Potential Use of Box-Type Solar Cooker in Developing Countries · Potential Use of Box-Type Solar...

A.K. Aremu and R. Akinoso: Potential Use of Box-Type Solar Cooker in Developing Countries 11

ISSN 1000 7924The Journal of the Association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago

Vol.41, No.1, April/May 2013, pp.11-17

Potential Use of Box-Type Solar Cooker in Developing Countries

Ademola K. Aremu a and Rahman Akinoso b Ψ

aDepartment of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria; E-mail: [email protected]

b Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria; E-mail: [email protected]

Ψ - Corresponding Author

(Received 26 November 2012; Revised 4 February 2013; Accepted 20 March 2013)

Abstract: Energy is essential for production and processing of foods. Therefore, the objective of this research was to evaluate performance efficiency of developed box-type solar cookers. Stagnation temperature, figures of merit, thermal efficiency and cooking power of five different cookers were determined for three consecutive years. Stagnation temperature of box-type solar cooker was determined by monitoring the rise in temperature of the absorber plate under no load condition. In addition, figures of merit, thermal efficiency and cooking power were determined using ASAE 2002 standard methods. In the first year, stagnation temperatures were 148oC, 134oC, 145oC, 159oC and 147oC for maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane foam insulated solar cooker, respectively. While 124oC, 120oC, 134oC, 140oC and 126oC were the second year stagnation temperatures for maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane insulated cooker, respectively. At third year of the test, 132oC, 121oC, 127oC, 135oC and 138oC stagnation temperature were obtained from maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane insulated cooker respectively. Figures of merit varied from 0.11 to 0.15 for the first year, for the second year from 0.092 to 0.124 and from 0.087 to 0.103 in the third year. The thermal efficiencies of the cookers ranged from 28% to 37% while cooking power ranged from 58.15 W to 67.06 W. Obtained data revealed the potential box-type solar cooker as a cooking device in developing countries.

Keywords: Solar cooker, energy, thermal efficiency, cooking power 1. Introduction Energy crisis is a common phenomenon in most countries of the world (Devadas, 1997). This necessitated the search for efficient and appropriate technologies for utilising renewable sources of energy. In most developing countries, substantial energy generated is used domestic activities out of which cooking consume larger percentage (Nandwani, 1997). According to Iwu (1998), fuel- wood, accounts for over 50% of the overall domestic energy consumption in developing countries. About 80% of this is consumed as firewood and mainly in the rural household.

The attendant over-exploitation of wood fuel resources have resulted in severe deforestation and associated problems in many developing countries (Asere and Aliyu, 1992). In addition, use of wood as fuel was reported to contributing 25-35% of the global emission of carbon dioxide (Houghton, 1990). The aforementioned problems underscore the need to find an alternative source of energy for cooking which, apart from being available at low cost will also offer some advantages, like constituting no health hazard, being non-degrading to the environment and conforming with the cooking habit of the people.

Solar energy is the primary source of energy from the planet. It is clean, renewable, abundant and available in the tropical region of the world. Its increased utilization would result in an all-round benefit, both in terms of cleaner environment and monetary gain, for the individual users as well as the nation (Ashok, 1998). The earth receives annually, energy from the sun amounting to 1 x 1018 kWh (Garg, 1982). This is equivalent to more than 500000 billion barrels of oil or about 1000 times the energy of known reserves of oil or more than 20000 times the present annual consumption of energy of the whole world. According to Blum (1997), countries with high insolation, fuel wood shortages, low per capita income and high population density are potential beneficiary of solar cooking technology.

Sixty-seven countries (Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Emirate, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Indian, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan,


Papua New Guinea, Peru, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United States of American, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe) with average insolation of 5-Kilowatt hours per metre squared per day are suitable for harnessing and utilization of solar as alternative energy source (SHE, 2002).

