Review of Cook Stove Test Methods 29 Mar 11
Review of Cook Stove Test Methods 29 Mar 11
Review of Cook Stove Test Methods 29 Mar 11
1. Introduction
a) Description of the exercise
The exercise involved the review of the cook stove test methods and their applicability in
small scale CDM cook stove projects. The following four cook stove test methods were
reviewed:
2. Methodology
a) Review of relevant published articles, reports and presentations
The following set of documents were reviewed as part of collecting the information during the
exercise:
• Consultant’s report on specific questions regarding the methodologies AMS-IE and AMS-
II.G -This was a report of a consultant contracted by the UNFCCC to look into some
specific issues regarding the methodologies AMS-I.E “Switch from Non-Renewable
Biomass for Thermal Applications by the User” and AMS-II.G “Energy Efficiency
Measures in Thermal Applications of Non-Renewable Biomass”.
• Project Design Documents (PDDs) for existing cook stove projects or projects under
validation - A total of 6 PDDs were reviewed.
1
Project Design Document (PDD) - This is a standard document used by the project developers provide precise
project description. The document serves as the basis for the CDM project validation by the Designated Operational
Entities (DoEs).
• Published documents based on past studies by cook stove researchers and experts (See
reference)
• Relevant websites (such as HEDON and PCIA)
b) Communication with project proponents and stakeholders
In addition, we contacted several project proponets to obtain their views on cookstove testing
methods with regard to CDM projects. About 10 project participants were contacted. The
correspondence was through phone discussions and email. For email correspondence a
small questionnaire to guide the respondents was used.
c) Discussion with SSU/Small scale team and members of SSC-WG
Finally, face to face discussions with the SSU/Small scale team and members of the SSC-
WG was a very important during the review exercise. This was extremely important since the
exercise coincided with the 30th SSC-WG (14-18 March 2011) meeting during which the
methodologies were being discussed.
3. Findings and conclusions
a) Types of the cook stove testing methods reviewed
There are four methods of testing cooking stoves namely:
• Water Boiling Test (WBT)
• Controlled Cooking Test (CCT); and
• Kitchen Performance Test (KPT).
• Stove Use Monitors (SUMs) which is currently under development.
Note: Although WBTs were initially designed as laboratory tests, it is important to note that
they can as well be carried out in the field particularly for in situ cook stoves2 or huge cook
stoves that cannot be transported to the laboratory.
2
In situ cook stoves can be defined as fixed stoves constructed on site or those that are not mobile.
3
The boiling point of water differs from place to place and therefore has to be measured for a specific place where
the measurements are to be taken.
Merits
• The method is quick and simple;
• WBT is cheap and requires minimal resources (finances, technical and human resources)
to carry out;
• WBT is suitable for comparing different stove designs in terms of technical performance;
• WBT does not involve complex logistics;
• This method allows easy computation and quantitative analysis of data hence can give
exact values of parameters to measure;
• It is easier to replicate WBT from one area to another;
Demerits
• WBT does not reveal the performance of the stoves during actual/real cooking. It only
provides a rough approximation. The accuracy of the measured parameters are therefore
not ascertained hence may give inaccurate results during application;
• Difficulty in extrapolating WBT results to actual field performance without complimentary
data from actual users;
• The tests must be carried out under the same conditions in order to obtain meaningful
results.
• This approach cannot be used to compare the performance of stoves situated at different
locations due to different prevailing conditions e.g. types of fuel, cooking habits, types of
cooking pots e.t.c;
• This method only focuses on the quantitative indicators of performance such as
efficiency, burn rate, specific fuel consumption e.t.c. However, it is important to note that
there are other qualitative factors particularly those emanating from stove users and the
environment which affect stove performance and these cannot be measured using this
method;
• Trained technicians are required to perform WBT tests hence this limits the applications
in areas (particularly remote areas) where they may be difficulty in getting trained
technicians.
