See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266139304

Novel solar cookers: Suitable for small families

Article  in  International Journal of Sustainable Energy · December 2013

DOI: 10.1080/14786451.2012.734824

CITATIONS READS

8 297

5 authors, including:

Namrata Sengar Sunita Mahavar

University of Kota University of Rajasthan
36 PUBLICATIONS   263 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   216 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Param Rajawat P. Dashora

University of Rajasthan University of Rajasthan
5 PUBLICATIONS   147 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solar water heater, solar desalination and solar cookers View project

“Enhancing teaching and research and development in Solar Energy Materials and Technologies through Capacity Building and
Collaborative Research Projects” View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunita Mahavar on 19 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [117.203.13.54]
On: 14 January 2013, At: 19:16
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable

Energy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gsol20

Novel solar cookers: suitable for small

families
a a a b
S. Mahavar , M. Verma , P. Rajawat , N. Sengar & P. Dashora
a

a
Department of Physics, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, 302004,
Rajasthan, India
b
Department of Pure & Applied Physics, University of Kota, Kota,
324009, Rajasthan, India
Version of record first published: 24 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: S. Mahavar , M. Verma , P. Rajawat , N. Sengar & P. Dashora (2012):
Novel solar cookers: suitable for small families, International Journal of Sustainable Energy,
DOI:10.1080/14786451.2012.734824

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2012.734824

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy
iFirst, 2012, 1–13

Novel solar cookers: suitable for small families

S. Mahavara *, M. Vermaa , P. Rajawata , N. Sengarb , and P. Dashoraa
a Department of Physics, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan, India; b Department of Pure
& Applied Physics, University of Kota, Kota 324009, Rajasthan, India
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

(Received 13 November 2011; final version received 24 September 2012)

This paper presents the fabrication details and on-field experimental studies of two novel solar cookers,
suitable for cooking requirements of small families; these are named as small family solar cookers (SFSC-1
and SFSC-2). Small size, good thermal performance, light weight, low-cost and short payback periods are
some important features of these cookers. The values of some essential thermal performance parameters,
first figure of merit (F1 ), second figure of merit (F2 ) and standard cooking power suggested by Bureau of
Indian Standards and International Standard for box-type solar cookers, have been evaluated by experi-
mental studies and found to be 0.116◦ C m2 /W, 0.466, 30 W and 0.118◦ C m2 /W, 0.488, 50 W for SFSC-1
and SFSC-2, respectively. A comparative analysis of the thermal performances of SFSCs with the solar
cookers, developed by many authors, has also been presented here. The payback periods with respect to
different cooking fuels for SFSCs have been found to be reasonably short.

Keywords: small size solar cooker; thermal performance; figure of merit; cooking power; payback period

1. Introduction

Energy is one of the main canonical stimulants for accelerated growth of economic development of
any country. In all nations, the household sector utilises a major share of total energy consumption.
For the developed nations, this share is around 15–25% of primary energy use, whereas this share
is higher for developing nations (Dzioubinski and Chipman 1999). In India, the household sector
accounts for 45% of total primary energy and 30% of final energy consumption. These figures
indicate the importance of the sector in the context of national energy scenario (Reddy 2003;
Reddy, Balachandra, and Nathan 2009). Almost 90% low-income households in rural areas and
50% in urban areas use traditional fuels such as fuel wood, charcoal and agricultural waste for
cooking (National Sample Survey Organization 2007). This household energy consumption is
expected to increase in the future along with the economic growth and changes in lifestyles of the
citizens of the developing nation (Pachauri 2004). The consumption of solid fuels results in the
production of various hydro carbon vapours, smoke, and also leads to carbon-soot-related diseases
such as acute lower respiratory infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, heart attack,
pulmonary tuberculosis, asthma, etc. (Agnihotram and Chattopadyay 2005; Bruce, Rehfuess,
and Smith 2011). Several studies have documented that in India, indoor air pollution leads to

*Corresponding author. Email: smjpr1986@gmail.com

ISSN 1478-6451 print/ISSN 1478-646X online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2012.734824
http://www.tandfonline.com
 2 S. Mahavar et al.

