: If someone is interested in the char, it can be reported – it is in the raw data set. What Ron is proposing, to reduce the energy in the fuel consumed by the heat energy available in the remaining char, is akin to considering the fuel efficiency to be the energy efficiency which is precisely what created for us a problem in the first place. [RWL1: Maybe true, but I don't think I am proposing anything new. I am totally agreeing (on the 23rd, with shorthand nomenclature of E1, E2, E3, defined by Jim Jetter) with what Jim proposed (also on the 23nd), in response to my note of the previous day. I take it you think these three pieces of output are inappropriate? Drop or add what?] The energy value of the char came from somewhere. Consider a stove that needs 2 tons of biomass per year to operate. If it produces ¼ of a ton of biomass energy equivalent in the form of char, fine. Say so. But saying so does not reduce the two tons of biomass it takes to feed the system. If you have (as you pointed out) a second stove that can utilise the charcoal, then that can be viewed as a ‘system’ by all and sundry, but is still does not change the fact that Stove 1 takes two tons of biomass each year which is what the reported fuel consumption should be. The impact of a system is not the same as the impact of a component of that system. The only debate left is how to report the fuel consumption and by-products. [RWL2: I have sai d I have no problem w ith th is. But I think GACC etal need also to give data (E3) appropriate for those who plan on using the char as biochar. Disagree? What has been happening that is wrong, in my view, is that stoves that actually take off 3 tons of biomass per year have been getting credit for taking only one ton and proclaimed to be ‘better’ and ‘more fuel efficient’ than a two-ton stove. Plainly this is not the case and the test method has to report the fuel consumption correctly. It is a problem that the UNFCCC methodology (which measures energy efficiency) does not handle this well and it is being used for CDM trades. People are being cheated. [RWL3: You must have missed a message from last night in which I deplored this and asked you for m ore background so we could stop this practice. Ron] Regards Crispin _______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