• This method cannot evaluate user satisfaction and utilisation patterns of the cook stoves;
• This method cannot be used to evaluate the impact or effectiveness of the cook stove
project/interventions on the community/beneficiaries;
• WBT cannot assess fuel savings among the beneficiaries.
c) Controlled Cooking Test (CCT)
Overview
CCT is a laboratory or a field test that evaluates the performance of the cooking stoves using
a standardised local cooking task(s). This method reveals behaviour of the stove under the
ideal cooking conditions in a locality/project area. CCT tests the efficacy4 of the cook stoves.
4
Efficacy test means the evaluation of ideal/maximum performance of the cook stoves under the actual operating
conditions in the households.
• Last but not least, the test is performed in accordance with the set out procedures and
results documented and evaluated. Note that local cooks may be employed to carry out
the cooking tasks hence providing realistic results regarding the project area.
The key indicators that can be measured from this technique are the fuel consumption and
the speed of cooking (time of cooking). Considering that this procedure simulates the actual
cooking, it is therefore capable of providing reliable results as compared to the WBT with
regard to predicting actual performance and fuel consumption in the field. However, it may not
predict the outcomes of uncontrolled usage of the cook stoves in actual practice.
Merits
• CCT is capable of providing reliable results as compared to the WBT with regard to
predicting actual performance and fuel consumption in the field;
• CCT is relatively simple and consumes less time as compared to the KPT. However, it is
relatively complex and time consuming as compared to WBT;
• It is easier to replicate CCT from one area/cook stove to another provided the cooking
tasks and operating conditions are similar;
• CCT is relatively cheaper and requires minimal resources as compared to KPT but is
relatively expensive as compared to WBT. However, the output of CCT is more reliable as
compared to the WBT;
• CCT allows the possibility of considering qualitative factors.
Demerits
• The outcomes of CCT for one project area cannot be translated to a different project
area;
• CCT cannot measure stove utilisation patterns and adoption of cook stoves by the
beneficiaries;
• CCT cannot measure the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the cook stoves
projects;
• In case local cooks are used to carry out the tasks, they need adequate training on how
to handle the stoves beforehand;
• The process of obtaining prior information (e.g. through surveys) before performing the
tests increase the logistics required under this technique;
• Although CCT simulates actual cooking tasks, the method may not be able to predict the
outcomes of uncontrolled usage of the cook stoves in actual practice.
d) Kitchen Performance Test (KPT)
Overview
Of the four tests, KPT is the most complex. KPT is a field test that evaluates the performance
of the stove as well as the effectiveness and impact of the cook stoves in real cooking
settings.
The process of KPT involves both qualitative survey and quantitative measurements. Two
kinds of qualitative surveys are carried out i.e. pre-treatment survey which is designed to
assess the situation of households before dissemination of stoves and post treatment surveys
which are designed to assess the impact of the cook stoves in the households. KPT is useful
in determining the fuel consumption, gauging user satisfaction and assessing the impact and
effectiveness of the cook stove interventions.
Merits
• Measures the real performance of stoves in the households under the real operating
conditions;
• This method assess the impact of stoves on fuel use and stove utilisation patterns/trends
over long term;
• KPT determines the behavioural changes of the beneficiaries after the introduction of the
cook stoves;
• KPT is able to predict the outcomes of uncontrolled usage of the cook stoves in actual
practice;
• KPT is able to assess the adaption of the stoves by the beneficiaries.
Demerits
• This method is expensive, time consuming and labour intensive;
• This method is relatively complex in terms of logistics and requires field research skills;
• KPT has a limitation because it leads to intrusion into beneficiaries daily activities hence
may not be popular;
• Due to lack of controlled scenario, there is a high possibility of variability of results in KPT
than the controlled testing methods (WBT and CCT). This can be mitigated by selecting
large samples which is more expensive;
• KPT requires complicated sample selection processes;
• KPT is not suitable for stove design and cannot be used to compare the performances of
different stoves.
e) Stove Use Monitors (SUMs)
Overview
This is a new development of installing electronic temperature data loggers in the cookstoves
in order to monitor stove use. The temperature data loggers are commercially available and
are small, rugged and low cost. This method can be used to replace survey methods in
determining reliable estimates of stove utilisation by the beneficiaries.
