Dear Crispin,
<snip>
The challenge is how to report the emissions from the stoves we are testing
in Ulaanbaatar and the lack of agreement on this (internationally, or even
within the US or Europe) is still a problem.
Well said. IMO we need to look at the 'big' noise factors in our
testing. One is 1) fuel, another 2) operation and a third 3) test
method/equipment.
If all are following Operation protocol and test method and equipment
used are the same then its fuel thats the main variable. Since fuels
differ in different parts of the world we need results tabled for each
Standard Fuel being tested that represents a part of the world. Once
these parameters are made simular then we work down to the next 'noise
level' and work on them. Eventially we will get to an agreement between
labs, but until these are taking care of we just continue going in
circiles IMO.
In order for test results to be meaningful, the best number for a space
heating stove seems to be mass of PM 2.5 emitted per MJ that is effectively
remaining in the room. That means factoring in the thermal efficiency of the
stove. If a home needs 80 MJ per sq metre per month to be warm, and the main
interest is reduction in outdoor air pollution (which is the case is many
well populated countries) then the emissions produced when delivering a
MegaJoule is the most interesting number.
I like this way of calculaating and looking at it.
In Mongolia we have many different fuels on common use so comparing them
with ‘PM emitter per kg burned’ means no direct comparison can be made
because the fuels have widely different heat values per kg. The immediate
calculation that has to be made is to divide the PM value (in milligrams,
usually) by the number of MJ in the fuel per dry kg. But if the thermal
efficiency of the stove is very different from another, one would have to
burn very different amounts of the fuel in order to be warm so the PM
emitted would be quite different.
Now we are starting to mix things up. I agree that different fuels will
give different results in the same stove. We get different results with
tests around the world using that specific stove and charted for each
fuel selected for testing. Several charts for that same stove based on
each of several fuels. But you throw in "thermal efficiency" (TE) as
another variable. We are not ready to do that yet. Only after we test
many different stoves and compare to the charts of the same fuel used in
the tests do we look at TE to determine how long a stove must operate to
get the same job done. And calculate the PM 2.5 released.
The number ‘PM2.5 emitted per MJ retained’ (PM/MJret) incorporates the PM
emitted over a burn (still to be defined), the net heat content of the fuel
and the thermal efficiency of the stove.
I think we need to add the specific Stove Name to the results and much
more info in addition to the net heat content of the fuel. We need info
enough about the fuel to be able to test my fuel and determine if the
test results published will work for my situation. Proximate analysis,
shape, size, chemical etc. There are no short cuts if we want the data
to be useful in the real world, not just our world.
If you know the climate profile (which is easy to obtain) and the heat
demand of the building (ditto) the PM emitted to heat it can be directly
calculated.
Another group of big variable that needs to stand on its own is shape of
building, windows, quality of outside air, insulation, climate and much
more. I think the best thing we can do to reduce these variable so we
can get control of them is to provide a standard building for everyone.
I'm thinking shaped like a Tee Pee but this is untested. Only then to we
have a chance of getting control of all the other variables. Then we
look at the data mentioned above to find the best stove for this situation.
Much of the discussion in the US seems to be about what reporting method is
to be used. The coal people all prefer PM/kg burned on a dry, ash-free
basis. That is sort of useful in that it incorporates the heat per burnable
kg of coal (the rest being ash and moisture). However if the moisture is not
taken into consideration and the fuel is always wet (like lignite is) then
the PM actually emitted when heating a home is not really represented in the
reported number. In other words a stove emission rating on that basis cannot
be used to decide which is cleaner burning.
Yes - difference in fuel moisture. Good example.and many more.
I hope all of this will soon be rendered moot by the development of stoves
that produce nearly now PM emissions at all! That would be nice.
If we can control the fuel (pellots, etc) and get electronics into the
stove and have one big stove pumping producer gas around town; I think
it can happen.
Having got the systems working at the stove testing laboratory in
Ulaanbaatar we are receiving a stream of data with really interesting things
learned in the first week.
1. There are nearly no particles emitted after the volatiles are gone
no matter what the fuel or stove (with certain caveats).
"no matter what the fuel"???
2. In some cases, the combustion is so complete that the PM rating is
negative – for one stove in particular dubbed the GTZ-7, the stack is
cleaner than the ambient air a great deal of the time. As it is still summer
and the PM is only 20-30 micrograms per cubic meter, that is a good sign. In
early winter the level rises to as much as 4200. It seems entirely possible
the stove will be taking in more particles than it emits, averaged over the
whole burn. The implications are obvious.
Good sign - but lets wait til winter before opening the bottle.!
3. So far we have detected few particles above PM2.5 using chimneys of
3 metres unless there is a considerable fire in the stove driving enough air
to loft ash particles.
