Dear Ron The issues with most stove test protocols, but particularly with the WBT's relate to three type of conceptual errors.
1. The mass of water remaining in the pot is used as the amount 'boiled' or 'simmered' and 'specific' performance numbers are incorrect. 2. The consideration of dried, torrefied, charred and ashed materials (i.e. non-new materials) frequently gives misleading performance claims because of the way the energy content and re-useability of the fuels are considered. 3. The formula used in many spreadsheets does not handle fuel moisture correctly - simple math errors that skew different fuel moisture levels differently. There are other issues such as the averaging of ratios and averaging of averages of averages but these are relatively minor in their influence and error. By far the largest difference between 'perceived claims' (what people think they are being told) and the actual meaning of the claimed numbers relates to treating char made by gasifiers as unburned raw fuel. If the TLUD promoters do not get to grips with what is happening a) behind the formulas and b) what is happening behind the scenes with respect to the difference between a 'uses xx g of fuel to perform a WBT' and the fuel needed to do so. The reputation of the stove sector rests on our ability - as a group - to deal with these in a straight forward manner. Regards Crispin From BB9900 -----Original Message----- From: Ron <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:06:14 To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]>; Paul Anderson<[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<[email protected]>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves<[email protected]>; Hugh McLaughlin<[email protected]>; Jim Jetter<[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Truth in stove reports Re: FW: REQUEST for complete sets of raw data of cookstove tests. Paul: 1. I agree with your thoughts below. Thanks for persevering. 2. Can you help answer the questions below on Crispin's note to you. >> The Quad 2 is one such stove - almost. It uses 1350 g (dry) and gets (got, >> anyway) a rating of 636g. >> RWL - Any other data? Amount of char? Any formulas or web sites to >> visit? >> The new spreadsheet with corrections does a better job. 4.2.1. RWL: What are the 4.2.1 values? >> >> However if a stove were to make 25% char, it would be back in that category. RWL: What category? Thanks. Ron On Apr 27, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Paul Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/