The SUMs mainly measure the temperature changes over a period of time which are stored in
the memory of the data logger. As a result, the temperature profile of the cook stove can be
determined. This information can be analysed in order to establish stove utilisation patterns
by the beneficiaries.
Merits
• This method is relatively cheap and reliable;
• The results obtained from SUMs are accurate and safe since they are stored in the
memory of the data logger;
• This method can be used to replace survey methods in determining reliable estimates of
stove utilisation by the beneficiaries;
• The SUM is small and easy to install in the cook stove;
• The SUMs are easy to maintain;
• The SUMs can be modified to transmit data wirelessly;
• The SUMs can be programmed to suit the application;
• This methods makes data analysis easy;
• SUMs can facilitate the establishment of a live database for the cookstoves maintained
within a project.
Demerits
• The SUM is currently limited to measuring stove utilisation only. As a result it is not able
to measure other important parameters such as efficiency, fuel consumption e.t.c;
• The amount of data is limited by the size of the memory of the SUM;
• The SUM uses a battery and therefore requires battery replacement;
• The beneficiaries (especially from rural areas) need to be informed to take care of the
SUMs to avoid damage.
f) Comparison of the three techniques
The table below summarises the comparison of the four testing techniques (categorised as
controlled and non controlled) with regard to the measurement of the key
indicators/parameters:
- Measurement possible
- Measurement not possible (or difficult)
The results indicate that fuel consumption for the three techniques can be correlated.
However, the results from the WBT is different from CCT and KPT. This information is useful
and gives an indication that default factors linking the three methods can be derived.
However, this information may be biased to the specific project and therefore more
information regarding the correlation is required from different studies before making a
conclusion.
• Baseline scenario determination - This mainly affect the computation of the amount of
verifiable emissions reduction and accuracy is of great significance. Therefore, the
indicators used should be quantifiable, specific and easily verifiable.
• Continuous monitoring/verifications - Continous verifications are necessary during
project implementation in order to monitor the actual emission reduction. This determines
the amount of CERs issued and therefore accuracy of the test methods is of great
significance. Furthermore, the frequency of carrying out the tests is equally very important
in order to ensure that the information required (depending on the nature) is obtained on
a timely manner.
• Evaluation - Evaluation is necessary in measuring the impact or the effectiveness of the
outcomes of the cook stove projects. This aids in assessing the sustainability of the
activities as well as impact on emission reduction. Accuracy of the results is not of great
significance since the objective is normally to get the overall trend of the situation.
Objectively Possible Means of Remarks including monitoring challenges and limitations
verifiable category of verification
indicator indicator
Stove overall Baseline & WBT or • This indicator is useful for continous monitoring particularly in the
efficiency continous CCT assessment of the condition or the technical performance of the cook
monitoring stoves over time.
• Stove efficiency is inversely proportional to the specific fuel
consumption (for a specific cooking task).
• Stove efficiency is a dynamic indicator that is highly influenced by the
operating conditions. It is therefore not a reliable indicator for
determining the baseline scenario especially if determined under
controlled conditions without considering field factors.
• Analysis of stove efficiency using CCT method is difficult, involving
and limited.
Fuel Baseline & WBT or • Fuel consumption can be used to determine the energy requirements
consumption continous CCT and therefore is a useful indicator for determining the baseline
monitoring scenario if accurately measured.
• Accuracy is of paramount importance while verifying this indicator.
• This indicator can also be used to assess the performance or
condition of the cook stoves continuously over the project period as it
is linked to stove efficiency.
• The controlled tests have a limitation of predicting the fuel
consumption during actual cooking. However, CCT can be modified
as much as possible to reflect actual cooking hence may give
relatively better results than WBT.
Time or speed Continous WBT or • This parameter is important for comparing the technical performance
of cooking (a monitoring CCT of different cook stoves as well as assessing the condition of the
specific meal) cooke stoves over time.
• As fuel consumption, speed of cooking/time of cooking is a function
of the efficiency of the cook stove.
• Time of cooking also varies from one place to the other depending on
the cooking practices.
