DOE should focus resources on R&D to advance automated stove technologies

 The Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) released a Request for Information (RFI) seeking feedback on defining the goals and objectives for a planned effort to collect in-situ wood heater performance data in the field. The deadline to submit comments was September 30, 2024. John Ackerly, AGH President, submitted the following comment: 

There are a number of small portable
emission testing devices for wood stoves
that can be used in situ, or larger lab
equipment can be moved to a home.

"We believe BETO should minimize its role in funding in-situ testing efforts because in-situ testing is usually very complex and expensive, given BETO’s funding for residential wood heater technology development. There are many distinct objectives and reasons to do in-site testing, and stakeholders could eloquently make the case for any number of them. But given the size of BETO’s budget, we do not feel there is a compelling enough type of in-situ testing that is likely to be undertaken.

BETO’s mandate is to “support the development of cleaner burning, higher efficiency residential wood heaters” and it seems this has been interpreted more broadly over time, which is understandable to some point, given the dearth of high quality applications to develop next generation stove technology.

We would urge BETO to only fund in-site testing to the extent it directly focuses on modern, more automated stove technology. For example, it may be worthwhile doing some in-situ testing with an automated stove side by side with a traditional manually operated one, to provide data about how beneficial automation can be, if at all.

The list of questions in the Four Categories suggest that this RFI is wide-ranging without parameters related to development of cleaner burning, high efficiency residential heaters. In the United States, stoves must be tested for PM 2.5 to be certified for sale. Efficiency, as measured by B415, is not regulated, but tested and an existing IRS tax credit gives an incentive to hit 75% efficiency, HHV. Any new generation of more modern, cleaner and efficient wood stoves will need to focus on these metrics first.

To understand the potential of modern, automated stoves, it may be just as relevant to study pellet stoves, to understand how and why they have such a predictable emissions profile, compared to cordwood stoves. It is also relatively easy to test how clean and efficient pellet stoves are in-situ after 1 to 10 years in operation.

To achieve testing goals of how pellet stoves perform after 1 – 10 years of use, I would recommend simply using a Testo 380 and principally test for PM2.5, enabling more sampling of more devices.

There are a multitude of academic inquiries into residential wood smoke but BETO should first determine what avenues there are to more directly advance an R&D agenda, which could include emissions data showing how automation can reduce emissions. Cordwood furnaces have already made the transition from being manually operated to controlled by sensors, and the evidence is clear that sensors will keep a boiler or furnace far cleaner.

Some stakeholders who are heavily invested in manually operated stoves may want BETO to undertake in-situ testing studies, which can be endless. But one test of this RFI will be whether those stakeholders who are doing R&D on modern, more automated stoves need in situ testing data, and if so, what kind. Similarly, it may be instructive to see what kind of in-situ testing is recommended by stakeholders who regulate wood stoves, or are involved in health related studies.

BETO could consider doing an RFI on how to develop the next generation of wood stoves in the United States. R&D is perhaps the most important avenue but DOE funding in the solar, wind and geothermal sectors address scores of barriers to bringing a renewable technology to scale. Those barriers can also be addressed in the eco-system surrounding the wood heater community. Obviously, the wood heater sector will never have that level of resources, requiring a careful assessment of where scarce resources can best be used.

An RFI that engages this community on how to advance automated stove technology may help better understand why major manufacturers are hesitant or whether there are other initiatives that could be undertaken. In-situ testing may be one of them, but an RFI solely on in-site testing sends a confusing message to the wood heating community unless BETO better explains how it is part of a strategy to develop modern, more automated stove technology.

Blue Angel ecolabel requires wood stoves with automated air controls

Blue Angel, the German government equivalent of the US Energy Star label, approved a new eco-label for wood stoves that includes stoves with automated air control, “separating technologies” such as electrostatic precipitators and the ability to meet strict emission standards.

The Blue Angel label is also part of a trend that is exploring and adopting test procedures that more closely resembles how stoves are used in homes.  The label emerged in part from lessons learned by the BeReal initiative that involved extensive round-robin testing in multiple European countries. The Clean Heat initiative is promoting the label to help towns and cities to reduce air pollution.

