Performance Assessment of a Porous Radiant Cook Stove Fueled with Blend of Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) and Kerosene

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

Energyonline Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 Available onlineatat www.sciencedirect.com Available www.sciencedirect.com Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy Procedia 158 Energy Procedia 00(2019) (2017)2391–2396 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

10th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018), 22-25 August 2018, Hong Kong, 10th International Conference on Applied Energy China(ICAE2018), 22-25 August 2018, Hong Kong, China

Performance Assessment of a Porous Radiant Cook Stove Fueled Performance Assessment a Porous Radiant Cook Stove Fueled The 15th Internationalof Symposium on District Heating and Cooling with Blend of Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) and Kerosene with Blend of Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) and Kerosene Assessing theLav feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor Kumar Kaushikaa, P Muthukumarb,b,* Lav Kumar , P Muthukumar * demand forecast temperature function for a Kaushik long-term district heat Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati 781039, India a,b a,b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati 781039, India

I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc

Abstract a IN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal Abstract b Recherche &which Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Limay, In India, around 58% of theVeolia total population is more than 780 million people, still rely France on solid fuels for cooking [1]. c Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France In India, around of the population is more than 780and million people, still rely on solid fuelsefficient for cooking Exploring various58% sources of total energy supply forwhich cooking applications technological progress towards the design[1]. of Exploring sourcesimportance. of energy supply cooking applications of andWaste technological towards the efficient of cookstovesvarious are of current In this for paper, the performances Vegetableprogress Oil (WVO) operated Porous design Kerosene cookstoves are of current importance. In this paper, the performances of Waste(CKPs) Vegetable (WVO) The operated Kerosene Pressure Cookstove (PKPs) and Conventional Kerosene Pressure Cookstove are Oil presented. effectPorous of input power Pressure Cookstove (PKPs) and Conventional Kerosene Pressure Cookstove are presented. input power (1.5-3 kW) on thermal efficiency and emission characteristics are also examined(CKPs) and compared for bothThe the effect stoves.ofThe measured Abstract (1.5-3 kW) on thermal efficiency emission characteristics are also examined and compared bothofthe28.6-36.2%. stoves. TheEmissions measured thermal efficiency is found in theand range of 37.8-45.3% for PKPs, while for CKPs, it is in thefor range thermal efficiency is high foundvalues in the of range 37.8-45.3% for range PKPs,ofwhile for CKPs, is in84-180 the range 28.6-36.2%. for Emissions measurements show CO of and NOX in the 905-1300 ppm itand ppm,ofrespectively, CKPs. District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the in same the range of 905-1300 ppmofand 84-180ppm, ppm,and respectively, for Results CKPs. measurements show of CO in and NOXthe Whereas, because of high propervalues combustion PKPs, are found in the range 361-664 13.8-47 ppm. greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat Whereas, becauseCooking of proper combustion in PKPs, found range of 361-664 ppm, and 13.8-47 Results from Controlled Test (CCT) showed that the by same using are PKPs one in canthesave about 49 min of cooking time andppm. 59.2% fuel sales. Due to the changed climate conditions and building renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease, from Controlled TestFrom (CCT) showed that by Assessment using PKPs (TEA), one canannual save about min of cooking time worth and 59.2% fuel consumption, on Cooking a daily basis. Techno-economic saving49 and cumulative present of annual prolonging the investment return period. consumption, on alife daily Fromare Techno-economic Assessment (TEA), annual saving and cumulative presentpresent worth of annual savings over the of basis. the PKPs found as Rs. 2,055 /- and Rs. 16,817 /-, respectively. The cumulative worth of The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand savings over the life of the PKPs are than found Rs. 2,055 /- the andPKPs Rs. 16,817 /-, /-). respectively. The cumulative present worth of annual savings is comparatively larger theascapital cost of (Rs. 780 Similarly, calculated Internal Rate of Return forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665 annual savings is comparatively larger than the capital the 5PKPs (Rs.respectively. 780 /-). Similarly, calculated Rate ofthan Return (IRR) and payback period are estimated as 268.5% andcost lessofthan months, Calculated IRR isInternal much higher the buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district (IRR) payback period are estimated 268.5% less than(10 5 months, respectively. Calculated is much higher than the rate ofand return (8%) and compared with theaslife of theand cook-stove years) the payback period is veryIRR small. renovation scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were rate of return (8%) and compared with the life of the cook-stove (10 years) the payback period is very small. compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. results showed that when only weatherLtd. change is considered, the margin of error could be acceptable for some applications ©The 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under of for the all scientific committee of the 10th International Conference onrenovation Applied (theiserror in annual was responsibility lower 20% weather scenarios considered). However, after introducing This an open accessdemand article under the CCthan BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) th Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10 International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018). Peer-review under responsibility of theupscientific committee of ICAE2018 – Theand 10threnovation International Conference on Applied Energy. scenarios, the error value increased to 59.5% (depending on the weather scenarios combination considered). Energy (ICAE2018). The value of slope coefficient increased on average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the Keywords: Porous Media Combustion (PMC); Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO); Conventional Kerosene Pressure Cookstove (CKPs); Porous decrease in the number of heating hours of 22-139h during the heating season (depending on the combination of weather and Kerosene Pressure (PKPs); Controlled Cooking test (CCT); Assessment (TEA) Keywords: Porous Cookstove Media Combustion (PMC); Waste Vegetable Oil Techno-economic (WVO); Conventional Kerosene Pressure Cookstove (CKPs); Porous renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the Kerosene Pressure Cookstove (PKPs); Controlled Cooking test (CCT); Techno-economic Assessment (TEA) coupled scenarios). The values suggested could be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 361 2582673

