Stovers,
I asked Crispin to name the stoves for which the reported results are
not accurate. And he named one of mine, the Quad 2, which happens to
be about the ONLY stove for which raw data sets have been made available
on the Internet.
(So, to the the GACC and EPA and others: My request for more disclosure
of raw data set is STILL not satisfied, although we have received
assurances of eventual compliance.)
Unfortunately, Crispin sent his reply only to me. Perhaps he was
trying to be nice. But I want the cards on the table for ALL stoves,
and it does not matter if one of my stoves is presented in a bad light
(TEMPORARILY). Much of this depends on how the data is presented,
both in calculations and in discussions.
So much talk and so little reality.
I am NOT here to defend or condemn stoves that make charcoal (and they
are mainly the TLUD stoves). The reality is that they exist, and are
consistently shown to be among the lowest of biomass-fueled cookstoves
in emissions of CO and PM .
And they do not require wood as fuel. Those are facts.
Let the discussions continue. But I am happy that others have been
doing the discussion.
Dr TLUD
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 4/27/2013 2:08 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Sorry for not replying. I am on a job in Palo Alto, CA.
The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and gets
(got, anyway) a rating of 636g.
The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1.
However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that
category. The UNFCCC uses the CCT 2.0 (names it specifically) and that
uses the energy efficiency, not the fuel efficiency as the metric to
compare on the assumption that stoves do not make char.
Regards
Crispin travelling
From BB9900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * Paul Anderson <[email protected]>
*Date: *Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:55:20 -0500
*To: *Discussion of biomass cooking
stoves<[email protected]>
*Cc: *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott<[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Stoves] FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of
cookstove tests.
Crispin,
You wrote:
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.
Please provide an example. If it is a specific stove, then name the
names and give the data.
Paul
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:[email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:www.drtlud.com
On 4/25/2013 10:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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/