Marius Wohler of BeReal presents
findings at Brookhaven National Lab
 in 2016

The label gives a boost to efforts by the Alliance for Green Heat which has worked with American state and federal agencies and American stove manufacturers to develop automated stove technology and bring them to the US market.

German Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said in a press statement that "The Blue Angel standard for stoves for wood is a real step forward. The authorities can now take more effective action against particulate matter pollution, for example by only allowing the operation of stoves bearing the eco-label.”

Blue Angel says that cities and municipalities are introducing regional bans on conventional stoves (ban on the use of these stoves and ban on installing these devices in new housing developments) but there would be exceptions for those appliances holding the Blue Angel label. The city of Berlin has expressed interest in using the ecolabel.

Maria Krautzberger, President of the Federal Environment Agency said “With the Blue Angel requirements that have now been decided upon, we are showing that it is possible to go even further [to make wood stoves clean]. This boosts innovation in the industry, gives guidance to consumers and is good for our air".

SBI won an award for their automated
stove design and will be launching a series
of automated stoves in North America

The label is voluntary for manufacturers, as a number of other European eco-labels, but this one is stricter than others. Several European countries have developed eco-labels for wood stoves with varying degrees of success. The US Energy Star program has never covered wood stoves and US stove industry blocked an initiative by Washington State to explore a state-led label. The Alliance for Green Heat has been an advocate for ecolabels and urges stakeholders in the US to revisit the idea.

It is not yet known how many stoves will qualify for the label over the coming months and years, and how well they will work in the field. Automated stoves gained some visibility in the United States through the Wood Stove Design Challenge and subsequently the Department of Energy provided $3 million in funding for automated stove R&D in 2019 and are now offering an additional $5 million in 2020.

Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have long been used in commercial wood burning applications, and their use in residential applications has grown rapidly in Europe. In the US, an initiative in Alaska is using ESPs, and is hoping a review by the EPA will determine that change out funding can be used on a wider scale to install ESPs on wood stoves.  As prices come down under $2,000 the cost of adding an ESP may result in far more PM reductions than replacing an old stove.

This ESP made by Swiss
company Oekosolve was
also showcased by AGH
in Wash. DC in 2018.

Excerpts of the details of the Blue Angel label are reproduced below. The full criteria can be found here.

Excerpts

The environmental label may be awarded to stoves that use the fuel … in an efficient manner and have significantly lower pollutant emissions. In addition to the statutory regulations for the type testing process [lab testing of a sample stove] for the stoves, the special requirements stipulated by the Blue Angel mean that stoves have to comply with significantly lower particulate and CO limit values and this must also be verified during the ignition [start-up] phase that involves a particularly high level of emissions. In the case of organic gaseous carbon (OGC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), emissions of these substances must already be below the limits defined in the EU Ecodesign requirements that will be generally applicable from January 2022.

When purchasing a new innovative stove, the environmental label will thus act as a decision- making aid for the reduction of air pollutants. It is a voluntary label that is designed to motivate manufacturers to develop efficient and low- emission heating appliances. The label will allow manufacturers to highlight the environmental benefits offered by their heating appliance in a simple way.

Therefore, the following benefits for the environment and health are stated in the explanatory box:

3.1 Emission requirements

Stoves, where relevant in combination with an integrated or downstream particle separator, must comply with the maximum limits stated in Table 1, Column 3 for the particle content, carbon monoxide (CO), organic gaseous carbon (OGC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).

The particle count concentration must be determined (see Appendix C for the measurement method). In addition, the limit for the particle count concentration stated in Table 1, Column 3 must also be observed from 01/01/2022.

The requirements can be complied with in two ways:

1. a) Testing the overall system

The requirements will have been fulfilled if the mean values from the individual measurements described in Appendix B that were carried out on the tested stove, including all of the intended fixtures and attachments, do not exceed the relevant limits specified in Table 1, Column 3.

Spare parts are those parts which, typically, may develop a fault within the scope of the ordinary use of a product. Whereas those parts which normally exceed the life of the product are not to be considered as spare parts.

