[Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of theGlobal-Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass Cooking Stoves

[Roger Samson]

Tom and all 

Here is some feedback we developed internally within our organization
regarding mainly the WBT protocol. 

1.	The comparative testing of stoves should be performed by a third
party independent from stove developers whose stove(s) are being tested.  

2.	The fuel source needs to be representative of those which are used
in real world situations.  The use of kiln dried douglas fir from a saw mill
(essentially dry kindling -1cm x 2cm machined pieces)  potentially has
several different characteristics than real world wood (it may burn cleaner
than wet wood commonly used in the tropics, it may start faster than wet
wood, it may burn cleaner than wood branches with a high bark content as
there are less resins and kindling has a surface conducive to catching fire,
it also is small diameter which may provide lower emissions than large
diameter wood. It may be we should use something like acacia branches as the
reference wood. Best to use real world wood for testing stoves unless the
stove has a specific fuel requirement. I don't see why we are trying to
prove dry kindling is the wrong fuel to use when real wood branches are
available for use.  

3.	A level playing field needs to be established with regard to stove
operational experience.  We do not necessarily believe it is best if the
stove is operated by the developer. Obviously the stove being tested by an
agency that developed it will have the ability to "tweek" its operation to
obtain the best results. Stoves for which there is less familiarity or no
familiarity with cooking are set at a disadvantage if they are included in
such a trial. The least bias would be to do the tests in a developing
country like India, give the stove and fuel source to 3 people (likely
women) for 3 months, then bring each in and let them cook. That way you have
3 operators with experience as your 3 replications and less impact from any
one good or poor operator which would skew results. 

4.	Cooking tests should be performed  when testing is done with lids
off the pots it rewards stoves with high heat outputs and high turndown
ratios. We should be encouraging more efficient cooking practices with lids
covered. 


5.	All phases of stove testing should be included, including the hot
start phase.  Wood stoves are known to have high emissions during start up,
but it was omitted during the GWP stove test. Start up fuels should be used
according to the stove developers protocol for stove use.

Some other comments related to the GWP report:

Our Mayon Turbo Rice hull stove  had been tested previously on two occasions

http://www.bioenergylists.org/en/apromayon05

and found carbon monoxide contents to be similar to 4 improved wood stoves
and was superior to the 4 improved wood stoves in terms of reducing
particulate (see this link). There was a 20% reduction in CO versus the 3
stone fire and about the same CO as the improved wood stoves in the reports
above. There was a 70% on particulates versus the 3 stone fire which was
well above the average of the 4 improved wood stoves.  We were surprised now
to see this 2007 study published given the results conflicted so much with
the previous 2005 test results. We would like to get some explanation of why
these replicated tests led by the same agency provided such different
results.  Normally if results are conflicting you would need to provide some
reason why before publicly circulating them or repeat the tests. 

The total global warming potential chart (pg 17) in the article "Laboratory
Comparison of the Global-Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass
Cooking Stoves" is somewhat misleading as the lead chart to identify GWP of
stoves. While it is true many countries currently have unsustainably
harvested wood fuel resources it is not 100% of the supply. Perhaps 5-10% of
some countries wood supply is being overharvested. Why not just present the
kyoto monitored gases-n20 and ch4)) and the total direct and indirect
emissions(particulates, etc) in another chart  and if you like present
another chart assuming 5 or 10% of the biomass is unsustainable and show a
partial accounting of the C02 included.   

Our basic feeling is that we need the lead testing to be done by independent
stove testing agencies that are run by scientists preferably in a developing
countries (like India and China) as this would be closer to fuels and users
and reduce testing costs for donor agencies. Surely if China has a space
program and India is a world leader in computers these countries have the
capability to develop effective cooking stoves and fuel trials. This would
be much more "development friendly" approach than having testing led by
scientists in a developed country. Its time the scientists in industrialized
countries should be providing capacity building in the south but not lead
the effort on stoves testing.   

regards

Roger Samson

Executive Director

REAP-Canada

Box 125 Centennial Centre CCB13

Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9

T: (514) 398-7743

T: (514) 398-7972

E: rsamson at reap-canada.com

W: www.reap-canada.com