400,000–550,000 premature deaths from lower respiratory infections and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (Ramanathan and Balakrishnan 2007).
Solar cooking is a low-priced, smoke-free solution for many problems that have arisen and are
increasing day-by-day because of the consumption of solid fuels. Although, several solar cookers
have been designed, developed and studied by many authors (Vishaya et al. 1985; Nahar 1990;
Grupp, Montagne, and Wackernagel 1991; Negi and Purohit 2005; Nandwani 2007; Kumar et al.
2008; Mirdha and Dhariwal 2008; Harmim et al. 2010), yet possibilities for improvement in
the thermal performance of solar cookers that are subjected to the design improvements and the
selection of more efficient materials to develop different components of the system are still open.
In the present scenario of advancement in information and transportation technologies, and
political liberalisation ‘throughout the world’, a large flux of people are migrating from villages
to cities; cities to metros and metros to abroad in search of better career and life expectancies. This
migration phenomenon is reducing traditional joint families into single (small) families. These
small families have two or three members; either young or old couple. This social scenario of
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

rising trend in the number of small families has motivated the authors to develop solar cookers
for cooking requirements of two or three persons. These systems have the following features:
(i) small size and light weight (ii) good thermal performance (iii) low cost and (iv) short payback
period.
This paper presents the fabrication details and the on-field experimental studies of two novel
solar cookers that are designed as per cooking requirements of small families. These have been
named as small family solar cookers (SFSC-1 and SFSC-2). These cookers have been developed
for users of two different economic groups. SFSC-1 has been designed for the middle-income
group people. Although its cost is little higher than SFSC-2, it has good weather ability than
SFSC-2. The low-cost SFSC-2 is a good cooking appliance for low-income group people. The
temperature profiles of both the systems were measured for stagnation test (without load, without
reflector), sensible heat test (with load, without reflector) and cooking power test (with load
with reflector). The measured data have been depicted graphically. The three important thermal
performance parameters (TPPs), first figure of merit (F1 ), second figure of merit (F2 ) and adjusted
cooking power (Pad ), have been computed as per International Standard (IS) (Funk 2000) and
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (Mullick, Kandpal, and Saxena 1987; BIS 2000). The thermal
performances of SFSCs have been compared with the solar cookers developed and studied by the
other authors. The energy savings by using SFSCs with respect to different cooking fuels and the
corresponding payback periods have also been computed using standard theoretical formalisms.

2. Design details of small family solar cookers (SFSC-1 and SFSC-2)

During the last one decade, authors have made a number of lightweight low-cost portable solar
cookers and fixed structure building material solar cookers, keeping in mind particular categories
of users (Dashora, Sengar, and Gupta 2005; Sengar, Dashora, and Mahavar 2010; Mahavar et al.
2011, 2012). The present solar cookers (SFSCs) have the smallest aperture areas in the series.
The details of the components and their dimensions for both the cookers are given in Table 1. The
insulation and glaze materials are the same for both. The major differences are in inner and outer
dimensions, the absorber tray materials and the material of casings and reflectors.
The cost of insulation and casing materials plays an important role in deciding the economic
viability of a solar cooker. For SFSCs, this viability has been increased by opting low-cost insula-
tion and casing materials. The hybrid combinations of insulation materials, which have been used
in SFSCs, have lower price and heat transfer coefficients compared with the insulation materials
which are generally used in solar cookers (Mahavar et al. 2012). The low-cost casing materials of
SFSCs have poor weather ability in contrast to the casing materials which are commonly used in
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 3

Table 1. Design parameters of SFSC-1 and 2.

Details
S. no. Parameters (SFSC-1) (SFSC-2)

1. Casing
(i) Dimension 58 × 46.5 × 15.5 cm3 55 × 55 × 17 cm3
(ii) Material and thickness Hard board, 2.5 mm Cardboard, 1.0 cm
(iii) Density 900 kg/m3 90.9 kg/m3
2. Absorber tray
(i) Dimension 47 × 35.5 × 8.5 cm3 38 × 38 cm2 (at the top)
31 × 31 cm2 (at the bottom)
(ii) Shape Rectangular (erect) Square (trapezoidal)
(iii) Material and thickness Aluminium, 0.35 mm Used oil tin-can, 0.80 mm
(iv) Coating Black matt paint Black matt paint
3. Glaze
(i) No. of glaze 2 2
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