Energy is essential if adequate food supplies are to be converted into adequate diets. The technology of solar heating involves the conversion of solar energy to heat energy. Solar heating systems could be box-type, concentrating type or a hybrid of the two. Box-type solar cooker makes use of both diffuse and direct radiation while the concentrating type depends on its ability to make use of direct radiation only. Some of the reported works on modelling of solar device include mathematical model for a box-type solar cooker, accounting for the solar energy input and internal heat exchange within the pot, walls and top cover (Pejack, 1991). Thuolais-Das et al. (1994) developed a thermal model for solar box cookers loaded with one, two or four pots.

Binark and Turknaen (1996) presented a model of the thermal analysis of a hotbox solar cooker, manufactured in Istanbul Technical University, named I.T.U-2, using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method. Kumar (2004) presented a simple thermal analysis to evaluate the natural convective heat transfer coefficient for a trapezoidal absorber plate-inner glass cover enclosure of a double-glazed box-type solar cooker. Solar energy is not available continuously because of the day/night cycle and cloud cover. Its intensity varies according to season, geographical location and position of the collector. Because of its diffuse and intermittent nature, solar energy requires appropriate collection for its utilisation. The major technologies of solar energy conversion are thermal conversion comprising flat-plate or concentrating collector and photovoltaic conversion. Therefore, the objective of this research was to evaluate performance efficiency of a developed box-type solar collector.

2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Description of the solar cooker 2.1.1 Inner box The inner box of the heating device was made majorly from 3mm thick hardboard. The base of the box has a dimension of 360 x 360 mm. The slanting sides were attached to the base plate with the aid of wooden battens to reinforce the joints. The four slanting sides were inclined at an angle of 45o to the horizontal and have dimensions of 600 x 360 mm and height of 170mm. Battens attached to the outer side of the base plate were used to elevate the inner box to the level of the outer box and to create room for lagging of the base. The underside battens, four in number were 80 mm high were made from Afara wood (Terminalia superba) with cross sectional

dimensions of 50 x 50 mm. The battens (stands) were attached to the base plate with 50 mm nails and glue. Batumin was used to line the joints of the assembly. The inner box was centrally placed in the outer box. Dried insulating materials (maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane foam) were used to fill the space between the inner and outer boxes, in such a way that there is an 80 mm thickness of insulating materials all around between the inner box and the outer box. The space housing the insulating materials was sealed with four pieces of plywood noggins. 2.1.1 Double walled glass cover The glass frame was made up of four battens of Afara wood (Terminalia superba). Each of the battens had dimensions of 760 x 80 x 50 mm. From the outer edge, the battens were bevelled at an angle of 45o to form the shape of the frame. A 12 mm deep by 3.5 mm wide and 20 mm apart grooves was cut into the four battens using crosscut circular saw. The groove houses the 3mm thick glasses and the 0.5 mm clearance provided accommodates the seasonal dimensional changes of the glass and wood resulting from temperature changes.

Tempered, float glasses were used as window covers because of its low iron content. The glass panes were in sizes of 610 x 610 mm. These were cleaned to ensure that no dust or dirt was trapped on the undersides of the glasses. The cleaned glass panes were fitted into the grooves of the frame one after the other. The surface area of the glass panes was 600 x 600 mm after 10 x 10 mm of the panes has entered the grooves. The edges of each batten were smoothening with sand paper and were joined using glue. The joints were further nailed together using 50 mm nails and reinforced with flange fasteners. The joints and all open spaces were filled with batumin to ensure on the outer box via hinges on one side while the other side was left free for opening and closing the cooker as required.

2.1.3 Reflector lid The reflector lid is an additional accessory to boost the energy production in the device. Aluminium foil was used as the reflector because of its availability, low cost and effectiveness. The lid was made from hardboard and reinforced with four battens of dimensions 760 x 40 x 40 mm, that were aligned along the edge of the outer side of the lid to give it stability. The lower batten acted as a means of coupling the lid to the cover surface batten. The edges of the battens were rounded with sand paper and the hinges fastened onto the lower batten and the cover batten with 25mm nails. In fixing the aluminium foil onto the lid, care was taken to ensure that the glue used did not smear the reflecting surface as this can reduce the reflectance of the foil. Aluminium foil was also pasted on the inside surface of the inner box to reflect radiation incident upon