address:author. [email protected]; [email protected] * E-mail Corresponding Tel.: +91 361 2582673 Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; [email protected] change E-mail address: [email protected]; 1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and peer-review under responsibility the scientific 1876-6102 Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All of rights reserved. committee of the 10th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th International Conference on Applied Energy (ICAE2018). 1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling. 1876-6102 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of ICAE2018 – The 10th International Conference on Applied Energy. 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.289

Lav Kumar Kaushik et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 2391–2396 Kaushik and Muthukumar/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

2392 2

Nomenclature CF CM cf Ci Ei f Fa

fuel cost (Rs/year) maintenance cost (Rs/year) specific fuel cost (Rs/kg) pollutant concentration (mg/kWh) total emission of pollutant i (mg/year) inflation rate future worth of annual saving (Rs)

I LS mf n Pa P

th

interest rate life of the stove (year) daily fuel requirement (kg) positive integer Present worth of annual saving (Rs) Input power (kW) thermal efficiency

1. Introduction India shares 17.74% of world population but shares only 0.7%, 0.3% and 8.3% of world gas, oil and coal reserves, respectively [2]. Around 58% population in India still do not have access to clean cooking fuels and they depend only on solid fuels. Due to the poor economic condition of the most population, India spent a huge amount of money on subsidizing the cooking fuels [3]. In view of the above, the search for new and eco-friendly fuel has become extensively important particularly for cooking. The Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) from cooking process is an appealing source of energy. Indian hotels and mass cooking appliances generate around 9.2 million tonnes of WVO in a year [4]. Use of WVO as a fuel [5-14] and cook stove with porous media insert [15-19] show remarkable results for developing an energy efficient and easily adaptable device for cooking. The first plant oil stove which provides continuous operation was developed at Hohenheim University. Later, several attempts were made by Stumpf and Mühlbauer [5] and Kratzeisen et al. [6] for developing cook stoves using plant oil. Bosch and Siemens Home Appliances Group (BSH) developed Protos plant oil stove [7,8] for the power range of 1.6-3.8 kW. Natarajana et al. [9] modified CKPs and found that spent vegetable oil can be used as a fuel. Murthy et al. [10] showed that the CKPs could attain a maximum thermal efficiency of ~ 53.6% with 40% cottonseed oil blends with kerosene. Another plant oil, Jatropa was analyzed by Singh [11] and Kakati and Mahanta [12] for its applicability as cooking fuel. Effects of tank pressure and waste cooking oil blend with kerosene on thermal efficiency were experimentally studied by Jambhulkar et al. [13]. Applicability of cottonseed oil blends with kerosene in a modified CKPs was studied by Pande et al. [14]. Maximum thermal efficiency with kerosene was found as only 13.59%, whereas the same was 15.62% for 50% blend. The above works reported on CKPs outlines that stove operating with WVO produce lower performance due to