A review of the cook stove test methods and their applicability in small

scale CDM cook stove projects

By: Walter Kipruto, Intern, SDM/SSU

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:

• Water Boiling Test (WBT),

• Controlled Cooking Test (CCT),
• Kitchen Performance Test (KPT),and
• Stove Use Monitors (SUMs).
1
The information reviewed was based on CDM Project Design Documents (PDDs) for existing
cook stove projects or projects under validation, published documents based on past studies
by cook stove researchers and experts as well as discussions with cook stove project
implementers (including current CDM project developers).

b) Objectives of the exercise

• Analyse the merits and demerits of the cook stove testing procedures.
• Obtain the views of project implementers and other stakeholders on cookstove testing
methods.
• Propose a more practical method for testing cook stoves under small scale CDM projects.

c) Summary of the document

This document analyses the four methods of cook stove testing i.e. Water Boiling Test (WBT),
Controlled Cooking Test (CCT), Kitchen Performance Test (KPT) and Stove Use Monitors
(SUMs). The information is based on published documents based on past studies by cook
stove researchers and experts as well reports from and discussions with cook stove project
implementers (including current CDM project developers). The merits and demerits of the
cook stove test methods have been analysed and the application capability of each method
assessed and compared under different situations. More importantly, the document
recommends how the test methods could be applied under CDM methodologies.

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.

b) Water Boiling Test (WBT)

Overview
WBT is a laboratory test that involves the investigation of the cooking stoves in a controlled
environment in order to evaluate or reveal their technical performance. This method focuses
on simulation of cooking practices by water boiling hence does not present the actual cooking
conditions. WBT is very vital at the time of the design of the cook stoves (Kirk R. Smith et al.,
2007).

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.

The process of testing involves three main stages i.e.

• Cold-start-high-power phase - This stage involves raising the temperature of water from
ambient temperature to boiling point3 from a cold start. This simulates rapid cooking tasks
like making tea, boiling milk e.t.c (Kirk R. Smith et al., 2007).
• Hot-start-high-power phase - This stage involves raising the temperature of water from
ambient temperature to boiling point when the stove is already hot.
• Low power simmering phase - This phase involves maintaining the boiling water at
simmering temperatures i.e. about 2-3 degrees below the boiling point of water. This
simulates slow cooking tasks like cooking rice, beans or hard grains (Kirk R. Smith et al.,
2007).
The key parameters that can be investigated by WBT include; thermal efficiency, combustion
efficiency, fuel consumption, fuel burn rate and time to boil. These parameters measure the
technical performance of stoves and vary from one stove to the other. Note that the tests
must be carried under the same conditions in order to obtain meaningful results.

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.

The summary of the CCT process is enumerated below:

• The first step involves identification of the appropriate cooking task based on the cooking
practices within the project area. In addition, it is also important to identify the prevailing
local conditions and cooking behaviours. This can be achieved through consulation with
community or through a survey.
• The next step is to describe in detail the procedures to be employed during the test while
taking into consideration the identified cooking task, local conditions as well as cooking
practices.

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:

Parameter Controlled Non controlled

WBT CCT KPT SUMs
Determining stove overall efficiency

 
Determining fuel consumption



Time or speed of cooking (a specific
meal)

 
Assessing stove utilisation patterns  


Evaluating the adaptation of cook stoves  


Evaluating the sustainability of the cook
stove project  

Gauging user satisfaction  

Key:

- Measurement possible
 - Measurement not possible (or difficult)

g) Correlation of the three main cook stove testing techniques

There is very limited information regarding the correlation of the three main cook stove testing
methods. However, there is a study that was carried out in Mexico that tried to correlate the
three testing methods on two types of cook stoves {i.e. Patsari improved cook stove and a
three stone fire (TSF)}. The following results regarding the fuel consumption for the three
testing methods were obtained from a study titled Energy Performance of wood-burning
cookstoves in Michioacan, Mexico (By Victor M. Berrueta, Rufus D. Edwards, Omar R.
Masera, 2007).

Test Details Patsari TSF Variance % Remarks

savings
WBT High power cold 0.49 0.19 0.30 N/A Specific fuel consumption (kg
start wood/kg water). No savings
High power hot 0.18 0.13 0.05 N/A Specific fuel consumption (kg
start wood/kg water). No savings
Low power 0.19 0.29 -0.10 -34% Specific fuel consumption (kg
simmer wood/kg water)
CCT Standard 0.64 1.49 -0.85 -57% Fuel for cooking tortilla per task
cooking task (Kg wood/kg tortilla)
KPT Household study 1.40 3.26 -1.86 -57% Fuel consumed per household per
day (Kg/cap/day). Survey done 6
months after the dissemination of
the cook stoves

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.

h) Summary of public comments on WBT 4.0 (latest version)

As part of the exercise, the public comments on the latest version of the Water Boiling Test
(WBT 4.0) were reviewed. Most of the reviewers agreed that the latest version was better
than the earlier version. However, a number of issues were noted which are summarised
below (See annex 3 for details)
 • Procedures - Some reviewers recommended a number of improvements on the
procedures in order to enhance the performance.
• Calculations and formulas - Some reviewers identified errors in the formulas while
others required clarifications on some parameters.
• Indicators/Parameters to measure - A number of reviewers suggested inclusion of
some additional parameters in the testing protocol.
• Application of the test method - A few reviewers suggested that the WBT should not be
used for CDM methodology or for proving real fuel savings in the field. This is because the WBT
does not predict the performance of the cook stove in the field.