(ii) Material and thickness Polymer, 2.75 mm Polymer, 2.75 mm

(iii) Spacing between glaze 13 mm 13 mm
4. Insulation Layered Layered
(i) Material CC, EPS, NP CC, EPS, NP
(ii) Thickness
(a) Side 5 cm (3 layered) 8.5 cm (3 layered)
(b) Bottom 3.5 cm (3 layered) 6 cm (2 layered)
5. Containers
(i) Shape Cylindrical Cylindrical
(ii) Dimension Dia. 20 cm, height 6 cm Dia. 17.5 cm, height 6 cm
(iii) Material Aluminium Aluminium
(iv) No. of pots and Coating 2, Black matt paint 2, Black matt paint
6. Reflector
(i) Dimension 54.6 × 40.5 cm2 44 × 44 cm2
(ii) Material and thickness Silicate glass, 4 mm Polymer, 2 mm

Note: Here CC, EPS, NP are used for corrugated cardboard, expanded polystyrene and crimped newspaper, respectively.

cookers. To increase the weather ability, the hard board casing of SFSC-1 is painted by a wooden
paint, whereas the cardboard casing of SFSC-2 is laminated with a water proof cloth. These addi-
tional supports considerably contributed to increase the life of SFSCs. The payback periods of
SFSCs that are discussed in Section 4 are significantly short compared with their serviceability
period.

Table 2. Cost of SFSCs.

SFSC-1 SFSC-2
S. Quantity Rate Approx Quantity Rate Approx
no. Item (m2 ) (Rs./m2 ) cost (Rs.) (m2 ) (Rs./m2 ) cost (Rs.)

1. Casing 0.90 130 118 0.68 24 16

2. Absorber tray 0.31 270 86 0.24 112 28
3. Glaze 0.36 915 330 0.32 915 293
4. Insulation
Side 0.30 96 28 0.24 108 26
Bottom 0.27 48 13 0.30 108 32
5. Reflector 0.23 485 110 0.20 807 166
6. Screws + other – 100 – 50
accessories (adhesive)
7. Manufacturer cost – 600 400
(reflector frame)
Total cost (Rs.) 1385 Total cost (Rs.) 1011
 4 S. Mahavar et al.

The polymeric material [poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)] that has been used as glaze
material in SFSCs has two important benefits over the glass that is more frequently used as
glaze material in cookers. One, the density of PMMA is half of glass density and second the
transmittance of PMMA is 14–16% higher than that of glass (Mahavar et al. 2012). Moreover, it
is not as fragile as glass. The experimental on-field studies of various solar cookers conducted by
the authors during the past one decade (Dashora, Sengar, and Gupta 2005; Sengar, Dashora, and
Mahavar 2010; Mahavar et al. 2011, 2012) reveal that the optical performance of good quality
and carefully designed PMMA glazes hardly deteriorates over a period of two and half to three
years. This period is fairly longer than the payback periods of the systems.
The price of each component of these cookers is listed in Table 2. The approximate total price
1400 INR of SFSC-1 may be easily afforded by middle-income group people. SFSC-2 can be
used for soft meal cooking without reflector frame; accordingly, its approximate cost of 1000 INR
may be reduced up to 445 INR for the low-income group people of developing nations.
The schematic diagrams and photographs of SFSCs are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

Figure 1. Schematic diagram and photograph of SFSC-1.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram and photograph of SFSC-2.

 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 5

3. Thermal performance studies of SFSC-1 and SFSC-2

The thermal performance tests were conducted on various days for both the cookers to determine
the necessary TPPs, as per the procedures and weather variables suggested by IS (Funk 2000) and
BIS (Mullick, Kandpal, and Saxena 1987; BIS 2000) for box-type solar cookers.

3.1. Experimental set-up

During the years 2009–2010, on-field experiments at the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur (26.92◦ N,
75.87◦ E) were performed, and the thermal performances of the SFSCs were recorded on vari-
ous days. During all experiments, the solar radiation intensity (Is ) on a horizontal surface was
measured using a pyranometer (Nation Instruments Ltd. Calcutta, instrument no. 0068). The CIE-
305 thermometer with point contact thermocouples (accuracy 0.1◦ C) was used to measure the
temperatures at different locations of the cooker; namely the cooking fluid, the absorber plate,
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

and the lower and upper glaze covers. A mercury thermometer (accuracy 0.1◦ C) was used for
the measurement of ambient temperature. The wind speed was measured by an aerometer (Prova
instruments inc. AVM-03). All the measurements were taken at an interval of 10 min and tracking
of the systems were done as frequently when required as per the test conditions.