2. b) In combination with an efficient particle separator

§ The requirements will have been fulfilled if the mean values from the individual measurements described in Appendix B that were carried out on the stove do not exceed the relevant limits specified in Table 1, Column 4 and the stove is sold and installed together with a particle separator. For particle separators, a minimum separating efficiency of 75% of the particle mass and (from 01/01/2022) 90% of the particle count must be verified. The limit value in Table 1, Column 3 must be complied with reliably when taking into account the separating efficiency.

§ If a particle separator for which this minimum separating efficiency has been verified is already integrated into a chimney, the manufacturer can also sell the stove without the separator. The fact that the stove must be installed together with the associated particle separator that is integrated into the chimney must be indicated during the sale of the product and also in the installation instructions. The particle separator integrated into the chimney must already have been named and tested when submitting the application for the stove.

The measurement of the flue gas temperature, the flue gas sampling process and the measurement of the static pressure for the stove must be completed in a measurement circuit according to DIN EN 16510-1:2018-01 (D), Section A.2.3 as well as Diagrams 13 and 14 of this standard.

The measurement uncertainty stated in the test method is neither added nor subtracted.

3.11 Future revision of the environmental label

Furthermore, the revision will examine whether the applicant can offer a 5-year guarantee for the secondary reduction technology if it is sold in combination with the stove. 

To determine the particle count emissions from stoves, it has only been possible up to now to evaluate individual test results using the methods described in Appendix C. Round robin tests that could be used as the basis for defining a limit for the particle count emissions from the stove have not been available. 

Nevertheless, the measurement of the particle count in accordance with the new methods is being introduced as an obligatory requirement. Due to the unavailability of round robin tests, it is necessary to allow a transition period for the introduction of the particle count limit. Compliance with the particle count limit will be obligatory for the award of the Blue Angel from 01/01/2022. 

3.4 Air regulation

To ensure that the user has as little influence over the emissions as possible, it is not permitted for the air supply to be manually adjustable during intended operation. This is usually achieved through the automatic regulation of the air supply.

3.5 Combustion monitor

A display must be provided for the user to indicate any deviation from the optimal operating state and to request that the user stokes the fire with wood.

3.8.1 Repairability and provision of spare parts

The stove must be designed so that it can be repaired by replacing individual parts that are no longer working. The applicant undertakes to guarantee the provision of spare parts for the repair of the appliances for at least 10 years following the termination of production.

The product documentation must include information about the repairability and the guaranteed supply of spare parts.

3.8.2 Recyclable design

In terms of the recyclable design of those appliances issued with the environmental label, the following is valid:

· The appliances must be designed in such a way that they can be dismantled and separated into recyclable materials by specialist companies using standard tools or that this process is simplified by intelligently designed connections.

· The appliances must be designed so that it is possible to separate metals into single materials and, where possible, recycle them separately.

3.10.3 Quick user guide

· In addition, another guide covering a maximum of two pages must be provided that includes the most important instructions for the fuel to be used (size of the pieces, max. water content, quantity) for the ignition process, controlling the air flow, stoking the fire and cleaning/maintenance in a clearly visible and easy to understand form. This quick user guide must be permanently legible and abrasion-resistant and must not suffer from discolouration during normal use.

· The instructions must include easy to understand illustrations

5. Use of the Environmental Label

The use of the Environmental Label by the applicant is governed by a contract on the use of the Environmental Label concluded with RAL gGmbH.

Contracts on the Use of the Environmental Label are concluded to fix the terms for the certification of products under Paragraph 2. Such contracts shall run until December 31, 2023. They shall be extended by periods of one year each, unless terminated in writing by March 31, 2023 or March 31 of the respective year of extension.

Related stories

Alaska building list of cleaner, properly certified wood and pellet stoves (Oct. 2020)

The US needs an eco label for wood and pellet heaters (Dec. 2018)

DOE offers funding for “state-of-the-art” residential wood and pellet heater R&D

Updated, May 2022 - The DOE has announced a fourth round of funding for manufacturers to design and produce innovative wood stoves.  The funding opportunity is likely to come in early summer of 2022.