it onto the absorber and cooking pot and to reduce heat loss by radiation. 2.1.4 The absorber plate The absorber plate was made from two materials; the aluminium sheet and flat, black coating placed on it. Aluminium sheet of 1.4 mm gauge was cut to a dimension of 38 x 380 mm. The edges were dulled to prevent tearing of the aluminium foil while surface was coated with black paint. Three layers of coating were applied in order to ensure that the plate was completely hidden under the paint. The dried plate was later introduced to rest on battens at the base of the cooker. 2.2 Stagnation temperature test Stagnation temperature that describes time-temperature history of solar cooker when it is empty was determined. This experiment monitored the rise in temperature of the absorber plate under no load (no cooking taken place) condition to determine the peak temperature attainable at a given solar insolation on a particular day. It was carried out by setting up the five developed box solar cookers on surface ground under the sun at a location that was obstruction-free and free of shadows as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Stagnation temperature determination

Thermocouple attached to digital multi-meters was

placed on the absorber plate of each of the cookers to monitor the temperature of the plate and the cookers were then tightly closed. The cookers were oriented to face the direction of the sun. This orientation of the cookers was in such a way that the lid reflector was set normal to the rays of the sun. Thermometers were placed in the surroundings to monitor the ambient temperature around the cookers. A solar meter was also oriented to face the direction of the sun’s rays to measure the total horizontal insolation. Readings were taken at fifteen minutes interval, and peak temperature was recorded as stagnation temperature. 2.3 Water heating test

The experimental set up was the same as described in the stagnation test, except that 1.5 litres of water were loaded into each of the cookers. Water temperature inside the pots, ambient temperature and solar insolation were recorded at intervals of 10 minutes. The experiment continued until water reached 100oC. This was repeated three times for each volume of water in each season. 2.4 Determination of figures of merit The evaluation of the cookers was extended to parameters that are independent of climatic factors from which two figures of merit denoted by F1 and F2 can be determined (Saxena et al, 1987). F1 is the ratio of optical efficiency to heat loss factor while the second F2 is heat transfer efficiency of cooker at low heat capacity of cooker interior. The five solar box cookers were tested between the year 1998 and 2000. The first figure of merit (F1) was obtained by monitoring the time and temperature profile of an unloaded box solar cooker set under the sun. The highest temperature attainable inside the cooker with the corresponding ambient temperature and the corresponding insolation were recorded. Hence, according to Garg (1994), F1 and F1 were determined using Equations 1 and 2, respectively.

F1 = Tps – Tas (1)

Gs

F2 =

⎥⎥⎥⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢⎢⎢⎢

⎣

⎡

−−

−−

−GF

TaTwGF

TaTw

ettAwMCF

1

2

1

1

12

1

1

1log

)()( (2)

Where Tps is stagnation temperature (oC)

Tas is the ambient temperature at stagnation (oC) Gs is the solar insolation at stagnation (Wm2). M is the mass of water in kg C is the specific capacity of water in J/kg oC. t2 – t1 is the time taken for water heating from Tw1 to

Tw2 (Seconds) Ta is the average ambient temperature over time

period t2 – t1 (oC) G is the average solar radiation over time period t2 –

t1 (W/m2) Tw1 is the temperature of water at time t1 (oC) Tw2 is the temperature of water at time t2 (oC)

2.5 Thermal efficiency determination According to Ramaswamy et al. (1997), thermal efficiency of the solar cooker was calculated using Equation 3:

η = ( )dtdT

IACMCM alalww + (3)

Where η is the Thermal Efficiency (%)

Mw = Mass of water in kg


Mal = Mass of the aluminium pot in (kg) Cw = Specific heat capacity of water (4186Jkg-1oC-1) Cal = Specific capacity of aluminium pot in Jkg-1oC-1 I = Total solar radiation (w/m2) A = Area of the absorber plate (m2) dT = Difference in Temperature in oC dt = Difference in time (seconds)