undesirable physical properties such as high auto-ignition temperature, flash point, density and viscosity. Results suggest that in order to use WVO as a fuel in cooking stoves, necessary modification in CKPs for reducing high ignition temperature with an extremely high viscosity needs to be made. Performance results show that by increasing incoming oil temperature, it is possible to reduce ignition time and incomplete combustion, thus to improve the combustion performance. By inserting porous matrix in the combustion zone, aforesaid problems have been addressed by some researchers. Porous matrix enhances the heat transport from burned to an unburned portion and in turn improve combustion. Recent works [15-19] on kerosene burner with porous matrix showed significant improvement in thermal efficiency up to 10% and reduction in CO and NOx emissions. Performances viz., thermal efficiency, kerosene consumption rate and emissions of CKPs with pottery clay, sodium silicate and saw dust porous inserts have been examined by Kakati et al. [15]. Sharma et al. [16-19] performed a comprehensive study on the same stove with respect to conventional KP stove and showed notable improvements in thermal performance and emissions. In view of the above literature review, in this study, the authors aim to experimentally compare the combustion characteristics of 50/50 (% by volume) blend of WVO and kerosene in CKPs and PKPs, with the following specific objectives (i) to investigate the effect of input power (1.5-3 kW) on thermal performance viz., thermal efficiency ( th ), and emissions (CO, and NOx) and (ii) to estimate the cooking energy required by performing Control Cooking Test (CCT). Finally, the economic benefits of WVO as a cooking fuel by performing Techno-economic Assessment (TEA) is discussed.



Lav Kumar Kaushik et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 2391–2396 Kaushik and Muthukumar / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

2393 3

2. Experimental Setup and Procedure The setup used for testing the performances of both CKPs and PKPs is shown in Fig. 1. The lighting up of a kerosene burner starts with pouring a small amount of kerosene into the spirit cup and then ignition with a burning wick. The working fuel is pressurized in the fuel tank by hand operated plunger to the desired pressure and passes to the burner through the main fuel supply pipe. The fuel flow rate is controlled by fuel control valve. After attainment of steady state, the burning wick is extinguished and various measurements were taken. 2.1. Thermal efficiency and emission measurements The efficiency was estimated by performing Water Boiling Test (WBT). Aluminum pan size and mass of water were selected according to fuel consumption rates. For conducting WBT and emissions measurements, the procedure prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (IS 10109:2002) was followed [17-20]. Table 1. Estimation of daily food intake by Indian household [21]. Per capita per month consumption

Main Ingredients (g/ml)

Rural

Urban

*Daily food consumption/HH

5976 4288 783 4333 674 597 6760 79.925

4487 4011 901 5422 853 642 6.842 95.32

875 665 130 736 115 965 1073 14

( ri )

Rice Cereal Pulses Milk (ml) Edible oil fish & meat Vegetables Tea

( ui )

(4.9, 4.6), and (.69, .31) are Urban and rural household size and % population in India, respectively [21]. *Daily average food consumption/ HH

