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

[Tom Miles]

Roger,

A fundamental question is whether there is funding available for a
laboratory to set up and do independent testing. Much of Apro's work has
been voluntary and on the fly worked into with various projects. As the
process becomes more formal the costs increase. It would be appropriate to
get the labs that have developed heating stoves (Ottawa, EPA, etc.) to do
cooking stoves testing.  

Tom
   

> -----Original Message-----
> From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org [mailto:stoves-
> bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Roger Samson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 8:08 AM
> To: crispin at newdawn.sz; 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison of theGlobal-
> Warming Potential of Six Categories of Biomass Cooking Stoves
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org