2.6 Cooking power Cooking power (in Watts) was chosen because it reflects both capacity and rate (Funk, 2002). To determine the cooking power, the water temperature of all cooking pots (s) in one cooker was recorded at intervals not to exceed ten minutes to the nearest one tenth of a degree solar insolation (Wm-2) and ambient temperature (oC) recorded as frequently (ASAE, 2002). The change in water temperature for each ten-minute interval was multiplied by the mass and specific heat capacity of the water contained in the cooking pot(s). This product was divided by the 600 seconds contained in a ten-minute interval. Equation 4 was used for calculation of cooking power. The average insolation at average ambient temperature and average cooking vessel contents temperature was found for each interval. Cooking power for each interval was correlated to a standard insulation of 700 Wm-2 by multiplying the observed interval cooking power by 700 Wm-2 and dividing by the interval average insolation recorded during the corresponding interval (Equation 5).

For the determination of the temperature difference, ambient temperature for each interval was subtracted from the average cooking pot contents temperature for each corresponding interval (Equation 6). According to ASAE (2002), the standardized cooking power, Ps (W) was plotted against the temperature difference Ta (oC) for each interval. A regression analysis was used to find the relationship between cooking power and temperature difference in terms of intercept (W) and shape (WoC-1). The coefficient of determination found from the regression was noted. The value for standardized cooking power Ps (W) was computed for a temperature difference Td of 50oC from the above-determined relationship. This value was used to rate the performance of the cooker.

P = 600

)( MCwTiTf − (4)

(ASAE, 2002)

Ps = Ii

Pi700 (5)

Td = Tw - Ta (6) Where;

P = cooking Power in watts Tf = final water temperature (oC) Ti = Initial water temperature (oC) M = mass of water (Kg) Cw = Heat capacity of water (4186 Jkg-1K-1) Ps = standardized cooking power (W) Pi = interval cooking power (W)

I = interval insolation (Wm-2) Td = temperature difference (oC) Tw = water temperature (oC) Ta = ambient air temperature (oC)

3. Results and Discussions 3.1 Stagnation temperature In the first year, stagnation temperatures were 148oC, 134oC, 145oC, 159oC and 147oC for maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane foam insulated solar cooker, respectively (see Figure 2). While 124oC, 120oC, 134oC, 140oC and 126oC were second year stagnation temperatures for maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane insulated cooker, respectively (see Figure 3). At third year of the test, 132oC, 121oC, 127oC, 135oC and 138oC stagnation temperature were obtained from maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane insulated cooker respectively (see Figure 4).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

9.30

10.0

0

10.3

0

11.0

0

11.3

0

12.0

0

12.3

0

1.00

1.30

2.00

2.30

3.00

3.30

4.00

4.30

5.00

Local time

Tem

pera

ture

o C

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 TA

Where, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 are maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir and polyurethane foam insulated box solar cooker

temperature respectively, and TA is ambient temperature Figure 2. Plot of temperature against time (1st year)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

10.2

0

10.3

0

10.4

0

10.5

0

11.0

0

11.1

0

11.2

0

11.3

0

11.4

0

11.5

0

12.0

0

12.1

0

12.2

0

12.3

0

12.4

0

12.5

0

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

4.00

Local time

Tem

pera

ture

o C

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 TA


temperature respectively, and TA is ambient temperature. Figure 3. Plot of temperature against time (2nd year)

A.K. Aremu and R. Akinoso: Potential Use of Box-Type Solar Cooker in Developing Countries

15


temperature respectively, and TA is ambient temperature Figure 4. Plot of temperature against time (3rd year)

Least recorded stagnation temperature (120oC) was

higher than 100oC, the cooker can be adopted for cooking, drying crops and heating. Crops are dried at temperature below 100oC (Akinoso, 2009). The gradual reduction in stagnation temperature can be attributed to deterioration (scratches of the foil, dirt, weakness of the joints) of the cooker with time. From Figures 2 and 3, peak stagnation temperatures were recorded in cooker 4 (coconut coir insulation). It is an indication that coconut coir possesses good insulating property.