3.2. Thermal profiles

The thermal profiles that have been experimentally measured for SFSCs can be classified according
to the necessary test conditions to determine different TPPs in the following manner: (i) without
water load, without reflector (ii) with water load, without reflector and (iii) with water load, with
reflector.

3.2.1. Without water load, without reflector (stagnation test)

In this outdoor experimental test, temperatures of base plates of SFSCs were recorded from 10:00
to 16:00 Indian Standard Time (IST). Simultaneously, the values of insolations and ambient
temperatures were also measured. During the test, tracking was not required due to the absence
of the reflector. The values of first figure of merits (F1 ) were computed by this test (BIS 2000;
Mullick, Kandpal, and Saxena 1987) for both the cookers. This test was conducted on different
days; the thermal profile of one representative day for each system is shown in Figure 3.

3.2.2. With water load, without reflector (sensible heat test)

This experiment was performed with water load and without reflector for both the cookers. It has
been recommended by BIS that this experiment should be done within ± 1:30 h of the solar noon
with the intensity of radiation above or equal to 600 W/m2 . It has been also suggested in the test
procedure that the amount of full water loads for this test should be calculated according to 8.0 kg
water/m2 and should be equally distributed in pots.
For both SFSCs, the amount of water loads were found to be equal and that was approximately
1.2 kg. This water amount was evenly distributed in two aluminium containers. The temperatures
of water load (Tw ), base plate (Tp ), upper (Tgu ) and lower (Tgl ) glaze were recorded for each SFSC.
The thermal profiles of different components of SFSC-2 and values of insolation on a sunny day
of June 2010 are shown in Figure 4.
The average values of instantaneous water temperatures of two containers that were placed
in the cooker have been taken as the instantaneous values of water load temperatures (Tw ). The
 6 S. Mahavar et al.
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

Figure 3. Variation of the bare plate temperatures (Tp ), ambient temperatures (Ta ) and insolation (Is ) with standard
time, on a representative day for SFSC-1 (17 June 2009) and SFSC-2 (20 May 2010).

Figure 4. Temperature profiles of the different components (Tp – plate, Tw – water load, Tgu – upper glaze and Tgl –
lower glaze temperatures) of SFSC-2 and variation of Is (without reflector and with 1.2 kg water load on 10 June 2010)
with the standard time.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 7
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

Figure 5. Variation of the base plate (Tp ), water load (Tw ), ambient (Ta ) temperatures, and the insolation (Is ) values
with the standard time on different days, for SFSC-1 (10 August 2009) and SFSC-2 (10 June 2010), without reflector and
with 1.2 kg water load.

thermal profiles for both the cookers with 1.2 kg water load are depicted in Figure 5. The values
of second figure of merits (F2 ) were computed through this test procedure (BIS 2000; Mullick,
Kandpal, and Saxena 1987).

3.2.3. With water load, with reflector (cooking power test)

This test was conducted as per procedure suggested by Funk (2000) to determine the adjusted
cooking power. The tracking of the systems was done when required. It has been suggested by IS
(Funk 2000) that for the intercept area of the cooker, load should be 7.0 kg water/m2 and should
be distributed in all the pots equally. Further as per test protocol, wind speed should be less than
1 m/s, the ambient temperature should be in the range of 20–35◦ C and the water temperature of
the pots should be recorded between 40 and 90◦ C. The solar radiation during the experimentation
should be in the range of 450–1100 W/m2 , and this test should be conducted during 10:00 and
14:00 solar time.
As per IS for both SFSCs, water loads were found to be 2.0 kg. On two different days of June
2009, this test was conducted for SFSC-1 with 2 kg water load and with the reflector for the
duration of 10:00–14:00 IST. Through these thermal profiles adjusted cooking powers (Pad ) have
been calculated for every 10 min interval and plotted with temperature difference (T ) between
water load and ambient temperatures in Figure 6. The adjusted cooking power curve of SFSC-2
for 1.4 kg load has also been included in Figure 6.

