performance of charcoal cookstoves for haiti, part 1 · the rectangular charcoal chamber is the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
LBNL‐5021E
Performance of Charcoal Cookstoves for Haiti, Part 1: Results from the Water Boiling Test
Kayje Booker, Tae Won Han, Jessica Granderson, Jennifer Jones, Kathleen Lask, Nina Yang, Ashok Gadgil
Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley, CA 94720
June 2011
Research funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE‐AC02‐05CH11231, and partially by the support of NDSEG Fellowship.
2
DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof or The Regents of the University of California.
1.INTRODUCTION
InApril2010,ateamofscientistsandengineersfromLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLab(LBNL)andUCBerkeley,withsupportfromtheDarfurStovesProject(DSP),undertookafact‐findingmissiontoHaitiinordertoassessneedsandopportunitiesforcookstoveintervention.BasedondatacollectedfrominformalinterviewswithHaitiansandNGOs,theteam,ScottSadlon,RobertCheng,andKayjeBooker,identifiedandrecommendedstovetestingandcomparisonasahighpriorityneedthatcouldbefilledbyLBNL.
Inresponsetothatrecommendation,fivecharcoalstovesweretestedattheLBNLstovetestingfacilityusingamodifiedformofversion3oftheShellFoundationHouseholdEnergyProjectWaterBoilingTest(WBT).Theoriginalprotocolisavailableonlineat:http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/hem/?page_id=38.Stovesweretestedfortimetoboil,thermalefficiency,specificfuelconsumption,andemissionsofCO,CO2,andtheratioofCO/CO2.Inaddition,HaitianuserfeedbackandfieldobservationsoverasubsetofthestoveswerecombinedwiththeexperiencesofthelaboratorytestingtechnicianstoevaluatetheusabilityofthestovesandtheirappropriatenessforHaitiancooking.Thelaboratoryresultsfromemissionsandefficiencytestingandconclusionsregardingusabilityofthestovesarepresentedinthisreport.
2.METHODS
2.1StovesTestedForinclusionintesting,weattemptedtoobtainstovesthatwereeitherbeingconsideredordistributionbynon‐governmentalorganizations(NGOs)operatinginHaitiorthatwerefalreadywidelyavailableinPortauPrince.Baseduponthesecriteriaaswellasavailabilityofthecookstovesfortesting,thefollowingfivestovesshowninFig.1awerechosenforinclusionintheevaluation.
3
Fig.1a:Fromlefttoright:Traditional,EcoRecho,PraktiRouj,StoveTecTwo‐Door,Mirak
A. Traditionalstove:MadelocallyinHaitifromscrapmetalandwidelyavailable.Evenlydistributedholesarelocatedallaroundthesidesandthebottomofarectangularcharcoalcontainer.Thepotsitsdirectlyonthecharcoalinthechamber,andashfallsthroughtoatrayunderneath.Thisstovewaspurchasedfor150gourdesinApril2010(US$3.75)butitwassaidtheycancostupto250gourdes($6.25).Thesestovestypicallylastonlysixmonthstooneyear.
4
B. EcoRecho:AmetalstovewithaceramiclinermadeinHaiti.Thepotsitsabovethecharcoalonthreetriangularmetalwedges.Adooronthefrontofthestovecanbeopenedorclosedtocontrolairflow.Thisstovecostsabout1000gourdes(US$25)toproduce,however,theyarebeingsoldatthesubsidizedpriceof450gourdesasofApril2010(US$11).
C. PraktiRouj:Insulatedmetalstove.Therectangularcharcoalchamberisthesmallestofveallstoves.Adooronthefrontofthestovecanbeadjustedtocontrolairflow.Thissto
costsUS$25.D. StoveTecTwo‐Door:Dual‐fuelwoodandcharcoalstovewithametalbodyandaclay
insulatedinterior.Thepotisplacedontopofthreemetalknobsandisnotincontactwiththecharcoal.Adooronthefrontofthestovecanbeadjustedtocontrolairflow.AccordingtotheStoveTecwebsite,thisstovecanbepurchasedforahumanitarianprojectforUS$15.
E. Mirak(copy):Alocallymade,scrapmetalcopyoftheMirakstovedesignedbyCARE,ahumanitarianorganizationfightingglobalpoverty,andwidelyavailableinPort‐au‐Prince.Thisstovewaspurchasedfor150gourdesinApril2010(US$3.75).Thecharcoalchamberishalfspherical,andthepotsitsdirectlyonthecharcoal.
Wedidnotreceiveinstructionsonusingthestovesbutdidseveralpracticerunswitheachtovepriortotesting.Eachstovewasoperatedinordertomaximizeitsefficiency,sincludingvaryingthepowerwhenpossiblebymanipulatingairflow.AlthoughtheStoveTeccomeswithaskirtthatcanbeusedforaddedefficiency,wethoughtitbettertoevaluatethestovewithouttheskirtaswewereconcernedtheskirtmaynotbecommonlyused.Theseconcernswerebasedonanecdotalevidencefromothercountries,nwhichdetachableskirtshavegenerallybeendiscarded,andobservationofncompatibilityinsizebetweentheskirtandthelargerricepotsusedinHaiti.ii2.2FuelstestedGrillmark©naturallumpcharcoalwasusedforalltesting.Charcoalsampleswereanalyzedusingstandardoven‐dryproceduresandwerefoundtohave5.9%moisturecontent.However,resultsfromthatexperimentwerenotavailableintimetoincorporateintotheefficiencyandspecificfuelcalculations,soreportedvaluesareuncorrectedforactualmoisturecontent.Theexpectedimpactofcorrectingformoisturecontentistheefficiencyforallstoveswillrisesomewherebetweenthreeandfourpercentagepoints(i.e.31.5%wouldbecome34%).Note,however,thatwhiletheoven‐drytestconfirmedtypicalule‐of‐thumbestimatesforcharcoal(approximately5%),thestandardWBTprocedurencludesmoisturecorrectionforwoodfuels,notforcharcoal.ri2.3TestSystemAlltestingwasperformedundercontrolledconditionsatLawrenceBerkeleyNationalLaboratory.Thetestsystemconsistsofastoveplatformandanexhausthoodwhichdrawsgassesupwardwheretheyaremixedandsampled(Fig.1b).BothCOandCO2emissionsweremeasuredwithaCaliforniaAnalyticalInstruments600‐seriesgasanalyzerand
dw
ilutionrateswerecontinuouslymonitored.Inadditiontoemissions,fuelweightandatertemperatureweremeasuredandrecordedinrealtime.