1

Fig. 1. Experimental setup for thermal performance tests

12

 r  4.9  .69   u  4.6   .31  365 i

i

2.2. Control Cooking Test (CCT) To obtain a true picture of the energy required to cook various food items, it is necessary to conduct CCT. The present study involves the preparation of typical meals based on daily average food intake, as suggested in National Sample Survey [21]. The experiment was performed in a simulated household surrounding. Based on the average daily intake of food type and quantity reported (Table 1), the menu was prepared after conducting a small query in a family of rural and urban households (Table 2). While conducting the experiments, the cooking time and the amount of fuel consumed in preparation of the dishes were recorded. The fuel consumed by dishes gives the daily heat energy required per household. 2.3. Techno-economic Assessment (TEA) The economic practicability of an investment is assessed by performing TEA, in which money saving by a new investment with the similar application is compared with an existing one. In the present study, the cost associated with cookstove is treated in two distinct ways. One which directly associated with the equipment themselves, and the second cost associated with emitted pollutant [22]. Equipment cost includes investment (capital cost) and operational costs (fuel cost and maintenance cost). Different parameters and equations used for cost estimation are summarized as follows: (A) Capital Cost (C); total cost associated with the purchase of different parts of a stove.

Lav Kumar Kaushik et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 2391–2396 Kaushik and Muthukumar/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

2394 4

(B) Annual operating cost (Cop): is the summation of fuel consumption cost and maintenance cost of the stove. Cop  CF  CM where, CF  m f  C f  Yearly operating day

(1)

(C) Cook-stove emission cost (Cemission): this cost calculation is based on unit environmental loading unit (ELU) for emissions [23]. (2)

Ei  P  Ci  Yearly operating day

(D) Cook-stove life cycle cost (CLS): includes the actual capital cost (C/LS), operating cost (Cop), and cook-stove emission cost (Cemission). C CLS   COP  Cemission Ls

(3)

The above mentioned equations provide the cost associated with individual stove and for comparing CKPs and PKPs cost parameters, the following equations are used. (E) Annual saving (S): which is the life cycle cost difference between PKPs and CKPs.  S (CLS )PKPs  (CLS )CKPs

(4)

(F) Net Present Value (NPV): this method determines the net present worth of all cash flow (future and initial capital investment) from an investment. Project with positive NPV is considered as profitable investment. NPV with interest and inflation rate is calculated as per Eq. (5). Fa 1 Pa   n (1  f ) (1  I ) n

and

n  Ls

NPV   Pa

(5)

n0

(G) Payback period (NPB): when Running Total (RT) becomes zero, ratio of initial investment to the estimated annual net cash flow gives the number of years (NPB) required to recover all the invested money. RT  C  S  N PB

(6)

(H) Internal Rate of Return (IRR): used for assessing the profitability of an investment. Interest rate for which NPV of a particular project becomes zero is treated as IRR. 3. Results and discussions In the input power range of 1.5-3 kW, the variation of thermal efficiency is shown in Fig. 2. In case of the CKPs, it varies from 28.6-36.2%, whereas, for PKPs it ranges from 37.8-45.3%. Within the given power range, lowest operating power yields maximum efficiency and the decrement in thermal efficiency is higher in the case of CKPs. The reason behind such behavior of CKPs is associated with the fact that, with increasing in power, the height of the flame increases which results in more convective heat loss. Efficiency improvement in PKPs is mainly because of combined effects of radiative and convective heat transfer of the highly emissive porous material [17-19]. Figure 3 shows the comparison of the amount of CO and NOx emissions between the tested stoves. For PKPs, measured values of CO and NOx are in the range of 361-664 ppm and 13.8-47 ppm, respectively. Whereas the for CKPs are 905-1300 ppm and 84-180 ppm, respectively. It is observed that with increase in input power, both the CO and NOx emissions found to increase. Measured CO emissions of PKPs are lower than that of CKPs, because of better combustion and more residence time. Similarly, the NOx emission is also found much lower than that of the CKPs. In the PKPs, lower global temperature (surface temperature of the burner) causes lower NOx emission. Whereas,



Lav Kumar Kaushik et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 2391–2396 Kaushik and Muthukumar / Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