Third year testing (see Figure 4), peak stagnation temperature occurred in heater 5 (polyurethane foam insulation). Generally, stagnation temperatures were attained between 12:00 and 2:30 p.m. local time (13.00 to 15.30 GMT) when the solar insulation was between 867 W/m2 and 946.5 W/m2 (Aremu, 2004). In addition, heater plate temperature increases (except for drops recorded during cloud covers) with time up until about 3:00 p.m. local time (16GMT) when temperatures begin to drop gradually. 3.2 Figure of merits The first figure of merit (F1) was calculated from the stagnation temperature test of the cookers under no load. The values of F1 for the five solar cookers tested varied from 0.11 to 0.15 for the first year, for the second year from 0.092 to 0.124 and from 0.087 to 0.103 in the third year (see Table 1). These values agreed with standard values of F1 ≥ 0.12 and F2 ≥ 0.25 (BIS Standard, 1993). The F1 values found for the first and second year of

testing were in consonant with 0.12 reported for conventional box type cooker (Mullick et al., 1987) and 0.14 for box type cooker with two mirror reflectors (Jagadish, 1986). The high values of F1 indicate that these cookers have high optical efficiency and low heat loss factor. The lower value of F1 in the third year of testing must have been due to deterioration in the cookers.

The F2 values ranged from 0.33 to 0.47, 0.22 to 0.60 and 0.20 to 0.25 in the first second and third year respectively (see Table 1). The average values of F2 in the three years of testing are 0.34, 0.32, 0.26, 0.33 and 0.44. These values compared favourably with the ASAE value of 0.25 (ASAE, 2002), and the values indicate that the cookers have high heat exchange efficiency.

3.3 Thermal efficiency Table 2 shows the thermal efficiencies of the cookers ranged from 28% to 37%. This compared well with estimation found in literatures. Kunkhe et al. (1990) measured thermal efficiency of box solar cookers and found it is normally between 30 and 50%. Estimation by Currin et al (1994) reported that thermal efficiency was about 20%. El-Sebaii et al (1994) also reported efficiency of 30% for multi-step inner reflectors box-type solar cooker and the same authors in (1997) developed an outer-inner reflectors box-type solar cooker with 31% efficiency. The coconut coir insulated box cooker had the highest thermal efficiency. It was an indication of better heat retention ability of the cooker. The control cooker (no insulator) had the minimum thermal efficiency justifying the importance of using insulation materials in box solar cookers. 3.4 Cooking power As the pot warms, the rate of heat-loss through the cooker envelope (such as walls, base and glass) increases in direct proportion to the temperature difference, hence the linear decrease in power. Analysis of the results shows that cooker 2 (with no insulating material) had a higher negative slope compared with the other cookers with insulating materials which was a result of higher heat loss coefficient. Regression intercept power varied from 58.15 W to 67.06 W (see Table 3). This agreed with the findings of Funk and Larson (1997) report 60 W as intercept power level for small cookers. Recorded coefficients of determination were higher than 0.75 satisfying the standard.

Table 1. Results of performance efficiency tests at mean insulation and ambient temperature of 836 Wm-2 and 36.1oC respectively Stagnation Temperature (oC) First Figure of Merit (F1) Second Figure of Merit (F2) Type of Insulator

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year Maize cob 146.0±2.0 120.6±3.1 129.0±0.0 0.13±.01 0.1±0.0 0.09±0.0 0.41 0.39 0.22 Air 131.3±2.3 112.7±6.4 118.0±2.5 0.11±.01 0.09±0.0 0.09±0.0 0.40 0.37 0.20 Maize husk 144.2±1.0 128±5.3 121.3±5.1 0.13±0.0 0.11±0.0 0.1±0.0 0.33 0.22 0.23 Coconut coir 157.3±1.0 136.7±5.7 127.3±7.1 0.14±0.0 0.11±0.0 0.1±0.0 0.42 0.34 0.23 Polyurethane foam 146.3±0.6 123.3±3.5 133.3±4.5 0.12±0.0 0.1±0.0 0.1±0.0 0.47 0.60 0.25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