5
Fig.1b:Above:ThestovetestingsystematLBNL.Below:Aclose‐up viewofastove(theMirak)onthetestingplatform,withthefrontdoorsoftheexhausthoodopentoviewtheset‐up.
6
2.4ProtocolmodifiedformoftheShellFoundationHouseholdEnergyProjectWaterBoilingTestWB )A(
T version3.0wasusedtoevaluatethestoves.Thetestconsistsofthreephases:
1. ColdStart(highpower):Usingacoldstoveandacoldpot,2.5Lofroomtemperaturewaterisbroughttoaboil.
2. Hotstart(highpower):Immediatelyfollowingthecoldstart,thehotwaterisreplacedwithanew2.5Lofroomtemperaturewaterwhichisbroughttoaboil.
3. Simmer(lowpower):Immediatelyfollowingthehotstart,thealreadyboiledwaterismaintainedatasimmerfor45minutes.Inthisphase,thestove,pot,andwaterremainhotfromthesecondphaseofthetest.
Dataforthermalefficiencyandemissionswerecollectedforallthreetestphases.Whenentilationdoorswereavailable,wekeptthemopenforthehighpowertests(coldstartvphaseandhotstartphase),and50‐60%openduringthelowpower(simmerphase)test.Thesameflat‐bottom,15”diameter,aluminumpotpurchasedinPort‐au‐Princewasusedforallofthetests.Wetriedtoinitiallyloadallofthestoveswith250gofcharcoalattheeginningofthetests.NotethatinsomecasesthechamberofthePraktiwastoosmalltobaccommodatethewhole250g,soaslightlysmalleramountwasused.TheWBTwasdesignedforwood‐burningstovesandcannotbeexactlyappliedtocharcoal‐urningstoves.Wemadethefollowingmodificationstoaccommodatecharcoalstoves.he mbT
se odificationsareconsistentwiththepracticesobservedinHaiti.
1. Tostartthefire,apieceofhigh‐resinpinewoodwasplacedontopofthecharcoalpileandlit.Thetestersthenblewonthewoodtolightthecharcoal,aswasobservedinHaiti.
2. WhencalculatingequivalentdryfuelconsumedforallphasesoftheWBT,thewood‐burningprotocolincorporatestheenergyrequiredtoturntheleftoverwoodintochar.However,weusedcharcoalinsteadofwoodandbecausecharcoalisessentiallycharalready,weassumedtheenergycontentoftheleftovercharcoalwasthesameastheinitialcharcoal,allowingthechangeincarbon(ΔCc)toequalzero.Also,duetodifferencesintheenergycontentbetweencharcoalandwood,wereplacedthecoefficientof1.12with1.08.Thischangedtheequation1(forexampleinthecoldstartphase)from:
1Fcdistheequivalentdryfuelconsumed,Fcmisthefuelconsumed,misthemoisturecontentofthefuel,andΔCcisthenetchangeincharduringthetest.ForfurtherinformationseetheShellFoundationHouseholdEnergyProjectWBT,version3.0,foundat:http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/hem/?page_id=38,andAppendixBforfurtherexplanationofthechangetotheequation.
t o:
2.5AnalysisForeachmetric,wereportstoveperformanceoftheWBTasawhole,averagedorsummedoverallthreephases,aswellastheaverageperformanceofthesimmerphase.BecauseHaitiancookingoftenrequireslongperiodsofsimmering,sometimesformanyhours,performanceduringthatphaseisparticularlyimportant.Withthatinmind,wehaveisolatedandpresentedtheresultsofthesimmerphaseinadditiontopresentationofresultsfromallphasesoftheWBTcombined.Thispresentationwillenablereaderstoseehoweachstoveperformsspecificallyduringthesimmerphaseaswellasovertheentiretest.
Whenpresentinggraphsoftheresultsforeachstoveperformancemetric,weincludeerrorbarsequaltothe±95%confidenceintervalssocomparisonbetweenstovesisclearlyvisible.Duetolargevariabilityandthesmallnumberoftests,theconfidenceintervalsweresometimesquitelarge.Whenconfidenceintervalsarelarge,oftentheresultsaren’tstatisticallysignificant.Evenso,observeddifferencesfromtheexperimentsmaybepracticallysignificantforreal‐worldperformanceinthefield.Additionally,theWaterBoilingTestswillbefollowedupwithControlledCookingTeststomoresimilarlyrepresentthecookingpracticesinHaiti.
Toaccountforthesmallsamplesizes,wecalculatedthestandarddeviationandthestandarderror,andusingtheStudent’st‐distribution,wecalculatedthe±95%confidenceintervals(seeAppendixCfordetailsofthesecalculations).Wealsoconductedhypothesistestingtoidentifywhetherdifferencesbetweenstoveswerestatisticallysignificantatthep=0.05level.Whensignificantdifferenceswerefoundatthegrouplevelfromthe2‐factorANOVAhypothesistest,wefollowedupwithpair‐wiseanalysisusingaTukeyHSDtesttoidentifywhichpairsofstovesweresignificantlydifferentatthe0.05level.2
3.RESULTSResultsaregroupedintothreecategories:
Efficiency:timetoboil,thermalefficiency,andtemperature‐correctedspecificfuel
7
consumption2Forthosenotfamiliarwithhypothesistesting,thesetestsaredonebyfirstposinga‘nullhypothesis’,proposingthatstoveperformanceisactuallyidenticalandtheobserveddifferencesaretheresultofrandomvariation.Statisticalanalysisisthenconducted,andthehypothesisisonlydisproved,meaningtheresultsaresignificantiftheanalysisshowstheobserveddifferenceinperformancecouldoccurfromrandomvariationalonelessthan5%ofthetime.
s:CO,CO2,andCO/CO2ratio Emission
Usability:observationsofeaseofstoveusefromstovetestersatLBNL
EquationsforthevariousmetricsarenotpresentedherebutcanbefoundintheShellFoundationHouseholdEnergyProjectWaterBoilingTest(WBT),version3.0.Theprotocolisavailableonlineat:http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/hem/?page_id=38.