2395 5

high NOx from CKPs is because of the fuel-rich combustion, which in turn results in high temperature in the reaction zone. Efficiency test performed by conducting WBT, which consider only the boiling of water and does not give the true picture of the stove performance during cooking. In order to understand how cookstove performs in actual cooking condition, CCT has been conducted. From Tab. 2, it is seen that for preparing food menu, the CKPs consumed 491.6 g, whereas PKPs consumed only 308.9 g of fuel. Another observation revealed that rate of fuel savings is different for different food items. Reported fuel saving is approximately 182.7 g per day per household. The result shows that the time required to cook food in PKPs is lesser than the of CKPs. Saving in cooking time is approximately 49 min. Fuel and time saving are because of the higher thermal efficiency of PKPs.

Fig. 2: Thermal efficiency of CKPs and PKPs.

Fig. 3: CO and NOx emissions of CKPs and PKPs.

Monetary costs through TEA is calculated based on Eqs. 1-6, and replacement of CKPs with PKPs result in an annual saving of about Rs. 2,055/-. With consideration of 10 years as life of the stove, the cumulative present worth of the annual savings for PKPs is found as Rs. 16,817/- for 5% inflation and 8% interest rates. Whereas, the investment for the same is only just Rs. 780/-. The IRR for PKPs has a high value of 268.5%, as the initial investment and average total annual cost saving are Rs. 780/- and Rs. 2,055/- respectively. With an IRR of 268.5%, the PKPs, expected to earn Rs. 2.7/- out of each Rs. 1/- invested (yearly). The payback period of less than five months shows time required for recompense of the original capital invested. Table 2. Menu for estimating average heat energy requirement PKPs

CKPs Time Fuel (min) (g) 36 91.3

Dish

Menu

1

Rice (875 g + 3 kg water), boiled, open vessel

Time (min) 25

2

Pulse ‘dal’ (130 g + 676 g water), boiled, cooker

11

24

18

42.2

3

Vegetables ‘Cabbage’ (1073 g + 30 g oil), fried, open vessel

17

41.8

29

80.9

4

Chicken (965 g + 85 g oil), fried, open vessel

28

65.7

37

98.2

5

Leaf bread ‘chapatis’ (665 g wheat), hot plate cooking

38

84.8

42

124.2

6

Milk 636 ml, boiled, open vessel

8

16.6

11

32.3

Tea-5 cups (14 g + 75 g sugar + 100 ml milk), boiled, open vessel

6

13.2

9

22.5

133

308.9

182

491.6

7

Total

Fuel (g) 62.8

2396 6

Lav Kumar Kaushik et al. / Energy Procedia 158 (2019) 2391–2396 Kaushik and Muthukumar/ Energy Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