Stove utilisation Continous KPT or • This is an outcome of the cook stove projects, an indicator of
Objectively Possible Means of Remarks including monitoring challenges and limitations
verifiable category of verification
indicator indicator
patterns monitoring & SUMs behavioural change in the community.
evaluation • KPT will mainly rely on surveys to establish the utilisation patterns.
• On the other hand, SUMs are installed on the cook stoves hence
determine their usage continuously during the project duration. SUMs
therefore, offers the best mode of checking utilisation patterns.
• The output of the stove utilisation patterns are useful in determining
the adaptation of the cook stoves by the beneficiaries.
Adaptation of Evaluation KPT or • This is an impact indicator which can be evaluated in long term. It
cook stoves SUMs indicates the level of acceptance of the cook stove by the
beneficiaries. It is also an indicator of the sustainability of the cook
stove project.
• This can be measured through KPT surveys or assessing the long
term data from the SUMs.
• Accuracy of the testing method is not a major factor while measuring
this indicator.
Sustainability of Evaluation KPT • This is an impact indicator measuring the overall performance of the
the cook stove stoves in terms of qualitative and quantitative factors. It can only be
project evaluated on a long term basis in order to obtain meaningful results.
• This can be determined by establishing the adaptation and success
of the cook stoves, good technical performance as well as the
continuity of usage.
• KPT is the best method for evaluating this indicator by employing
both qualitative and quantitative techniques.
Cook stove Continous KPT • This indicator can be measured continuously and on a long term to
user monitoring & assess the trend of cook stove user satisfaction.
satisfaction evaluation • This depends on the performance of the stoves, ease of use,
durability, flexibility and aesthetic values from the users point of view.
• This outcome varies from user to user hence KPT surveys are the
best for measuring this indicator.
fc ηold ηnew
Efficient Wood Fuel Stove-Cooking-Sets, Household baseline survey IPCC default values WBT
Lesotho (CDM7122, Lesotho/Atmosfair)
Improved cook stove project for SAMUHA Historical & Past Studies IPCC default values WBT
(CDM6591, India/Fair Climate)
Improved Cook Stoves CDM project of JSMBT Historical & Past Studies IPCC default values WBT
(CDM6594, India/Fair Climate)
Efficient Fuel Wood Cooking Stoves Project in Household baseline survey IPCC default values WBT
Foothills and Plains of Central Region of
Nepal (CDM5957, NEPAL/Egluro)
Protection of Cameroon estuary mangroves Household baseline survey CCT (Wood CCT (Wood
through improved smoke houses (CDM6677, Consumption test) consumption test)
Cameroon/ONF International)
Efficient Fuel Wood Stoves for Nigeria Household baseline survey IPCC default values WBT
(CDM4491, Nigeria/Atmosfair)
NB: The results from the examples above may be biased because of the few project
proponents.
Where:
f c =Average fuel consumption per appliance per unit time (or per household)
ηold =Efficiency of the replaced cook stove
ηnew =Efficiency of the new cook stove
Considering the varying application of the testing methods on the key indicators, it is therefore
necessary to consider the above factors and develop the guidelines for selecting the cook
stove testing method. The guidelines can be modelled in the following ways:
• Modified CCT - CCT method should be modified to include the information regarding the
situation of the project before implementation as well as operational conditions in order to
obtain results which predict field utilisation of cook stoves. This will present an immediate
intervention that will ensure accuracy and more reliable data for determining the emission
reduction. But guidelines should be developed depending on the various project
scenarios.
• Testing matrix - Also, as an immediate intervention, a matrix that will guide the project
implementers on the selection of the test methods to be applied may be prepared. The
matrix should consider all the different project scenarios in order to mitigate the
associated risks. In addition, the matrix should be straight forward and easy to apply.
Development of the matrix should involve the current project proponents and
stakeholders.
• Tests correlation factors - In the long term, a study should be carried out to determine
the correlation between the laboratory based tests and the actual field tests. This will
enable the project proponents to rely on the laboratory tests and apply the correlation
factors in order to obtain reliable results. It is important to note that the correlation factors
may differ from region to region and therefore a database maintaining such information is
necessary.