3.1Efficiency
3.1.1TimetoBoil
Timetoboilwasmeasuredbeginningwhenthecharcoalwasconsideredlitandendingwhenwaterstartedboiling(atlocalatmosphericpressure).Thecharcoalwasqualitativelydeterminedtobelitwhenthetestersobservedtherewasenoughcharcoalburningtokeepthefirefromdyingout.
Thetraditionalstovebroughtwatertoaboilmorequicklythananyoftheimprovedstoves.Inthecoldstarttestphase,waterheatedonthetraditionalstoveboiledinonly36.5minutes,yetthesameamountofwatertook51.3minutestoboilinthenextfasteststove(thePrakti),adifferenceofalmost15minutes.Althoughalloftheimprovedstovesweremuchslowerthanthetraditionalstove,theyperformedsimilarlytoeachotherwithaveragesrangingfrom51.3to59.8,adifferenceof8.5minutes.
8
Inthehotstarttestphase,inwhichroomtemperaturewaterisplacedonalreadyheatedcoals,theresultsaresimilar.Onceagain,thetraditionalstovewasfasterthananyimprovedstove,andtheimprovedstovesperformedsimilarlytooneanother.Onenoteonthehotstartresults:theboilingtimeofthePraktishowedalargeamountofvariationbetweentests,withboilingtimerangingfrom17to51minutes.
AverageTimeto
(minutes)
Rank(Fastesttoslowest)Boil
(± 95% CI)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time to Boil from Cold Start
(minutes)EcoRecho 55.2 4
Mirak 54.1 3
Prakti 51.3 2
StoveTec 59.8 5
Traditional 36.5 1
Table1:TimetoBoilfortheColdStartPhase Fig.2:TimetoBoilfortheColdStartPhase.Error
barsare±95%confidenceintervals.
TimetoBoil
(minutes)
Rank(Fastesttoslowest)
(± 95% CI)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time to Boil from Hot Start
(minutes)
9
3.1.2ThermalEfficiency3.1.2ThermalEfficiency
Thermalefficiencyistheratiooftheheatcontentofincreasingthewatertemperatureandvaporatingthemassofwaterreleasedassteam,totheenergyconsumedbyburningood.CalculationsfordeterminingthermalefficiencycanbefoundintheWBTProtocol.
ew
Table3aboveshowsthethermalefficiencyforthesimmerphaseaswellastheaverageefficiencyoverallphasesoftheWBT.Averagethermalefficiencyresultsforthefourstoveswerebetterthanthatofthetraditionalstove.Resultsweresignificantatthe0.05levelfortheentireWBTandforthesimmerphase.Allstoves,includingthetraditionalstove,showedhigherefficiencyduringthesimmerphasethanthehotorcoldstartphases.Fig.4showstheaveragethermalefficiencyoverallphases.ThePraktiandEcoRechowerethemostefficientandthetraditionalandMirakweretheleastefficient.Inmaking
EfficiencyinSimmerPh )ase(%
EfficiencyOverthe
Ent TireWB(%)
EcoRecho 37.5 31.6
Mirak 34.1 28.6
Prakti 46.2 37.3
StoveTec 36.6 30.5
Traditional 28.5 22.2
Table3:ThermalEfficiencyoverthesimmerphaseandtheentireWBT
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Thermal Efficiency
(± 95% CI)
Fig.4:ThermalEfficiencyaveragedovertheentireWBT.Errorbarsare±95%confidenceintervals.
EcoRecho 32.1 3
Mirak 42.1 5
Prakti 33.3 4
StoveTec 29.9 2
Traditional 24.0 1
Table2:TimetoBoilfortheHotStartPhaseFig.3:TimetoBoilfortheHotStartPhase.Errorbars
are±95%confidenceintervals.
comparisonsbetweenstovesandassessingwhetherdifferencesbetweenstovesweresignificant,wefoundthePraktiandtraditionalstovestobesignificantlydifferentfromeachotheratthe0.05level.
10
Whenthesimmerphaseisexaminedbyitself(Fig.5),thetraditionalstovefarestheworst.ThePraktiandtraditionalstovesweresignificantlydifferentfromeachotheratthe0.05level.
Thegraphillustratingthermalefficiencyofthesimmerphaseoverthethreesimmerphasetestsperformedforeachstove(Fig.6)isprovidedtoillustratethevariabilityinresultsbetweentests.(ThedataandstandarddeviationsarealsoincludedinAppendixA.)Forexample,consideringtheun‐averagedindividualdatapoints,theEcoRechohadthehighestefficiencyofanystoveaswellasoneofthelowest.ThePrakticonsistentlyperformedwell,whilethetraditionalconsistentlyperformedpoorly.OtherstovesvariedinperformancebutnonesomuchastheEcoRecho.Wenotethevariationcouldcomefromanumberoffactors,onlysomeofwhicharerelatedtostovedesignandactualperformance,andthatalargersamplesizewouldbeusefulforfutureanalysis.
3.1.3SpecificFuelConsumptionSpecificfuelconsumptionisdefinedinthe2007WBTas“thefuelwoodrequiredtoproduceaunitoutput”whethertheoutputisboiledwater,cookedbeans,orloavesofbread.Intheaseofthecoldstartphase,high‐powerWBT,itisameasureof"theamountofwoodcrequiredtoproduceoneliter(orkilo)ofboilingwaterstartingwithacoldstove.”Ourresultsshowthetemperature‐correctedspecificfuelconsumption,whichadjustsfordifferencesininitialwatertemperature.