4. Top lighting the wood during ignition of the coal (where the
architecture permits) reduces the smoke produced during the first 10 minutes
quite a bit.
5. The operation of the stove is a more important determinant of
emissions than minor changes to the architecture. Wholesale changes to the
architecture are needed to make really big savings.
Once the bet operation is determined perhaps the change in architecture
could be used to make it impossible to operate the stove anyother way.
Must get back to work! Will read the rest later. Thanks for the post.
Frank
6. It is possible to dramatically reduce the particles emitted after
ignition by changing the architecture alone, even if the operator does not
have much skill at lighting.
7. There is a general relationship between the PM and CO during the
early stages of the burn (ignition and getting to the flaming pyrolysis
stage).
8. There is a strong correlation between the CO and H2 emitted – both
being a measure of combustion efficiency. It seems that in general people
have not been looking for hydrogen in the stack. The combustion analysers
usually assume (mathematically) that it is 100% burned and it definitely is
not. For different fuels it is (for example) equal to, or ½ or 1/3 or ¼ of
the CO level and remains pretty much fixed as that level throughout the
test. As far as I observe there is no way to predict the CO2 level by
tracking them closely (they are both easy and cheap to measure so it might
have been the poor man’s CO2 meter).
When it comes to performance, we tested a few stoves and included two
lighting methods with traditional ones. Mostly it was about shaking out
problems in the data recording system and procedures. It seems to be working
consistently now. So we got interesting info along the way.
The GTZ-7, about which more is no doubt going to be heard (see attached)
showed an enormous drop in PM emitted compared with a well designed
traditional stove in good condition operated in a normal manner. We can
speculate about why the traditional method and layout is not very clean, but
the more interesting thing is why the GTZ-7 works so well. It has the
general layout of a European home heating furnace of about 50 years ago but
with a few tweaks and ideas. It is tiny and is I think the 4th version in a
series getting better all the time, particularly at lighting which is where
the emissions are concentrated. This is the stove I mentioned a couple of
months ago referring to the depth of the fuel bed being used to control
excess air. It is optimised now.
The indications are that it reduces PM 2.5 by about 98% when burning 5 kg of
lignite, measured from beginning to end, the end being when the gas analyser
can’t tell the difference between the stack and the ambient air (EA =
2000%). As mentioned above, the stack concentration is often less than the
(pretty clean) ambient air so there is a net reduction in particulate
matter. The CO/CO2 ratio was frequently unmeasureable, meaning that the CO
level in the stack was so low and the CO2 so high that it would not register
on the 4th decimal place which read COr = 0.0000 (that is in fractions not
%: 0.0200 = 2%).
If anyone wants to have a crack at analysing the raw data they are welcome
to have a copy. I am particularly interested in how people will treat the PM
measurements for reporting purposes. I have done the following:
PM measured in the diluter per standard cubic metre (we are getting dry and
condensed particles) multiplied by the level of dilution which varies
between 1100 and 3.7 depending on the PM concentration in the stack a the
time. (The variation in the PM mass/m^3 is about 20,000,000:1 during the
burn.) This gives a mass per cubic metre that is not yet corrected for
dilution by excess air. This calculation is done per 10 seconds.
The mass of fuel burned in that 10 seconds is noted and the stoichiometric
air demand added to the excess air present to give a volume of stack gas
including excess air. That volume of gas is multiplied by the undiluted mass
per cubic metre to get a total mass in the stack. In the very beginning of
the fire the volume of gas is small so a high concentration is compensated
for by the tiny volume to give what is often a low mass. Emitting a high
concentration later on with a big fire is a much larger total mass.
Over the whole test (burning 5 kg of raw fuel) the total PM emitted per 10
seconds is summed. This is then divided by the net number of MJ the fuel
burned contained, factored for the moisture content. At the moment the net
MJ value is not factored for chemical losses (CO emitted instead of CO2, H2
instead of H2O, etc). The final number is PM emitted per net MJ.
Multiplying that by the thermal efficiency of the stove gives the number
mentioned above: PM emitted during the burn per MJ delivered into the room.
Obviously we will report both figures.
The CO mass emitted can be calculated in the same manner. The early
indications are that the GTZ-7 reduces CO over 80% and PM 98%, and that the
lighting technique matters. Each burn includes one refuelling episode. The
timing of the refuelling makes a large difference to the CO but not much to
the PM. Hot stoves are pretty clean compared with cold ones.
What great fun!
Regards
Crispin kicking back his heels in Seoul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
--
Frank Shields
Soil Control Lab
42 Hangar way
Watsonville, CA 95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(831) 724-3188 fax
[email protected]
www.compostlab.com
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org