• Documentation - There were documentation errors such as formatting, phrasing and

grammar which were identified and recommended for revision.

i) Key cook stove parameters and their respective monitoring challenges

A close examination of the key indicators (mentioned above in section h) for monitoring cook
stoves, reveal that they can be categorised in three main areas particularly as regard to CDM
methodologies:

• 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.

j) Application of the tests in current projects (based on available PDDs)

A review of the ongoing projects or projects under validation reveals that most of them prefer
WBT for determining the efficiencies of the new stoves, household survey for determining the
average fuel consumption and IPCC default values for the efficiency of the old stoves (See
table below for examples reviewed). Therefore, it is evident that without restricting the method
of test, the project developers will most likely choose WBT due to simplicity and low costs
involved. However, this is purely dependent on the kind of the project developer and the
methodologies they employ in their organisations.
Project Indicator/Means of determining the 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

k) Feedback from project proponents and other stakeholders

One of the important part of this exercise was to obtain the feedback from project proponents.
The following project proponents/stakeholders have provided their views regarding the testing
techniques:

• Atmosfair (See annex 1 for details of the discussions).

• Fair Climate Network ( See annex 2 for details of the discussions)
Summary of the key points is provided in the table below:

Project proponent/ Key points

stakeholder
Atmosfair (Germany) • Project proponents should be given the choice to select the mode of
testing that suits them. However, if uniformity is to be achieved, then
default values for uncertainty corrections for each test is recommended.
• There is lack of adequate guidance with regard to the implementation of
the tests particularly field tests and especially on sampling. UNFCCC
should provide clear guidance on this.
• KPT presents actual settings in the field but is more expensive and has
complex logistics and may not be suitable for small projects.
Fair Climate Network • There is inadequate guidance on the application of the methodology for
(India) cook stove testing methods especially for field studies. Therefore, there
is a need for comprehensive guidelines that are easy to apply in order
to provide an operating framework as well as direction during the
implementation of the methodology hence ensuring consistency.
• In addition to having a comprehensive guidance, default correction
factors for each testing method may be a good option of simplifying the
cook stove testing process.

l) Application of the test techniques in CDM methodologies (including preliminary

recommendations)
The choice of the test method to be applied for CDM methodologies should be based on the
following factors:
• Purpose of the test - The results of the test methods may be required for baseline
scenario or verification/continous monitoring or evaluation. For instance, baseline
scenario and verification require a high degree of accuracy because they determine the
amount of verifiable emissions reduced. However, the high degree of accuracy is not of
high significance while evaluating the impact or sustainability of the cook stove projects.
• Indicators to test - Some of the indicators can be determined from a controlled
environment while others can be determined in the field.
• Size of the project - The size of the project determines the level of effort and resources
required as well as the amount of emissions reduced. As a result, a combined
assessment of cost, benefits and reliability is relevant while selecting the test method.
• Duration of the project - Similar to the size of the project, this factor determines the level
of effort and resources required hence a combined assessment of cost, benefits and
reliability is relevant while selecting the test method .
• Frequency of verification/testing - This determines when and how often the tests
should be carried out. The amount of resources required for the test and the type of the
indicator determines the frequency of testing.
• Operational conditions - It is very important to understand the conditions under which
the stoves will work before prescribing the method of testing. These includes but not
limited to the cooking practices, environmental factors, types of fuel among others.
 Depending on the size of the project, this can be determined from local knowledge or
through survey.
• Situation before project implementation - A critical review of the situation before
project implementation is necessary for determining the suitable test method. This is
important particularly for establishing the baseline scenario. Information of the project
beneficiaries such as the nature and types of stoves available, types of food, social
classes, types of fuel, environmental conditions e.t.c should be identified and these will
provide the necessary inputs to be considered while determining the test procedures
hence ensuring the reliability of the outcomes.

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.

• Modelling of SUMs to enhance monitoring capability - SUMs provide a very reliable

and flexible means of monitoring cook stoves. The monitoring process will be eased if the
SUMs are modelled to enhance their monitoring capacity for instance to measure stove
efficiency and fuel consumption. However, this will require further research since use of
SUMs is new.

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

Situation at Fair Climate

• Fair climate has two cook stove small scale CDM projects in India. The projects
are still at validation stage.

• 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.