3.3. Evaluation of TPPs

This section includes the formulae of the different TPPs through which these have been calculated
with the help of relevant thermal profiles.
 8 S. Mahavar et al.
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

Figure 6. Relationship between the adjusted cooking power and the temperature difference for SFSC-1 (22 and 24 June
2009) and SFSC-2 (27 and 30 November 2010).

3.3.1. First figure of merit (F1 )

It has been determined by the stagnation test as per BIS (2000) and Mullick, Kandpal, and Saxena
(1987) using following relation:

η0 (Tps − Tas )
F1 = = , (1)
ULS Is

where η0 , ULS , Tps , Tas and Is are the optical efficiency, overall heat loss coefficient, absorber
plate temperature, ambient temperature and the insolation on the horizontal surface at the time
when plate temperature stagnated. The values of F1 for SFSCs have been calculated using the
temperature profiles depicted in Figure 3.

3.3.2. Second figure of merit (F2 )

It has been obtained from the sensible heat test by using the following relation (Mullick, Kandpal,
and Saxena 1987; BIS 2000):

 
F1 (MC)w 1 − (1/F1 )((Tw1 − T̄a )/Īs )
F2 = ln , (2)
Ac τ 1 − (1/F1 )((Tw2 − T̄a )/Īs )

where Ac is the aperture area, (MC)w is the thermal capacity of water, τ is the time during which
water temperature rises from TW1 to TW2 . Īs , T̄a are the average solar radiation and the average
ambient temperature, respectively, for the time period τ . The temperature profiles that are depicted
in Figure 5 have been used to determine F2 for SFSCs.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 9

3.3.3. Adjusted cooking power (Pad )

From Funk’s definition (Funk 2000), the cooking power is expressed as follows:
MCw dTw
P= , (3)
dt
where P is the cooking power, M is the mass of water, Cw is specific heat of water, dTw is
temperature difference of water in dt time interval. Funk also introduced the term standard or
adjusted cooking power which is calculated by using the following relation:
700MCw Tw
Pad = , (4)
600Īs
where Pad is adjusted cooking power, Tw is temperature difference of water load in every 10 min
interval and Īs is average solar radiation on surface during this time period. For each SFSC, Pad on
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

two different days have been calculated (to get reasonable number of points for regression curve)
and are plotted in Figure 6. From adjusted cooking power curves, the values of initial cooking
power (at T = 0◦ C), standardised cooking power (at T = 50◦ C) and heat loss coefficient
(slope of liner curves) have been obtained for both systems. These values facilitate a comparison
between solar cookers of different designs under various solar insolation levels.

3.4. Theoretical comparison of thermal performances

A number of solar cookers have been designed and studied by different authors (Vishaya et al.
1985; Nahar 1990; Grupp, Montagne, and Wackernagel 1991; El-Sebaii and Ibrahim 2005; Negi
and Purohit 2005; Nandwani 2007; Kumar 2008; Kumar et al. 2008; Mirdha and Dhariwal 2008;
Harmim et al. 2010). The values of bare plate temperatures, ambient temperatures and insolations,
which were observed during stagnation test by the authors for their systems, are listed in Table 3.
Stagnation test results for SFSC-1 and SFSC-2 are also included in this table.

Table 3. Comparison of performance of SFSCs with the other box type solar cookers.

S. Stagnation Ambient Time Insolation Date of

no Reference temp. (◦ C) temp. (◦ C) (IST) value (W/m2 ) experiment

1. Vishaya et al. (1985) 122 32 12:00 1020 23 September 1982

2. Nahar (1990) 132 28 14:00 760 –
3. Negi and Purohit (2005) 140 27 12:00 750 March 2002
4. Mirdha and Dhariwal (2008) 163 37 13:30 – –
5. Kumar et al. (2008) 138 37 13:40 858 –
6. Harmani et al. (2010) 140 48 12:00 960 23 July 2008
7. SFSC-1 144 35 13:30 945 17 June 2009
8. SFSC-2 144 42.5 13:20 859 20 May 2010

Table 4. Comparison of second figure of merit (F2 ) of SFSCs with the other box type solar cookers.