Updated on April 9, 2021 - The US Department of Energy has announced its third round of funding for R&D towards more efficient residential wood and pellet heaters.  The funding level is $5 million, the same as it was for the first two years. 

The announcement is part of a larger bioenergy funding opportunity. The timeline for applying is short and requires a concept paper to be submitted by April 30 as a precondition of submitting the full application on June 21, 2021. Applicants will be notified of funding decisions in August and funds will be disbursed in September. To get started, interested applicants should register with the EERE Exchange. 

"The Alliance for Green Heat applauds the DOE bioenergy program for supporting innovation in the wood and pellet heater sector for a third year," said John Ackerly, President of the Alliance for Green Heat. "This funding will help kickstart a new wave of American innovation and ingenuity in wood heater design which is vital to keep wood and pellet heaters competitive with solar and other renewable technologies."

Jonathan Male, the former Director of
the Bioenergy Technology Office at
DOE,  speaking at the 2018 Wood
Stove Design Challenge

The first year, the DOE selected  two companies – MF Fire and ISB Marketing – to receive $3 million for research and development. Both companies are focusing their efforts on how to make stoves cleaner in the hands of consumers through automation – not just in the test lab – which has become widely recognized as the Achilles heel for the millions of Americans who heat with cord wood.

The DOE is trying to fund more than just tweaks and adjustments to traditionally-designed cat and non-cat stoves. Applications that can demonstrate genuine advancements toward state-of-the-art technology that ensure heaters burn well during start-up and reduce the opportunity for human error will have an edge.

Beyond merely preparing for traditional EPA testing, “applicants are encouraged to expand the testing regimen to evaluate performance over the full cycle of residential wood heater operating conditions (representative of how homeowners actually use their residential wood heaters with representative wood feedstocks).”

Areas of R&D interest

DOE listed specific areas of interest, though other innovations are not excluded.

• Novel and innovative residential wood heater designs
• Improvements in automation of stoves
• Wood heater power generation via thermoelectric module integration,
• Modeling and simulation tools, and
• Improvements in catalyst technologies

The second area, improvements in automation of stoves, includes robust sensing technologies and remote control and real-time performance monitoring. Wood and pellet stoves, boilers, and furnaces could all integrate sensors that monitor and control combustion conditions better. The DOE was a core funder of the 2018 Wood Stove Design Challenge that focused on automation and gave them insight into the potential of this area.

Eligibility

DOE has relatively broad eligibility requirements. Individuals, for-profit companies, non-profits, universities, and state, local, and tribal governments can all apply. Foreign entities and companies can also apply as long as they have a US office. Federal agencies and DOE labs, such as Brookhaven National Lab, are not eligible to be prime recipients but could be a sub-recipient of a grant. All work must be performed on US soil.

Cost Share

Applicants must provide 20% of the total project costs. The 20% can include in-kind services or cash from non-federal sources. Cost share may be provided by the prime recipient, subrecipients, or third parties.

Questions

All questions about the FOA must be submitted to: EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov. DOE personnel are prohibited from communicating directly with applicants. All questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on EERE Exchange: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov.

New York and Canadian companies win technology challenge to automate the wood Stove

Jonathan Male, director of the DOE's Bioenergy
Technology Office, announces the winners.
Photo: Sam Kittner for Brookhaven National Lab.

(Washington, D.C.) – Two companies with years of experience in electronics and stove design won coveted first and second prizes in the 2018 Wood Stove Design Challenge, held in Washington DC from November 9 – 13. 

Manually operated wood stoves are extremely common throughout the northern US, Canada and Europe but no one has yet popularized a solution to prevent them from emitting excessive smoke in the hands of operators.

Wittus, a company based in Pound Ridge New York, teamed up with German engineers and won first prize for both the automated and thermoelectric categories with a living room unit that also heated water for space heating

The Wittus team who won first place in both
the automated and thermoelectric categories.
Photo: Kittner for BNL.

and generated an average of 161 watts and a maximum of 268 watts over the 2.5-hour test period. Total power output over the test period, net of parasitic losses, e.g., pumps and fans, was 276 watt-hours of electricity. The use of thermocouple sensors and fans facilitated clean and efficient combustion.