Comments on testing methods

• Use of the cook stove testing methods is a new experience to Fair Climate since
the organisation has not used them before and that the current projects are new.
As a result, there is inadequate information to conclude on the effectiveness of
these cook stove testing methods. However, this is expected to improve during
the implementation of the cook stove projects as more information will be
collected.

• 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.

• Regarding comparison of the Gold Standard and CDM methodologies, Gold

Standard methodology is the most comprehensive for the cook stove projects.
However, the implementation is time consuming and expensive. On the other
hand the CDM methodology for cook stove is easier to use, less expensive and
allows the project developers to decide on the specific tasks.

• 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.

• In addition to having a comprehensive guidance, default correction factors for

each testing method may be a good option of simplifying the cook stove testing
process.
 Annex 3: A summary of public comments on WBT 4.0 (latest version)
Source Summary of key messages and issues from the comments
Aga Khan Planning and • The method does not consider heating requirements
Building Services, Pakistan • Other stove accessories such as water warming facility have not been considered
Appropriate Rural • Issues with the procedure of testing particularly on the treatment of charcoal during high power test
Technology Institute, Pune • Difference between the thermal efficiency during high and low power phases. Thermal efficiency
should be recorded for two phases separately.
Asian Regional Cookstove • Unusually high thermal efficiency when the water is bioled for long time. Evaporated water should
Programme (ARECOP) be considered in order to mitigate
• Net change in char should be monitored since it is an indication of combustion quality
• Comments on improvement of the procedure
Berkeley Air Monitoring • Suggestion on inclusion of guidance on sample size calculation in order to treat the variability of the
Group tests
• Noting lack of direction on instrumentation calibration
• Queries regarding consideration of other functions of multi-pot stoves such as water warming in an
integrated water tank or jacket
• Recommendation that the tests should be based on final products and not prototypes
China Association of Rural • Highlights the differences between WBT 4.1.2 and Thermal Performance Test Method for
Energy Industry (CAREI) Household Firewood Stoves of China Standard
• Suggestion that WBT should be simple so that users can easily understand and operate.
Chip Energy, and Biomass • Suggestion Alcohol should be included as part of liquid fuels
Energy Foundation • Suggestions on procedures - Cold start to Simmer to Hot start (optional)
Dian Desa Foundation, • Formula documentation clarifications
Indonesia • Unusually high thermal efficiency when the water is boiled for long time. Evaporated water should
be considered in order to mitigate
• Net change in char should be monitored since it is an indication of combustion quality
• Comments on improvement of the procedure
Eco Limited • Issues on whether the test can relate to field performance. Suggestion to validate it if it tests field
performance(preferably in different countries).
• Scepticism on whether the WBT 4.1.2 matches or predicts real performance as stated in the
protocol
• Clarifications on some procedure steps
ENDEV/GTZ, Peru • Improvement on the procedure regarding indoor air pollution
• Suggestion to review some sections of the documentation.
Energy Institute, Cape • Recommendation on improvement on phrasing and language to be easy and understandable
Peninsula
Envirofit, Philips and • Suggestion on improvements of cook stove testing to enhance accuracy and mitigate variability
Colorado State University
EPA • Suggestions on improving phrasing as well as procedures
Gratis Foundation • Clarification on the impact of time of day and wind
Grupo Interniscipplinario de • Suggestion of considering energy contribution for multi-pots in low power phase
Technolgia Rural Apropiada • Suggestion of modification of the calculation of thermal efficiency and the energy transfer rate
• Suggestion to include the temperature profile of the cook stove during testing
GTZ • Suggestion to include biogas data
GTZ Bolivia • Suggestions to improve the spreadsheets
• Suggestions to improve the testing procedure
Moi University, Kenya • Suggestions on improvement of test procedures
• Suggestions for measuring burn rate
Pro Peru • Suggestions on factors to consider while carrying out the tests e.g. material of pot, size of pot e.t.c
Resource Efficient • Issue on using pre-selected use of fuel would create bias due to variability of fuels across the world
Agricultural Production
Rozis Jean-Francouis • Suggestion that WBT should not be used for CDM or any tentative to prove real fuel savings in the
field
• Issue on missing information regarding accuracy of result
• Suggestions on improving the test method
Soil Control Lab • Suggestion on characterising the fuel
Solar Connect Association • Suggestion that WBT cannot reflect what happens in the kitchen
Sustainable Energy Testing • Suggestion that heterogeneous (non uniform) method of testing is needed and that the
and Research Centre homogeneous method is not sufficient.
• WBT give little indication of how stoves are actually used
• Suggestion that CCT and KPT are the only once which can enable understanding of how stoves
perform in real settings
• Suggestion that KPT is the measure of community behaviour and not the performance of the stoves
• Identifies issues on the procedures and suggestions on improving the procedure of test
• Suggestions on how indicators should be determined and units
University of California, • WBT should not be used in the determination of carbon dioxide equivalent savings nor used to
Irvine estimate contributions to CGH emissions or pollution