S. Second figure Amount of

no Reference of merit (F2 ) water load (kg)

1. Kumar et al. (2008) 0.467 2

2. Mahavar et al. (2012) 0.407 4
3. El-Sebaii and Ibrahim (2005) 0.487 2
4. SFSC-1 0.466 1.2
5. SFSC-2 0.488 1.2
 10 S. Mahavar et al.

Further the values of F2 for SFSCs have also been compared with the cookers designed by
other authors and are presented in Table 4.

4. Energy saving and payback period of SFSCs

The developed SFSCs can be only used as a supplement of current cooking appliances to reduce
fuel consumption of small households due to the constraint of deep frying in these cookers. With
this limitation, the wide acceptability of the developed systems among the common users depends
on energy saving and payback periods of these systems with respect to conventional cooking fuels.
For a small household, the energy expenditure amount for cooking in a year has been calculated
for different cooking fuels. As this energy expenditure can be saved by using SFSCs, it is equal to
the energy-saving amount with respect to different cooking fuels. Hence, a comparative study of
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

the energy-saving amount and its price for different cooking fuels has been done and the payback
periods for these cookers have been computed by using the following relation (Nahar 2001;
Sengar 2009):

log[(E − M)/(a − b)] − log[(E − M)/(a − b) − C]

N= , (5)
log[(1 + a)/(1 + b)]

where E is the energy-saving price for commonly used fuels such as firewood, cow dung, charcoal,
kerosene, LPG and electricity. M is the maintenance cost of the cooker per year, a is the compound
annual interest and b is the inflation in fuel price.
In both the solar cookers, a number of boiling-type food items, namely rice, potatoes, wheat
daliya, vegetable, pulses, etc. can be cooked twice on a sunny day. At a time, 600 g cooking item
can be loaded in a container, so cooking of 1.2 kg food can be done in SFSCs in a meal. The cooking
of 400 g rice that needs 800 g water can be easily done in SFSCs for a meal. For computation
of energy-saving price (E), we assumed that in a small family of three members 400 g rice is
cooked per meal by any conventional cooking fuel source. An approximate time or amount of fuel
for non-pressurised cooking of 400 g rice was measured by the available cooking source, namely
charcoal, LPG (burner capacity 143 g/h) and electricity (electrical heater of capacity 1000 W) to
compute energy need to cook 400 g rice. These details are given in Table 5.
In the arid zones of India, minimum 280 days per years are available for cooking two meals
cooking using solar cookers. Consequently, it is evident from Table 5 that about 1.8 MJ energy
is consumed per meal (3.6 MJ for two meals) in a small family. If 280 days are available in a
year, then SFSCs can save 1008 MJ energy per year. By taking this energy-saving quantity, the
prices and the payback periods have been calculated for SFSCs with respect to different cooking
fuels. The energy-saving prices and payback periods have been computed at the following rates
a = 10%, b = 8% and M = 10% of the cost of the cookers; and presented in Table 6. For this
table, properties of different cooking fuels have been taken from Nahar (2001), Ashraf Rizvi
(2006), Sukhatme (2007) and Sengar (2009).

Table 5. Energy needs to cook 400 g rice by means of different cooking fuels.

Calorific Efficiency Approx Approx Energy need

Fuel value (%) time (min) amount (g) per meal (MJ)

Charcoal 28 MJ/kg 28 – 240 1.88

LPG 6.51 MJ/h 60 28 – 1.82
Electricity 3.6 MJ/kWh 76 40 – 1.82
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 11

Table 6. Energy-saving prices and payback periods of SFSCs.

Calorific Efficiency Cost Energy Payback period Payback period

Fuel value (MJ/kg) (%) (Rs.) saving (Rs.) SFSC-1 (year) SFSC-2 (year)

Firewood 17 10 7/kg 4151 0.38 0.27

Cow dung 9 11 2.5/kg 2864 0.56 0.40
Charcoal 28 28 15/kg 1929 0.85 0.61
Kerosene 38 MJ/L 48 25/L 1382 1.23 0.87
Electricity 3.6 MJ/kWh 76 4.5/kWh 1658 1 0.71
LPG 45.5 60 26.8/kg 990 1.8 1.25