Stove testers from Brookhaven National Lab and
New York Department of Health.
Photo: Kittner for BNL.

Second prize went to Stove Builders International (SBI) a Quebec based company that designed a simple, affordable stove that allowed the operator to select high or low heat output and used a low-cost control board and thermocouple sensors to ensure that the stove burned cleanly.

Second prize in the thermoelectric category went to California based Vulcan Energy, who

SBI, a prominent Canadian stove manufacturer
spent years developing automated features.
Photo: Kittner for BNL.

developed a thermoelectric generator for the gravity fed Wiseway pellet stove that generated an average of 123 watts, and a maximum of 139 watts, during the 2.5-hour test period. Total power output over the test period, net of parasitic losses, was 235 watt-hours.

The People’s Choice award, based on votes from the general public, went to 509 Fabrications, for their unique gravity fed pressed log stove.

Key partners in the Challenge included Olympia
Chimney, and CSIA, and NFI installers from
Winstons Chimney and  Sugarloaf Chimney.
Photo Kittner for Brookhaven National Lab.

The goal of the Woodstove Design Challenge is to demonstrate how improved designs including sensors and computer controls can make wood stoves cleaner and more efficient. The technology boom of the past few decades has largely missed the wood stove industry, yet innovation still holds great promise. 

Researchers including Brookhaven National Lab, with support from the New York State

Fred Leavitt won 2d prize in thermoelectric
with Jonathan Male, DOE, Ramesh Koripella,
Sandia National Lab and John Ackerly, AGH.
Photo: Kittner for BNL

Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), have been developing new methods for the next generation of assessment protocols for wood heating appliances. Currently, most stoves in America are tested for EPA certification with standardized fuel pieces and spacing. Research has focused on in-home use operational practices, user fueling patterns, and new real-time measurement method techniques with random loading patterns and variability in piece size to better replicate real-life conditions.   

Automated stoves that are designed and tested with this new robust cordwood test method can help improve woodstove designs and in-use performance leading to higher efficiency and lower emissions.

Les Otten of Maine Energy Systems with Julie
Tucker of the USDA Forest Service.
Photo: Kittner for Brookhaven National Lab.

A team from Stony Brook University also competed in the event with a prototype that featured a unique wood drying and preheating chamber. The stove did not win a prize but offered students a rich opportunity to engage with national stove design and testing experts. A full list of the competing teams can be found here. 

Partners for the Design Challenge include NYSERDA, the Department of Energy’s Bioenergy Technology Office, the U.S. Forest Service, the Osprey Foundation and Olympia Chimney. The automated stoves were tested by Brookhaven National Lab. A complete list of partners and sponsors can be found here.

A Test Protocol for Automated Wood Stoves

Tom Butcher of Brookhaven Lab using
the protocol on the Wittus stove.
Photo: Kittner for Brookhaven Lab.

The fueling protocol used at the Wood Stove Design challenge is like no other.  Instead of filling a pre-heated firebox with a consistent amount of wood, setting it on a single air setting and letting it burn until the fuel is gone, as the EPA does for certification tests, we took a radically different approach.  

We wanted a fueling protocol that included features of how stove operators likely use their stoves, which includes starting from a cold start and reloading several times. But we went beyond that to mimic extreme operator behavior, by loading the stove full of wood and then turning the heat/air setting all the way down, which can put a stove into a temporary or long term dirty, smolder mode.  Our goal was to evaluate whether an automated stove could outsmart its operator - or the lab technicians running the protocol and run cleanly.  

Getting an overnight burn at a low air setting without putting the stove into a short or long smolder mode is something that many good stove operators can do, and good stove design helps them.  Our protocol sought to mimic some extreme modes operators may encounter with their stoves to see how automation can mitigate negative consequences of those extremes . 