Fig.5:ThermalEfficiencyfortheSimmerPhase.Errorbarsare±95%confidence
intervals.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1 2 3
Thermal Efficiency
Test Number
EcoRecho
Mirak
Prakti
Stove Tec
Traditional
Fig.6:ThermalEfficiency,SimmerPhasebyTest.
11
Fig.9showsspecificfuelconsumptionforthesimmerphaseseparatedbytestnumber.Thetraditionalstoveperformedmuchworsethantheimprovedstoves.Fig.9alsoshowstheimprovedstovesperformedsimilarlytoeachotherwithnostovestandingoutfromtheothers.Infact,therelativestoverankingschangedwitheachtest;forexample,theMirak
Asseeninthetableoftemperature‐correctedspecificfuelconsumption(Table5),thesimmerphaseaccountedforalargeportionofthefuelconsumedforeachstove.Allimprovedstovesusedconsiderablylessfuelthanthetraditionalstovewithmostusingalittlemorethanhalfthatofthetraditionalstove.However,specificfuelconsumptionresultsfortheentireWBT(Fig.7)andsimmerphase(Fig.8)showedsomuchvariationthatnoneofthestovesweresignificantlydifferentfromoneanotheratthe0.05levelfortheentireWBTorthesimmerphasealone.
SimmerPhase(g)
TotalWBT(g)
(± 95% CI)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1 2 3Specific Fuel Consumption (gra
1200
ms)
rTest Numbe
EcoRecho
Mirak
Prakti
Stove Tec
Traditional
Fig.9:SpecificFuelConsumption,SimmerPhasebyTest.
0200400600800
1,0001,2001,4001,600
Specific Fuel Consumptio
(grams)
n (±95% CI)
Fig.8:SpecificFuelConsumptionfortheSimmerPhase.Errorbarsare±95%confidenceintervals.
EcoRecho 324 479
Mirak 289 507
Prakti 378 539
StoveTec 346 572
Traditional 808 979
Table5:Temperature‐CorrectedSpecificFuelConsumptionforSimmer
PhaseandentireWBT
0200400600800
1,0001,2001,400
Specific Fuel Consumption
(grams)
Fig.7:Temperature‐CorrectedSpecificFuelConsumptionovertheentireWBT.Errorbarsare±95%confidence
intervals.
12
wasrankedfirst,fourth,andsecond,intestsonethroughthree.Insummary,thetraditionalstovefaredworstoverallandineveryphaseindividually,theEcoRechohadthelowestaveragespecificfuelconsumptionintheoverallWBT,andtheMirakhadlowestveragefuelconsumptionduringthesimmerphase.However,atthe0.05level,differencesabetweenthestoveswerenotstatisticallysignificant.ThevariationintheresultsforthePraktistoveareparticularlylarge(standarddeviation305goftotalfuelconsumption539g),andtheresultsasawholeshowedmorevariationthantheothertestswithseveraloutliers.WebelievesomeoftheseresultsareanartifactofthewayspecificfuelconsumptioniscalculatedintheWBT,specificallytheaccountingforwaterboiledoff.However,becausewedonotknowexactlywhatledtotheseoutliers,wedidnotfeeljustifiedindisregardingthem.Itisworthwhiletonotethatstovesburningcharcoalaremuchmoredifficulttoregulatefortheirthermalpoweroutputthanstovesburningfuelwood.Thispoorregulationcontributestothehighvariationinspecificfuelconsumption.
3.1.4EfficiencyConclusions
Thetimenecessarytoboilwaterforbothhotandcoldstartsismuchhigherforallimprovedstovesthanforthetraditionalstove.Thisdifferenceisworrisomebecausestoveusersoftenplacegreatimportanceoncookingtime;theyarelesslikelytocontinueusingastovethatheatsslowlyandlengthenstheircookingtime.FindingsfrominformalinterviewswithwomeninHaitiduringtheLBNL/DSPtripreflectedconcernsoflengthycookingtimeandwascitedasareasonwhysomehadgivenupontheMirak.Thedifferencesintimetoboilbetweentheimprovedstoves,however,arenotlarge,soitdoesnotyetappearthatanyofthemisaclearleaderintermsoftime‐savings.
FortheaverageperformanceacrossallphasesoftheWBT,thermalefficiencywashighestforPraktiandEcoRechoandlowestforMirakandtraditional.Thermalefficiencyresultswerestatisticallysignificantatthep=0.05levelforallofthephasesoftheWBT.Atthe0.05level,thePraktiandtraditionalstovesweresignificantlydifferentfromeachotheroverallofthephasesoftheWBTandforthesimmerphasealone.
Overall,specificfuelconsumptionwaslowest/bestfortheEcoRechoandMirak,andhighest/worstfortheStoveTecandtraditional.Thefindingsforspecificfuelconsumptionhadgreateruncertaintythanthoseforthermalefficiency.SignificantdifferencesinperformancewerenotobservedforthefullWBTorforthesimmerphase.
Inconclusion,consideringthefindingsforthermalefficiencyandspecificfuelconsumptioninaggregate,thePraktiandtheEcoRechoperformedthebest.However,theywerenotsignificantlydifferentfromtheStoveTecortheMirak.
3.2Emissions
3.2.1TotalCarbonMonoxide(CO)
IneachWBTconducted,COemissionsweremonitored,recorded,andsummedforeachphaseoftheWBT.ThosesumswerethenaveragedacrossmultipleteststocalculatethetotalCOreleasedperphase.TotalCOemissionfortheentireWBT,combiningallphases,wascalculatedbysummingtheseaveragedphasetotals.Thissummingofaveragesproducesapropagationerror,whichwastakenintoaccountwhencalculatingstandarddeviationsandstandarderrors.
ResultsfortotalCOemissionforeachstoveforthesimmerphasealoneandovertheentireWBTwerenotsignificantlydifferentforallofthestovesatthep=0.05level,meaningtruedifferencesbetweenthestoves’emissionsperformancecannotbedetected.Althoughnotsignificant,totalCOemittedoverallphaseswashighestforStoveTecandEcoRechoandlowestforMirakandPrakti.ItshouldbenotedthatintermsofCOemissions,notallimprovedstovesoutperformedthetraditionalstove.