4. Conclusions In developing countries cooking plays an important role in day to day life. Many of fuel presently used have a negative impact on the human health and economy of every household. As conventional cooking fuel sources are limited and not eco-friendly, in the present work, an attempt has been made to check the viability of WVO as cooking fuel. The present comparative scientific investigations focused on the impact of the PKPs on energy saving, pollutant mitigation, and economic saving. Methods viz., WBT, CCT, and TEA were used to get a closer estimation of the performance of the stoves. Due to combustion in porous media, PKPs shows improved performance and exhibits energy saving, less emission and lower overall cost. For PKPs, a maximum surplus of 9.1% thermal efficiency, and lower emissions (CO: 361-664 ppm, NOx: 13.8-47) were reported. On the economic front, PKPs shows some encouraging results when compared with the CKPs. An annual saving of Rs. 2,055/-, high IRR of 268.5% and less than 5 month of payback period ascertains its economic benefits. The study concludes that WVO blended with kerosene when used in PKPs can be a favorable alternate cooking fuel option. However, modifications in the vaporizing assembly and finding an optimum burner geometry are still under investigation by the authors; research group. References [1] World Energy Outlook Special Report, Energy Access Outlook, International Energy Agency, 2017. [2] BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 66th edition June 2017. [3] PRS Legislative Research, Institute for Policy Research Studies, Demand for Grants 2017-18 Analysis Petroleum and Natural Gas, February 28, 2017. [4] Kolhe NS, Gupta AR, Rathod VK. Production and purification of biodiesel produced from used frying oil using hydrodynamic cavitation, Resource-Efficient Technologies 3 (2017) 198–203. [5] Stumpf E, Mühlbauer W. Plant-oil cooking stove for developing countries. Boiling point, No 48, 2002, 37-38. [6] Kratzeisen M, Stumpf E, Mueller J. Development of a Plant Oil Pressure Stove, Tropentag, Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Witzenhausen. October 9-11, 2007. [7] Shiroff SN. Protos the Plant-Oil Cooker: A BOP Model for Cleaner Cooking. Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte Gruppe, 6th July 2007. [8] Kratzeisen M, Muller J. Effect of fatty acid composition of soybean oil on deposit and performance of plant oil pressure stoves. Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 2461–2466. [9] Natarajana R, Karthikeyana NS, Agarwaal A, Sathiyanarayanan K. Use of vegetable oil as fuel to improve the efficiency of cooking stove, Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 2423–2427. [10] Murthy MS, Agiwal SA, Bharambe MA, Mishra A, Raina A. Modified Kerosene Stove for Burning High Percentage Non Edible Straight Vegetable Oil Blends, IEEE Conference on Clean Energy and Technology CET, 1 (2011) 145-50. [11] Singh RN. Straight vegetable oil: an alternative fuel for cooking, lighting and irrigation pump. IIOAB Journal; Vol. 2; Issue 7; 2011: 44–49 [12] Kakati S, Mahanta P. Experimental evaluation of performance of pressure stove by using plant oil and kerosene blends. International Conference on Computational and Experimental Methods in Mechanical Engineering (ICCEMME), 8-9th December 2017, 27-33. [13] Jambhulkar G, Nitnaware V, Pal M, Fuke N, Khandelwal P, Sonule P, Narnawre S, Katekar VP. Performance Evaluation of Cooking Stove Working on Spent Cooking Oil, International Journal of Emerging Science and Engineering (IJESE), 3 (2015) 26-31. [14] Pande MY, Patil S, Desale K, Rajput G, Warke K, Patil A. "“Experimental Investigation on Pressure Stove with Different Blends of Fuel”." IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) 14 (2017): 61-68. [15] Kakati S, Mahanta P, Kakoty S (2007) Performance analysis of pressurized kerosene stove with porous medium inserts, Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, vol. 66, pp. 565-569. [16] Sharma M, Mishra S C, Acharjee P (2009) Thermal efficiency study of conventional kerosene pressure stoves equipped with porous radiant inserts, International Energy Journal, vol. 10, pp. 247-254. [17] Sharma M, Mishra S C, Mahanta P (2011) An experimental investigation on efficiency improvement of a conventional kerosene pressure stove, International Journal of Energy for a Clean Environment, vol. 12, pp. 79-93. [18] Sharma M, Mahanta P, Mishra S C (2016) Usability of porous burner in kerosene pressure stove: An experimental investigation aided by energy and exergy analyses, Energy, vol. 103, pp. 251-260. [19] Sharma M, Mishra S C, Mahanta P (2016) Effect of burner configuration and operating parameters on the performance of kerosene pressure stove with submerged porous medium combustion, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 107, pp. 516-523. [20] Indian Standard, Burners for oil pressure stoves and oil pressure heaters, specification, (Second Revision): IS 10109, 2002, Bureau of Indian Standard. [21] NSS 68th Round, Report No. 558: Household Consumption of Various Goods and Services in India, 2011-12. [22] Kaushik LK, Muthukumar P (2018) Life cycle Assessment (LCA) and Techno-economic Assessment (TEA) of medium scale (5–10 kW) LPG cooking stove with two-layer porous radiant burner, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 133, pp. 316–326. [23] Steen, B., 1999. EPS, Version 2000 – models and data of the default method (Chalmers University of Technology, CPM Report).