[Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison oftheGlobal-Warming Potential of Six Categories of BiomassCooking Stoves
Roger Samson
rsamson at reap-canada.com
Thu Oct 11 12:11:53 EDT 2007
Tom
We were promised by Shell Foundation in October 2004 that they would pay for
testing of the GWP of our stove. They chose Aprovecho to do the work. At the
time we were just completing a successful Shell Foundation project in China
with the Chinese government which had increased incomes in two provinces in
China by 60% over 3 years. We had an excellent relationship with them and
they recognized REAP as a leader in stoves and CDM processes with stoves.
Shell Foundation was aware that agro-fuels stoves had a better chance to be
used in carbon mitigation projects because of their sustainable carbon cycle
while wood stoves would have serious difficulties entering into climate
change programs.
Unfortunately it has now taken 3 years to get what looks to be unreliable
GWP of household stoves. I agree with Crispin the baseline for the 3 stone
fire is useless if it isn't using a representative cooking fuel that is used
in developing countries. Kiln dried and split fir is a fire starter not a
cooking fuel. In the case of our stove we have learned that Aprovecho ran
out of rice hull and it appears the stove was not operated properly. They
got 7 times higher emissions than the previous stove tests they conducted in
replicated studies.
We have spent more than $100,000 in developing our stove and understanding
carbon credit schemes for stoves. The Mayon Turbo developed in 2001 was the
first clean burning rice hull stove in the world that could sustain a blue
flame. We have now experienced a 3 year wait. What we got we consider to be
biased results. This has compromised our ability to move ahead with emission
reduction projects. Alexis and Paul have also now developed stoves that can
successfully burn rice hull cleanly and also have low particulate load.
There is no problem with our rice hull stove, Alexis's stove or Paul's
stove, they all can lead to major reductions in indoor air pollution and GHG
emissions if operated with a bit of experience. Unfortunately Aprovecho is
leading the GWP testing and appears to favor testing of wood stoves even
though they have limited potential in emission reduction projects under
Kyoto. Surely more agro-fuel stoves should have been included.
We feel this whole stove testing business is broken. Surely some donors like
EPA, Shell Foundation etc can come together to fix it. We have no faith in
the existing process of stove testing. The technical equipment today may be
excellent, but that's only one small part of doing successful
experimentation. If you can't get repeatable results, run out of rice hull
fuel and don't use realistic wood fuels in the baselines, obviously
something is seriously wrong.
As a group we need to request to the donors that financing independent labs
that have no vested interested in stoves is the only way ahead to achieve
dependable results.
Roger Samson (like Paul, not angry, just matter of fact)
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
-----Original Message-----
From: stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:stoves-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:04 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'; crispin at newdawn.sz
Subject: Re: [Stoves] [ethos] Re: Laboratory Comparison oftheGlobal-Warming
Potential of Six Categories of BiomassCooking Stoves
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
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the Stoves
mailing list