AsseenintheerrorbarsofthegraphsofCOemissions(Fig.10andFig.11)boththeStoveTecandtraditionalstovehadlargevariationintheiremissions.Itwasdifficulttoassesswhetherthestovesweresignificantlydifferentintheirperformanceatthesesamplesizes.Itmightbeeasiertodistinguishsignificantdifferencesbetweenthestoveswithmoretestsperstovetoobtainlargersamplesizes,especiallyforthesimmerphase.
13
Table6:TotalCOEmissionsforSimmerPhaseandoverallPhases
TotalCO–SimmerPhase(g)
Tota AllPha g)
lCO–ses(
EcoRecho 98.6 179Mirak 59.1 134Prakti 68.7 136StoveTec 83.5 183Traditional 91.6 154
0
50
0
50
100
150
200
?CO, (grams)
(± 95% CI)
100
150
200
250
?C
(± 95% CI)
O, (grams)
Fig.11:TotalCOEmissionsoverallPhases.Errorbarsare±95%confidenceintervals.
Fig.10:TotalCOEmissionsforSimmerPhase.Errorbarsare±95%confidenceintervals.
3.2.2TotalCarbonDioxid (COe 2)
IneachWBTconducted,CO2emissionsweremonitored,recorded,andsummedforeachphaseoftheWBT.ThosesumswerethenaveragedacrossmultipleteststocalculatethetotalCO2releasedperphase.TotalCO2emissionfortheentireWBT,combiningallphases,wascalculatedbysummingtheseaveragedphasetotals.Thissummingofaveragesproducesapropagationerror,whichwastakenintoaccountwhencalculatingstandarddeviationsandstandarderrors.AscanbeseeninTable7,thesimmerphasegenerallyaccountedforabouthalfthetotalCO2emitted.
Forthesimmerphase,thePraktihadthelowestCO2emission,whilethetraditionalstovehadthehighest(Fig.12).However,resultsfortotalCO2emissionforeachstoveforthesimmerphasewerenotsignificantlydifferentforallofthestovesatthep=0.05level,meaningtruedifferencesbetweenthestoves’emissionsperformancecannotbedetected.AlthoughthetraditionalstovehadthehighestaverageCO2emissionforthesimmerphase,itsvariabilityandthesmallsamplesizemadeitimpossibletodistinguishitfromthePraktieventhoughtheaverageCO2emissionsforbothstovesisquitedifferent.
ForthefullWBT,thePrakti’sCO2emissionswerethelowestwhiletheStoveTec’swerethehighest(Fig.13).Allstoves,excepttheStoveTec,hadlowerCO2emissionsovertheentireWBTthanthetraditionalstove.SimilartotheCOresults,thetraditionalstoveshowedhighvariability,makingitdifficulttofindasignificantdifferencebetweenitsperformanceandthatoftheimprovedstoves.OvertheentireWBT,atthep=0.05level,theEcoRechoandraktistovesweresignificantlydifferentfromtheStoveTec.P
14
Table7:TotalCO2EmissionsforSimmerPhaseandoverallPhases
TotalCO2 mer(g)‐Sim TotalCO2 hases(g)–AllPEcoRecho 640 1376Mirak 747 1577Prakti 542 1249StoveTec 802 1842Traditional 928 1625
15
WeincludetotalCO2emissiondatabecauseitispotentiallyusefulforcarbonfinanceprojects.However,itshouldbenotedCO2emissionisarequiredoutcomefromthecombustionofhydrocarbonfuelssuchascharcoalorfuelwoodand,therefore,isnotacompletelyundesirableoutcome.Hydrocarbonfuelsarelargelymadeofcarbon,whichisreleasedprimarilyasCO2orCOwhencombusted.Therefore,whileitismoredesirabletoburnlessfueloveralltodecreasethetotalamountofemissions,foragivenamountoffuel,itisbettertohaveahigherCO2emissionthanCOemission(alowCO/CO2emissionratio).HigherCO2emissionsmeantheprocessofcombustionwasmorecompleteandreleasedlessproductsofincompletecombustionsuchastoxicgases(CObeingoneofthem)andparticulatesthatcausehealthproblems.TheratioofCOemissiontoCO2emissionispresentedinthenextsectionforthisreason.
3.2.3RatioofCO/CO2
IneachWBTconducted,theratioofCOemissiontoCO2emissionwascalculatedforeachtestphaseandforallphasesoftheWBT.AscanbeseeninTable8,forthesimmerphaseaswellasoverall,theMirakhadthelowestCO/CO2emissionratioandtheEcoRechohadthehighest.OvertheentireWBT,theMirakandEcoRechoweresignificantlydifferentfromoneanother,butmiddlerankscouldnotbedistinguishedatthep=0.05level.Forthesimmerphasealone,stoveswerenotsignificantlydifferentfromoneanotheratthep=0.05level,meaningtruedifferencesbetweenthestoves’totalCO/CO2emissionratioswerenotetected.d
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
?CO2, (grams)
(± 95% CI)(± 95% CI)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
?CO2, (grams)
Fig.13:TotalCO2EmissionsoverallPhases.Errorbarsare±95%confidenceintervals.
Fig.12:TotalCO2EmissionsfortheSimmerPhase.Errorbarsare±95%confidence
intervals.
16
Table8:CO/CO2EmissionRatioforSimmerPhaseandoverallPhases
TotalCO/CO2‐Simmer(%)
TotalCO/CO2–AllPhases(%)
EcoRecho 15.8 13.0Mirak 8.0 8.5Prakti 12.7 10.9StoveTec 10.8 9.9Traditional 10.0 9.5
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
?CO/?CO2, (%)
(± 95% CI) (± 95% CI)
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%
?CO/?CO2, (%)
Fig.14:CO/CO2EmissionRatiosfortheSimmerPhase.Errorbarsare±95%confidence
Fig.15:TotalCO/CO2EmissionRatiosoverallPhases.Errorbarsare±95%confidence
intervals.intervals.