The protocol was provided to the teams two months in advance, enough time to make sure that the

Lisa Rector, demonstrating the full
IDC protocol at the Wood Stove
Design Challenge for EPA staff.
Photo, Kittner for Brookhaven National Lab

protocol worked and competitors could request modification but not so much time that it would allow competitors to design directly to the protocol. The goal was  “creating a single test run that incorporates typical use scenarios and incorporates variability both in the operational modes and the fuel use patterns.”  The protocol was not intended to be a predictor of actual overall field performance (as other test method attempt to do), mainly because of the abbreviated nature of the protocol.  Rather, key operational factors were included to evaluate the automated response of a particular stove.

The outlines and purpose of the protocol was discussed by the Organizing Committee of the Challenge and the intensive process of writing it and testing it a lab was done by NESCAUM and Hearthlab Solutions, with assistance from Brookhaven National Lab and funding and support from NYSERDA.  

The protocol was a short, three-hour protocol that includes several reloads, as operators normally reload their stoves during the first three hours.  We are not aware of any other protocol that includes reloads.  We chose three hours because we had numerous stoves that had to be tested multiple times during a five-day period.  If testing crews could complete three tests of each stove, it would enable us to analyze the reproducibility and repeatability of our test results.  

AGH prepared the fuel loads for each
stove the week before the event.
Photo: AGH

Our working proposition was that stoves engineered with automated controls and appropriate and robust response techniques produce more repeatable results than manually operated stoves.  It is still too soon to tell whether these stoves had better repeatability than manually operated stoves.  Data will become available in early 2019 to help us answer these questions.  For background on the testing protocols used at the Wood Stove Design Challenge, click here. For initial results of the Challenge, click here.

We hope that elements of this protocol help EPA, other agencies and industry think through the process of what test methods should try to achieve and how.

Wood Stove Design Challenge – Automated Stove Competition – Stove X

Stove:                          Stove X

Dimensions:                XL x XH x XW

Volume:                       Xft³

Fuel species – beech and/or maple 

Fuel length: X

Start-up 

Fuel load density 4 lb/ft³

Amount of kindling: total amount determined by fuel load calculator  (kindling = 8-10 pieces of kindling weighs 1 lb., length must be at least 50% of test fuel length).

Amount of starter fuel: X lbs. +/- 5% - weight of each piece scaled to stove by fuel load calculator

1.    Stove is empty – no ashes

2.    Amount of paper for starter – 6 full sheets

3.    Amount of kindling is x lbs.

4.    Amount of starter fuel is x lbs.

5.    Fuel loading pattern is defined by the manufacturer’s instructions.  If no instructions are provided, a top-down burn protocol will be used.  For the competition, the manufacturer can build the fuel charge in the stove but cannot light off and will be hands off during the stove testing.  For startup phase – fuel can be loaded in multiple batches, but all fuel must be loaded within the first ten minutes of the phase.

6.    Air settings will be determined by the manufacturer. Up to 2 changes in air settings can be used during the start-up phase. 

7.    Fire will be started with a torch.  Torch can be used for up to 30 seconds

8.    Door can remain open for up to 5 minutes.  Manufacturer will set time and door position prior to competition.

9.    For the first 15 minutes (time starts at light-off), the door can be opened, and fuel adjustments made. A maximum of four fuel adjustments can be made. Door can remain open for no more than 30 seconds per fuel adjustment.  Door must be closed as soon as fuel adjustment is complete. 

10. Phase ends 30 minutes from light off or when there is loss of yellow flame, whichever comes first.  If start-up ends before 30 minutes, it should be noted in the testing comments, but no loss of points will occur.