9.30

9.40

9.50

10.0

0

10.1

0

10.2

0

10.3

0

10.4

0

10.5

0

11.0

0

11.1

0

11.2

0

11.3

0

11.4

0

11.5

0

12.0

0

12.1

0

12.2

0

12.3

0

12.4

0

12.5

0

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

2.00

2.10

2.20

Local Time

Tem

pera

ture

o C

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 TA


Table 2. Thermal efficiency of the box solar cookers Cooker Efficiency (%) Maize Cob 30.3 Air 28.03 Maize husk 30.80 Coconut coir 37.00 Polyurethane Foam 36.40

Table 3. Comparison of five cookers with different insulation materials

Cooking Power Regression Equation

Solar Cooker

Period

Slope (W/oC) Intercept (W)

Adjusted Cooking

Power (W) at 50oCdT

R2

1 1st year -0.431 60.84 39.29 0.95 3rd year -0.444 58.27 36.07 0.97

2 1st year -0.550 58.15 30.65 0.95 3rd year -0.432 58.51 36.09 0.87

3 1st year -0.4436 58.85 36.67 0.93 3rd year -0.449 48.59 26.13 0.80

4 1st year -0.4595 61.63 38.66 0.91 3rd year -0.427 57.091 35.74 0.88

5 1st year -0.4798 67.06 43.07 0.96 3rd year -0.407 56.361 36.01 0.88

4. Conclusions Highest stagnation temperature of 159oC was obtained from the cooker lagged with coconut coir. The thermal efficiencies of the cookers obtained were 30.8%, 28.0%, 30.3%, 37.0% and 36.4% for maize cob, air, maize husk, coconut coir, and polyurethane insulated cooker, respectively. Out of the five tested cookers, coconut coir insulated box-type solar cooker gave best efficiency, thus it was recommended as insulating material. Use of agricultural waste as insulating material will reduce capital cost of producing box-type solar cookers.

High stagnation temperatures, figures of merit, thermal efficiency and cooking power were demonstration of good potential uses of solar cooker. The performances of the solar cookers reinforced the views that these devices can play a major role in solving domestic energy problem especially in the rural areas rather than being a novelty demonstration of solar energy use, therefore adoption of solar cooker as reliable alternative energy source should be encouraged. Improvement on heat energy storage of the device was recommended for further research work.

References: Akinoso, R. (2009), “The development of a solar device for crop

drying and cooking”, LAUTECH Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, pp.75-79.

Asere, A.A. and Aliyu, U.O. (1992), “Outlook of Nigeria’s energy predicaments”, Nigerian Journal of Renewable Energy, Vol. 3, pp. 95-105.

Aremu, A. K., (2004), The Development, Evaluation and Parametric Modelling of Box-type Solar Cooker, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ashok, K. (1998), “Review of solar cooker design”, Research Institute's Information Digest on Energy, Vol. 8, pp.1-37.

ASAE Standard, (2002), Testing and Reporting Solar Cooker Performance. ASAE X580

Blum, B.L. (1997), “The Case for Solar Cooking”, Prepared for UNESCO Science Sector Solar Decade Programme.

Binark, A.K. and Turkmen, N. (1996), “Modelling of a hot box solar cooker”, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. pp.303-310.

BIS Standard (1993), Bureau of Indian Standard, Solar energy-calibration of field pyranometers by comparison to a reference pyranometers.. India pp 1-2.

Currin, C., Nandwani, S.S. and Marvin A (1994), “Preliminary study of solar microwave oven, development in solar cookers”, Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Solar Cookers, Heredra Costa Rica, p.149-158.

Devadas, R.P. (1997), “An option for cooking-solar energy”, Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Solar Cookers-Use And Technology, Coimbatore, India, pp.15-17.

EL-Sebail, A.A., Domanski, R. and Jaworski, M. (1994), “Experimental and theoretical investigation of a box-type solar cooker with multi-stem inner reflectors”, Energy, Vol.19, pp. 1011-1021.

EL-Sebail, A.A. and Aboul-fnein, S. (1997), “A box-type solar cooker with one-step outer reflector”, Energy, Vol. 22, pp. 515-524.