3.2.4EmissionConclusions
COemissionoverallphasesoftheWBTandoverthesimmerphaseconsideredseparatelywasnotsignificantlydifferentamongthetestedstoves.So,althoughPraktiandMirakhadthelowestaverageemissions,theirresultscannotbedistinguishedfromthoseoftheotherstovesatthesignificancelevelofp=0.05.COemissionsfromthesimmerphaseaccountedforsomewhatlessthanhalfthetotalCOemissionsfromtheentireWBT.
CO2emissionsoverallphasesoftheWBTwerethelowestforthePraktiandhighestfortheStoveTec.OvertheentireWBT,atthep=0.05level,theEcoRechoandPraktistovesweresignificantlydifferentfromtheStoveTec.However,similartoCOemissions,CO2emissionsfortheseparatelyconsideredsimmerphasewerenotsignificantlydifferentamongthetestedstoves.
TheMirakhadthelowestCO/CO2emissionratioandtheEcoRechohadthehighest.OvertheentireWBT,atthep=0.05level,theCO/CO2emissionratiosoftheMirakandEcoRechoweresignificantlydifferentfromeachother,butmiddlerankscouldnotbedistinguished.CO/CO2ratiosforthesimmerphasealonewerenotsignificantlydifferentatthep=0.05level.
17
InconsideringbothCOemissionsandtheCO/CO2ratio,theMirakstoveperformedthebest,althoughthedifferencewasonlysignificantwhencomparingthebestandworsterformers:middlerankswerenotstatisticallysignificant.p
3.3Usability
Inthissection,weprovidecommentsandobservationontheeaseofusingthestove.Exceptwherenoted,thecommentsarefromtestersinthelaboratoryperformingtheWBT,sosomecommentsmaynotberelevantforHaitiancooks.WehavepreviouslydisseminatedourobservationsandinformalusercommentaryfromasingledayHaiticook‐offinwhichmostofthesestoveswereusedinthemakingofsospwabyHaitianwomeninthespringof2010.Thatreportisavailableonlineathttp://www.fuelnetwork.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=72&Itemid=57&limit=15&limitstart=0&order=date&dir=ASC
EcoRecho:Testershadtroublewiththeholesinthecharcoalpan,whichcloggedwithashduringcooking.Thisproblemoccurrednearlyeverytimetheyusedthestoveandcausedmultiplefailedtestsasthecloggingcompletelycutofftheairflowandputoutthefire.Theholesaredifficulttounclog:testersultimatelyresortedtousingtongstoperiodicallyunclogholesduringthetest.Thedoordoesnotallowforpartialopening,sotesterskeptitcompletelyopen.Thehandlesweresolidandcouldhandledumpingashmultipletimes.TheEcoRechohadthemoststableplatform,consistingofprongsthatcouldbeliftedsothatthepotcouldbeplacedontheprongsoronthecharcoaldirectly.Theappealoftheprongswasthestabilitytheygavethepot,theabilitytofeedcharcoalintothepanwithouthavingtoliftthepot,andnotsmotheringthefirewiththepot.
Mirak:Ascharcoaldiesdown,thepotsinksintothecharcoal,cuttingoffairflow.Testerswereabletomitigatetheproblembyputtinglargepiecesofcharcoalonthesidessoitwouldallowforairflow.Becausecharcoalburnedunevenly,thepottendedtotilt.Withabiggerpanallowingthecharcoaltospreadout,testersfoundthestovedoesnotlightaswell,andtesterswereoftenafraidofsmotheringthefire.InnotingthetemperaturechangeswithMirak,ourtestersfoundthetemperature“scissoredup”asopposedtoclimbingconsistently.Thismaybebecausetestershadtoremovethepotfromthestovetoaddmorecharcoal,whichdroppedthetemperatureofthewaterslightlyeachtimetheyaddedfuel.TesterslikedthattheMirakhadadetachablepantodumptheremainingcharcoalwithouthavingtomovetheentirestove.
Prakti:Thefourprongplatformisabitunstable(notperfectlyeven)comparedtothestablethreeprongplatformofotherstoves.Thehandlesaresmallandfalldowntorestagainstthesideofthestove,makingthemhardtomaneuverandcausingthemtobecomeextremelyhot.Thedoorworkswellandiseasytouse.Thecoalswereeasytolightbecauseoftheshallowchamber.Testerslikedtheshapeandsizeofthestoveandfoundittobesturdy.Theyalsothoughttheashpanwasagood
stove.
Inadditiontocommentsofusabilityofeachstove,wenotehoweachstovecomparedtothetraditionalstove.WhencomparingtheEcoRechotothetraditionalstove,theEcoRechohadthestableprongplatform,whichisnotpresentinthetraditionalstove.However,theholesofthetraditionalstovewerelargeenoughthattheyneverpluggeduporcausedfailedtestsasintheEcoRecho.WhencomparingtheMiraktothetraditionalstove,thedetachablepanusedtodumpthecharcoalwasanadvantage,althoughthetraditionalstovewaslightenoughtolifttheentirestove.However,thepanoftheMirakwouldlimitairflowasthepotsunkintocharcoal.Thisproblemwasnotobservedinthetraditionalstovebecausethesquarepanwaslargerandtheholessurroundtheentirepan,sothepotwouldnotcovertheentiretopofthestove.WhencomparingthePraktitothetraditionalstove,thePraktihadadoorthatworkedwell,waseasytouse,andallowedforarangeofairflow.Also,theashpanwasconvenientandeffective.However,thehandlesonthePraktiaresmallandfalldowntorestagainstthesideofthestove.Thetraditionalstove’shandlesarelargerandeasiertohandle,protrudeoutawayfromthestove,andcooldownquickly.WhencomparingtheStoveTectothetraditionalstove,theStoveTechadaprongplatformthat
18
one.Theydidfind,however,thefourprongsmadeitmoredifficulttoaddcharcoalbecausetherewaslessspacethroughwhichtoaddadditionalfuel.