1^stReload

Fuel load density 5 lb/ft3

The SBI managed to handle
the protocol quite well.
Photo: "Kittner for BNL"

Allowable Fuel piece weight: determined by fueling calculator

Target pieces for load: 4

Fuel load weight: determined by fueling calculator +/- 5% 

1.    Immediately after the end of start-up Phase, open stove door. 

2.    Chop existing wood with a fuel piece and to the extent possible smooth coalbed.

3.    Load 1^stReload charge following the specifications for this phase provided above. 

4.    Fuel loading pattern defined by the manufacturer’s instructions. Options are:

a.    East/west

b.    North/south

c.    Criss-cross

5.    Close door immediately after loading fuel. Maximum time to reload 60 seconds.

6.    Air settings/thermostat immediately turned to low demand

7.    During 1^streload phase one (1) fuel adjustment is allowed.  Additional fuel adjustments can be requested but the total score deduct 2 points for each additional fuel adjustment. Door can remain open for no more than 30 seconds for a fuel adjustment.  Door must be closed as soon as fuel adjustment complete.  

a.    Teams can make recommendations about when and how to make fuel adjustments.  

b.    Additional fuel adjustments interventions can be made at the request of the stove team.  Each additional fuel adjustment results in a loss of 1 points from scoring. 

8.    Air Adjustments - During the 1^stReload phase no air adjustments can be made unless judge(s) determine an intervention is required. Each intervention results in a loss of 2 points from scoring for every x minutes the air settings differ from the protocol. Interventions that result in point loss, will be completed upon request by the stove team.

9.    1^stReload Phase ends after 45 minutes (75 minutes from light-off).

2^ndReload

Fuel load – 2 pieces

Allowable fuel piece weight: determined by fuel calculator

1.    Immediately after the end of 1^stReload Phase, open stove door.

2.    Break up/chop/reposition remaining fuel to the extent possible.

3.    Load 2^ndReload charge following the specifications for this phase provided above. 

4.    Fuel loading pattern defined by the manufacturer’s instructions. Options are:

a.    East/west

b.    North/south

c.    Criss cross

5.    Close door immediately after loading fuel.  Maximum time to reload 60 seconds.

6.    Air settings/thermostat immediately turned to high demand

7.    During 2^ndReload phase no fuel adjustments are allowed. 

a.    Fuel adjustments can be requested but the total score deduct 1 point for each additional fuel adjustment. Door can remain open for no more than 30 seconds for a fuel adjustment.  Door must be closed as soon as fuel adjustment complete.

8.    Air Adjustments - During the 2^ndReload phase no air adjustments can be made unless judges determine an intervention is required. Each intervention results in a loss of 2 points from scoring for every x minutes the air settings differ from the protocol.

9.    2^ndReload Phase ends after 30 minutes (105 minutes from light-off).

3^rdReload

Allowable Fuel piece weight: determined by fuel load calculator

The testing crew for the automated test
protocol.
Photo Sam Kittner for Brookhaven National Lab.

Target pieces for load: 4

Fuel load weight: determined by fuel load calculator

1.    Immediately after the end of 2^ndReload Phase, open stove door.

2.    Break up/chop/reposition remaining fuel to the extent possible.

3.    Load 3^rdReload charge following the specifications for this phase provided above. 

a.    Load large piece first, then small piece, large piece, small piece, etc until no more wood fits in the stove.

4.    Fuel loading pattern defined by the manufacturer’s instructions. Options are:

a.    East/west

b.    North/south

5.    Close door immediately after loading fuel. Maximum time to reload 90 seconds.

6.    Air settings/thermostat immediately turned to low demand

7.    During 3^rdReload phase one (1) fuel adjustment is allowed within the first 10 minutes of the phase.  

a.    Additional fuel adjustments interventions can be made at the request of the stove team.  Each additional fuel adjustment results in a loss of 1 points from scoring. Door can remain open for no more than 30 seconds for a fuel adjustment.  Door must be closed as soon as fuel adjustment complete.

8.    Air Adjustments - During the 2^ndReload phase no air adjustments can be made unless judges determine an intervention is required. Each intervention results in a loss of 2 points from scoring for every x minutes the air settings differ from the protocol.

9.    3^rdReload Phase ends after 75 minutes (180 minutes from light-off).

Disruption Phase:

Optional Phase TBD by organizing committee

1.    No wood is loaded.

2.    Unit is placed in disruption mode, this could be: eliminating power, disengaging catalyst, etc.

3.    Disruption phase lasts 15 minutes.  

4.    Visible emissions may be the only measurement.

-->

---