Funk, P. (2002), ASAE Standard: ASAE X580 (SE-414 revised Voting Draft). Testing and Reporting Solar Cooker Performance, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

Funk, P.A. and Larson, D.L. (1997), “Recommended international test procedure and reporting for solar cooker performance”, Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Solar Cookers-Use and Technology, Coimbatore, India, pp.177-181.

Garg, H.P. (1982), Treatise on Solar Energy, Wiley/Interscience Publication.

Garg, H.P. (1994), “Solar cooker testing procedure”, Proceedings of The Second World Conference on Solar Cookers-Use and Technology, Costa Rica, pp.87-93.

Houghton, R.A. (1990), “The global effects of tropical deforestation”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.24, No.4, pp.414-422.

Iwu, G.O. (1998), “Energy options in the industrialization and development process of the nation, what role for coal”, Bullion Publication of The Central Bank of Nigeria, Vol. 22, pp.30-38.

Jagadish, P.G. (1986), “CAZRI box type solar cooker with two mirror reflectors”, NSCE Proceedings, India, pp. 65-73.

Kuhnke, K., Renbar, M. and Schwefel, D. (1990), Solar Cookers in the Third World, Vieneg, GATE Esehborn, Germany.

Kumar, S. (2004), “Thermal performance study of box-type solar cooker from heating characteristics curves”, Energy Conversion and Management, Vol.45, pp.127-139.

Mullick, S.C., Kandpal, T.C. and Saxena, A.K. (1987), “Thermal test procedure for box type solar cookers”, Solar Energy, Vol.39, pp.353- 360.

Nandwani, S.S. (1997), “Solar cookers: An overview”, Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Solar Cookers – Use and Technology, Coimbatore, India, pp.64-72.

Pejack, E.R. (1991), “Mathematical model of the thermal performance of box-type solar cookers”, Renewable Energy, Vol.1, pp.609-615.

Ramaswamy, T.S., Perumal, K. and Jayaprakash, R. (1997), “Thermal performance of low cost solar cooker”, Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Solar Cookers – Use and Technology, Coimbatore, India, pp. 157-164.

Saxena, A. K., Mullick, S. C. and Kandpal, T. C. (1987), “Thermal test procedure for box type solar cookers”, Solar Energy, Vol. 39, pp.353-360.


SHE (2002), Solar Household Energy, Inc. ‘Reflections’, available at: Solarcooking.htm.

Tholasi-Das, T.C., Karmakar, S. and Rao, D.P. (1994), “Solar box-cooker: modelling”, Solar Energy, Vol.52, pp.265-272.

Authors’ Biographical Notes: Ademola Kabir Aremu is a native of Ibadan in Oyo State, Nigeria. He had University education in University of Ibadan where he bagged a B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph. D. in Agricultural Engineering specializing in Food Processing Engineering. Currently, he is a Senior Lecture in Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Dr. Aremu teaches courses in crop processing and storage, agricultural material handling and farm electrification. His research interest is in engineering properties of crops, development of processing equipment and energy usage in food processing. He had published extensively in reputable local and international journals in these areas. Dr. Aremu is a member of the following professional bodies; Nigerian Institution of Agricultural Engineers (NIAE), Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE), and American Society of Agricultural

and Biological Engineers (ASABE). Rahman Akinoso obtained B. Sc. (Honours), M. Sc. and Ph. D. degrees from Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. He started his career as researcher in 1999 at Federal Institute of Industrial Research Oshodi (FIIRO) Nigeria. He joined the services of University of Ibadan, Nigeria as a Senior Lecturer in Department of Food Technology in 2008. Dr. Akinoso is a member of professional bodies, which include Nigeria Institution of Agricultural Engineers, American Society Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Nigeria Society of Engineers, and Nigerian Institute of Food Science and Technology. His research interest is in Food Engineering in which he has over thirty publications in reputable local and international journals.

Potential Use of Box-Type Solar Cooker in Developing Countries · Potential Use of Box-Type Solar...

Documents

Transcript of Potential Use of Box-Type Solar Cooker in Developing Countries · Potential Use of Box-Type Solar...