StoveTec:Thetestershadtroublewiththedoor,whichfelloffeasilyandwasdifficulttofitinitsgrooves.Duringhotandcoldstarts,thedoorwas85%openasfullyopeningthedoorcausedittofalloff.Thehandlessometimesfelloffwhendumpingcharcoalout.TheStoveTec’sinteriorclayslowlykeptfallingapart.Duringonefailedtest,theclayblockshiftedandsealedoffairsupply.Testersalsofounditdifficulttogetnewcoalslitwhenaddingthem.Thestoveremainedveryhotforhoursafterthetestwascompleted.
Traditional:ThetraditionalstoveiswidespreadinHaiti.Sincethestovehasbeenwidelyadopted,itisassumedtobehighlyusableandfitHaitianneedswell.Therefore,wehighlightpositiveaspectsoftheusabilityofthetraditionalstovebecausethosearethecharacteristicsthatcouldpotentiallyleadpeopletokeepusingthestoveevenifitislessefficient.Thetraditionalstovehadthebenefitofsimplicity.Thestoveisgenerallystable,hassturdylegs,andalargepanthatcansupportvariouspotsizesandshapes.Ithadnodoorswhichmadeiteasytouse,butitalsohadnowaytocontroltheairflowtocontrolthepowersettingwithouthavingtoremovethepottoaddorremovecharcoal.Anadvantageofthetraditionalstovewastheholesaroundtheentirepanofthestove;theywouldnotgetpluggedupwithchar,andtheymaintainedsufficientairflowtopreventthefirefrombeingsmotheredbythepot.Sincethepotsitsdirectlyonthecharcoal,testershadtoputbiggerpiecesontheoutercirclewithsmallerpiecesontheinsidesothatthepotwouldnottilt.Thelargepanallowedforlargeamountsofcharcoaltobeadded,andmadeitconvenienttoaddandremovecharcoal.Sometimesitwasdifficulttolightthecharcoalbecausethelargepanallowedthecharcoaltomovearoundifitwasnotcompletelyfull.Themetalhandlesaresturdyandprotrudefromthestove,increasingstoveusability.Sincethehandlesaremetaltheybecomehotduringtestingsotestershadtouseglovesorwaituntilthestovewascooltohandlethe
19
increasedthestabilityofthepot,andensuredthatthecharcoalwasn’tsmotheredbythepot,incomparisonwiththetraditionalstovewherethepotsitsdirectlyonthecharcoal.However,thetraditionalstove’susabilitywassimplerthantheStoveTec,whichtranslatedintofewerproblemsduringtesting.
4.CONCLUSION
Inregardstoefficiency,allstovesofferedimprovementoverthetraditionalstove.Thereisatradeoff,though,intimetoboil,asallimprovedstovestookmuchlongertobringwatertoaboilthanthetraditionalstove.Overall,intermsofboththermalefficiencyandspecificfuelconsumption,thePraktiandtheEcoRechoperformedthebest.However,asdescribedabove,inmanyinstances,differencesbetweentheirperformanceandtheperformanceoftheStoveTecorMirakwerenotstatisticallysignificant.
IntermsofCOemissionsandtheCO/CO2ratio,theMirakhadthelowestemissions,althoughdifferenceswerestatisticallysignificantonlywhencomparedtothestovewiththehighestemissions,theEcoRecho.
Forusability,wehaveincludedtesterobservationsandcommentsinordertoprovidefeedbacktostovedesigners,butnostoveemergedasclearlysuperiortotheothers.
TheseWBTsprovideagoodinitialcomparisonofstoveperformanceundercontrolledconditions.Inthefuture,additionaltestsperstovewouldbeusefultoincreasethesamplesizes,andpossiblyreducetheconfidenceintervals,tobebetterabletomakecomparisonsbetweenstoves.However,evenwhenresultsaren’tstatisticallysignificantduetolargeconfidenceintervals,observeddifferencesbetweenstovesmaybepracticallysignificantforreal‐worldperformanceinthefield.Also,tobetterpredicthowstoveswillperformintermsofefficiency,emissions,andusabilityunderHaitianconditions,wearecomplementingtheWBTswithControlledCookingTests(CCTs)usingaprotocolbasedonbservationsofHaitiancooking.o
Acknowledgements
ResearchfundingwasprovidedbytheU.S.DepartmentofEnergyunderContractNo.DE‐AC02‐05CH11231,andpartiallybythesupportofNDSEGFellowship.
Theauthorswouldliketothankthefollowingpeoplefortheirassistancewiththeproject:CristinaCeballos,AllenBoltz,andEthanAveyfortheirmanyhoursofstovetestingandthehighqualityoftheirwork;AndreeSoslerandDebraSteinofDarfurStovesProjectfortheirorganizationalsupportincoordinatingthetriptoHaiti,withoutwhichthisprojectcouldnothavebeendone;PhilPrice,RobertCheng,TonyKeaveny,AdamRausch,andScottSadlonforgenerouslysharingtheirtechnicalexpertise;CrispinPemberton‐Pigottforthearithmeticreasoningbehindchangingtheequivalentdryfuelequation;andTomKirchstetterandRobertChengforreviewingthedocument.WealsothankthepeopleatStoveTec,Prakti,andEcoRechoforprovidinguswiththeirstovestotestandfortheirtirelessworkonimprovingstovesforthepeopleofHaiti.