5. Discussion of results

Figure 3 illustrates that for both the cookers within a very short time of 20–30 min, the bare plate
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

temperature reached 80◦ C and remained higher than 100◦ C for a long period of 5 h. At stagnation,
the values of bare plate temperature, ambient temperature and insolation for SFSC-1 and SFSC-2
have been found to be 144◦ C, 35◦ C, 945 W/m2 and 144◦ C, 42.5◦ C, 859 W/m2 , respectively.
Table 3 reveals that stagnation temperatures for SFSCs are comparable to the solar cookers
developed so far by the other authors. The values of F1 have been calculated using Equation (1),
which are found to be 0.116 and 0.118◦ C m2 /W for SFSC-1 and SFSC-2, respectively. These are
the recommended values of BIS for solar cookers.
The temperature profile of SFSC-2 (Figure 4) illustrates that water temperature remained above
80◦ C for 7 h, which was a sufficient time duration for two meals (soft food load) cooking for two
persons. Figure 5 depicts the performance of both SFSCs and shows that both have comparable
good thermal performance. The values of F2 for SFSC-1 and SFSC-2 (0.466 and 0.488 respec-
tively) have been found to be nearly equal to the F2 values of the systems of different authors
(Table 4). It should be noted that the F2 values observed by all the authors have been observed
for 2 kg or more water loads, but for SFSCs these high values have been observed for 1.2 kg load
only.
From Figure 6, the adjusted cooking powers (Pad ) as a function of the temperature difference
(T ) for developed solar cookers can be written as follows:

For SFSC-1 Pad = 103.5 − 1.474T , (6)

For SFSC-2 Pad = 108.2 − 1.084T . (7)

The values of the regression coefficient R2 = 0.948 and 0.918 for Equations (6) and (7), respec-
tively, satisfy the test standard (Funk 2000). The values of initial cooking powers and standardised
cooking powers are 103.5, 30 W and 108.2, 52 W, respectively, for SFSC-1 and SFSC-2; these
are good values as per studies of Funk (2000) and El-Sebaii and Ibrahim (2005) for their systems.
The loss coefficients obtained from the slope of the regression lines are observed to be 1.474 and
1.084 W/◦ C for SFSC-1 and SFSC-2, respectively.
The high initial cooking power and low-heat loss coefficient values of both the cookers place
these cookers among small size, good insulation solar cookers as per IS (Funk 2000). On various
days, cooking of several food items have also been performed in the cookers, namely boiling
of rice, potato, pulses, wheat daliya, baking of wheat flour balls (bati), etc. The cooking times
of various food items varied between 1.30 and 2.30 h according to the dishes and the weather
conditions. The payback period of SFSC-1 and SFSC-2 varies from 0.38 to 1.8 and 0.27 to 1.25
years, respectively, according to the fuel type. The payback periods of these cookers are reasonably
short for high acceptability by mass population.
 12 S. Mahavar et al.

6. Conclusions

The developed SFSCs have comparable thermal performance among the available models of solar
cookers. The values of F1 , F2 and Pad were found to satisfy BIS and IS. With small size, good
thermal performance, light weight, reasonable low-cost and short payback period, these cookers
are appropriate for the cooking requirement of two persons and different income group people.

Acknowledgements
Sunita Mahavar, Manisha Verma and Poonam Rajawat are grateful to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR), New Delhi, for grant research fellowship for their PhD work.
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