4. References
1. Rufus Edwards, Technical Advisor to SSG WG of the CDM Executive Board of UNFCCC,
Final Report on the Technical Inputs on Methodological Approaches for Improving the
Usability and Robustness of Estimation Methods in Non-Renewable Biomass
Methodologies
2. Karen Weinbaum, Standard Stove Performance Testing: Darfur Stoves, University of
California, Berkeley
3. Kirk R. Smith et al., 2007, Performance testing for monitoring improved biomass stove
interventions: Experiences of the Household Energy Project, Energy for Sustainable
Development (Vol. XI No. 2)
4. Victor M. Berrueta, Rufus D. Edwards, Omar R. Masera, 2007, Energy Performance of
wood-burning cookstoves in Michioacan, Mexico, Sceince Direct
5. Kirk R. Smith et al., 2007, Monitoring and evaluation of improved biomass cookstove
programs for indoor air quality and stove performance: conclusions on the Household
Energy and Health Project, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley
6. Ilse Ruiz-Mercado, Nick L. Lam, Eduardo Canuz, Gilberto Davila, Kirk R. Smith, Low-cost
temperature loggers as stove use monitors (SUMs), University of California, Berkeley
7. Household Energy Network(HEDON) website <http://www.hedon.info/>
8. The Partnership for Clean Indoor Air(PCIA) website <http://www.pciaonline.org/>
9. Cookstove.net website <http://www.cookstove.net/others/fuel-economy.html>
5. Annexes
Annex 1: Discussions with Atmosfair on cooking stoves
Situation at Atmosfair
• Atmosfair has two cook stove CDM projects in Africa i.e. Nigeria and Lesotho.
• Atmosfair has so far used WBT and KPT (partial) in their cook stove CDM projects
implemented in Nigeria and Lesotho.
• WBT is used to determine the efficiency of the cook stoves which is an important
parameter for determining the quantity of fuel used.
• The selection of the WBT was mainly driven by the requirements of the
methodology which requires the efficiencies of the cook stove to be determined.
• KPT (partial) is only used at the beginning of the project when determining the
baseline scenario particularly while collecting information regarding the fuel
consumption per household and cooking practices.
• CCT has not been used on the current CDM projects hence no valuable
experience.
Comments on testing
• Florian would recommend that the PPs should be left to decide on the choice of
the testing.
• However, for uniformity purposes across the CDM projects, default values for
uncertainty correction for each test is recommended. The default values may be
regional since the tests may provide varying results from region to region.
• WBT is simple and easy to carry out while at the same time the results can be
reproduced. However, it does not represent the real settings in the households.
• On the other hand KPT is expensive and involve a lot of logistics. The variability of
the outcomes is also high hence requires large samples in order to obtain useful
and meaningful statistical data.
• Regarding guidance, Florian notes that there is limited guidance on how to carry
the tests, particularly field tests where sampling is necessary. It is therefore
important to provide comprehensive, simple and easy to understand guidelines to
the PPs regarding the implementation of the tests.
• Also, it was noted from the discussion that the size of the project should be a key
factor in determining the type of the test to use.
• Regarding the DOEs, the discussions revealed that the PPs and DOEs may
conflict as regards the best method for carrying out the tests. For instance in the
Nigeria project, the DOEs had to carry out their tests in order to be comfortable
with the results. In order to avoid such conflicts and mistrusts, the UNFCCC
should come up with guidelines clear to both parties on how to carry out the tests.
-Annex 2: Discussions with Fair Climate on cooking stoves
• In addition, Fair Climate is also developing project documents for another cook
stove project but under the Gold Standard methodology.
• WBT (in accordance with the PCIA guidelines) was used in the determination of
baseline scenario for the two CDM projects.
• Kitchen Test was used in for the cook stove project under Gold Standard in
accordance with the requirements of the methodology.
• Although WBT and KPT have been used by Fair Climate for the new cook stove
projects, no comparison with regard to their performance has been made.
• A very important point coming out of the discussion was inadequate guidance to
apply the methodology. It is important to have comprehensive and easy to apply
guidance which provide a framework as well as direction during the
implementation of the methodology hence ensuring consistency.