AppendixA:SummaryofDataforWBT
TableA1:NumberofTestsperPhase TableA2:TimetoBoil(mean±SD)
Cold Hot SimmerEn eW tirBT
EcoRecho 4 4 3 11Mirak 5 3 3 11Prakti 5
44
453
333
121210
StoveTecTraditional
ColdStart(minutes)
HotSta(minut
EcoRecho 55.2±24.2 32.1±Mirak 54.1±17.3 42.1±
Prakti 51.3±6.7 33.3±
StoveTec 59.8±11.636.5±16.8
29.9±24.0±Traditional
TableA3:ThermalEfficiency(mean±SD) TableA4:SpecificFuelConsumption**(mean±SD)
20
Simmer EntireWBTEcoRecho 37.5%±13.5% 31.6%±17.1%Mirak 34.1%±6.2% 28.6%±7.7%Prakti 46.2%±2.2%
36.6%±4.2%28.5%±2.1%
37.3%±8.5%30.5%±8.4%22.2%±3.1%
StoveTecTraditional
**Temperature‐orrected
Simmer Entir (grams) (gramEcoRecho 324±127 479Mirak 289±104 507 Prakti 378±302
346±91.7808±290
539 572 979
StoveTecTraditional
C
TableA5:TotalCOEmission(mean±SD) TableA6:TotalCO2Emission(mean±SD)
Simmer EntireWBT(grams) (grams)
EcoRecho 98.6±13.3 179±19.3Mirak 59.1±13.2 134±23.8Prakti 68.7±12.1
83.5±36.691.6±31.6
136±27.4183±43.1154±34.4
StoveTecTraditional
Simmer EntireWB(grams) (grams)
EcoRecho 640±140 1376 ±15Mirak 747±52.8 1577±20Prakti 542±77.0 1249±17StoveTec 802±103
928±3541842 ±191625±3Traditional 7
21
TableA7:TotalCO/CO2Emission(mean±SD)
Simmer EntireWBTEcoRecho 15.8%±3.4% 13.0%±2.0%Mirak 8.0%±2.2% 8.5%±1.9%Prakti 12.7%±1.6%
10.8%±5.8%10.0%±0.6%
10.9%±2.6%9.9%±2.6%9.5%±3.1%
StoveTecTraditional
AppendixB:ChangetoEquationinWBTProtocolTheWBTwasdesignedforwood‐burningstovesandcannotbeexactlyappliedtocharcoal‐urningstoves.WemadethefollowingmodificationintheWBTprotocolequationtobaccommodatecharcoalstoves.WhencalculatingequivalentdryfuelconsumedforallphasesoftheWBT,thewood‐burningprotocolincorporatestheenergyrequiredtoturntheleftoverwoodintochar.However,weusedcharcoalinsteadofwoodandbecausecharcoalisessentiallycharalready,weassumedtheenergycontentoftheleftovercharcoalwasthesameastheinitialcharcoal,allowingthechangeincarbon(ΔCc)toequalzero.Also,duetodifferencesintheenergycontentbetweencharcoalandwood,wereplacedthecoefficientof1.12with1.08.Thischangedtheequation(forexampleinthecoldstartphase)from:
t o:
whereFcdistheequivalentdryfuelconsumed,Fcmisthefuelconsumed,misthemoisturecontentofthefuel,andΔCcisthenetchangeincharduringthetest.
TheWBTVersion3.0approximatestheheatofvaporization ,theenergyrequiredtoevaporatewater,as2260kJ/kg.TheWBTprotocolalsoremarksthatthisvalueisapproximately12%ofthecalorificvalueofdrywood ,
Additionally,theWBTprotocolstatesthatcharhasroughly150%ofthecalorificcontentofdrywood,
Sincetheheatofvaporizationofwaterisaconstantvalue,
22
Therefore,thecoefficientintheequationforequivalentdryfuelconsumedchangedfrom1.12to1.08,
toaccountforusingcharcoal(essentiallychar)insteadofwood.
ForfurtherinformationontheWBTprotocol,seetheShellFoundationHouseholdEnergyrojectWBT,version3.0,foundat:P http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/hem/?page_id=38.
23
AppendixC:Statistics
Toassessthevariationintheaveragevalue overanumberofmeasurements,thesamplestandarddeviation iscalculatedby
24
where
(1)
isthenumberofmeasurementsorsamplesizeand aretheindividualmeasurementsthatareusedtocalculatetheaverage.Aconvenientwaytocalculatethesamplestandarddeviationisusingthe“STDEV”functioninExcel(the“STDEV”functionuses inthedenominator).Averagevaluesandsamplestandarddeviationsforeachperformancemetric(timetoboil,thermalefficiency,specificfuelconsumption,carbonmonoxideemission,carbondioxideemission,andtheratioofcarbonmonoxidetocarbondioxide)arepresentedinAppendixAforreference.
Toassessuncertaintyintheaverage,thestandarddeviationofthemean (alsocalledthestandarderror),iscalculatedasthestandarddeviationdividedbythesquarerootofthesamplesize,
.
Foranormaldistribution,ifavalueisreportedasthemeanplusorminusthestandarderror(
(2)
)thenthereis68%confidencethatmeasurementswillbewithinthesebounds.Itistypicaltoreportuncertaintyatthe95%confidencelevelwhich,foranormaldistribution,isapproximatelytwostandarddeviationsfromthemean( ).Whenthisuncertaintyisusedastheerrorbarsfordataplottedinbarcharts,itcanclearlybedeterminedwhetherdifferencesbetweentwopopulationmeansaresignificant,byobservingerrorbarsthatdonotoverlap.
Whenitisassumedthatthemeasurementsarenormallydistributedbutthesamplesizeissmall(<30)andthepopulationstandarddeviationisunknown,aStudent’st‐distributionisused.WhenusingtheStudent’st‐testtocalculateconfidenceintervals,andassessstatisticalsignificance,theconfidenceintervalsare
wherethecoefficient
(3)
isthevalueoftheStudent’st‐distributionatthechosenlevelofconfidence.Aselectionoft‐valuesislistedinthetablebelowasanexample.Itisrecommendedthatsamplesizes(thenumberoftestsperstove)begreaterthanfivetoeducethereporteduncertainty.Forfurtherinformation,referencesarelistedbelow.r
25
N
(SampleSize)
N‐1
(Degreesof
Freedom)
t.975(Onesided);t.95(Twosided)
1 ‐ ‐2 1 12.713 2 4.304 3 3.185 4 2.786 5 2.577 6 2.458 7 2.369 8 2.3110 9 2.26
References
nalysis,2nded.(UniversityScienceBooks,199J.R.Taylor,AnIntroductiontoErrorA 7).
M.R.Spiegel,S.Lipschutz,andJ.Liu,MathematicalHandbookofFormulasandTables,3rded.(McGraw‐Hill,2008).
ThefollowingWikipediapagesarealsousefulatexplainingtheseconcepts:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1.96andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t‐distribution.