References

Agnihotram, V. R., and A. Chattopadyay. 2005. “Respiratory Disease Burden in Rural India: A Review from Multiple
Data Sources.” The Internet Journal of Epidemiology 2 (2).
Ashraf Rizvi, M. 2006. Effective Technical Communication. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited.
Bruce, N. G., E.A. Rehfuess, and K. R. Smith. 2011. “Household Energy Solutions in Developing Countries.” Encyclopedia
of Environmental Health 3: 62–75.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2000. IS 13429.
Dashora, P., N. Sengar, and M. Gupta. 2005. “A Novel Versatile Building Material Housing Solar Cooker: Boon for
Developing Nations.” Proceedings of Solar World Congress, Florida, August 6–12, ISES paper No. 1327.
Dzioubinski, O., and R. Chipman. 1999. “Trends in Consumption and Production: Household Energy Consumption.”
Discussion paper of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York.
El-Sebaii, A. A., and A. Ibrahim. 2005. “Experimental Testing of a Box-Type Solar Cooker Using the Standard Procedure
of Cooking Power.” Renewable Energy 30 (12): 1861–1871.
Funk, P. A. 2000. “Evaluating the International Standard Procedure for Testing Solar Cookers and Reporting Performance.”
Solar Energy 68 (1): 1–7.
Grupp, M., P. Montagne, and M. Wackernagel. 1991. “A Novel Advanced Box Type Solar Cooker.” Solar Energy 47 (2):
107–113.
Harmim, A., M. Belhamel, M. Boukar, and M. Amar. 2010. “Experimental Investigation of a Box-Type Solar Cooker with
a Finned Absorber Plate.” Energy 35 (9): 3799–3802.
Kumar, S. 2008. “Estimation of Design parameters for Thermal Performance Evaluation of Box-Type Solar Cooker.”
Renewable Energy 30 (7): 1117–1126.
Kumar, N., S. Agravat, T. Chavda, and H. N. Mistry. 2008. “Design and Development of Efficient Multipurpose Domestic
Solar Cookers/Dryers.” Renewable Energy 33: 2207–2211.
Mahavar, S., N. Sengar, M. Verma, and P. Dashora. 2011. “Extensive Experimental Studies of a Single Family Solar
Cooker.” International Journal of Energy, Information and Communications 2 (4): 169–179.
Mahavar, S., N. Sengar, P. Rajawat, M. Verma, and P. Dashora. 2012 “Design Development and Performance Studies of
a Novel Single Family Solar Cooker.” Renewable Energy, 47: 67–76.
Mirdha, U. S., and S. R. Dhariwal. 2008. “Design Optimization of Solar Cooker.” Renewable Energy 33 (3): 530–544.
Mullick, S. C., T. C. Kandpal, and A. K. Saxena. 1987. “Thermal Test Procedure for Box-Type Solar Cookers.” Solar
Energy 39 (4): 353–360.
Nahar, N. M. 1990. “Performance and Testing of an Improved Hot Box Solar Cooker.” Energy Conversion and Management
30 (1): 9–16.
Nahar, N. M. 2001. “Design, Development and Testing of a Double Reflector Hot Box Solar Cooker with a Transparent
Insulation Material.” Renewable Energy 23 (2): 167–179.
Nandwani, S. S. 2007. “Design Construction and Study of a Hybrid Solar Food Processor in the Climate of Costa Rica.”
Renewable Energy 32 (3): 427–441.
National Sample Survey Organization. 2007. Energy Used by Indian Households 2004/2005, NSS 61st Round. Ministry
of Statistic and Program Implementation, Government of India, India.
Negi, B. S., and I. Purohit. 2005. “Experimental Investigation of a Box Type Solar Cooker Employing a Non-Tracking
Concentrator.” Energy Conversion and Management 46 (4): 577–604.
Pachauri, S. 2004. “An Analysis of Cross Sectional Variation in Total Household Energy Requirements in India Using
Micro Survey Data.” Energy Policy 32 (15): 1723–1335.
Ramanathan, V., and K. A. Balakrishnan. 2007. Solar Cookers World Network. White paper. Accessed March 2008.
http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/india
Reddy, B. S. 2003. “Overcoming the Energy Efficiency Gap in India’s Residential Sector.” Energy Policy 31 (11):
1117–1127.
 International Journal of Sustainable Energy 13

Reddy, B. S., P. Balachandra, and H. S. K. Nathan. 2009. “Universalization of Access to Modern Energy Services in
Indian Households-Economic and Policy Analysis.” Energy Policy 37 (11): 4645–4657.
Sengar, N. 2009. “Utilization of Solar Energy in Low Grade Energy Applications.” PhD thesis, University of Rajasthan.
Sengar, N., P. Dashora, and S. Mahavar. 2010. “Low Cost Solar Cooker: Promising Solution towards Reducing Indoor
Air Pollution from Solid Fuel Use.” Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3 (10): 1038–1042.
Sukhatme, S. P. 2007. Solar Energy-Principle of Thermal Collection and Storage. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited.
Vishaya, J. S., T. C. Tripathi, D. Singh, R. H. Bhawalkar, and M. S. Hegde. 1985. “A Hot Box Solar Cooker: Performance
Analysis and Testing.” Energy Conversion and Management 25 (3): 373–379.
Downloaded by [117.203.13.54] at 19:16 14 January 2013

View publication stats