ISSN : 0975-3710
EISSN : 0975-9107
S. POONIA1*, A.K. SINGH2, D. JAIN3
1ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, 342 003, Rajasthan, India
2ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, 342 003, Rajasthan, India
3ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, 342 003, Rajasthan, India
* Corresponding Author : poonia.surendra@gmail.com
Received : 02-03-2020 Accepted : 28-03-2020 Published : 30-03-2020
Volume : 12 Issue : 6 Pages : 9637 - 9641
Int J Agr Sci 12.6 (2020):9637-9641
Keywords : Thermal performance, Non-tracking solar cooker, Efficiency, Economic analysis
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to the Director, ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, 342 003, Rajasthan, India for providing the fund for the project.
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed
This research paper presents the design, development, thermal performance evaluation, efficiency and payback period of non-tracking solar cooker. Length to width ratio of the cooker was designed as 3.8:1 so that maximum reflected radiation falls on the glass window at any time in a day. It led to removal of azimuthal tracking which is a must for hot box solar cooker. The overall efficiency of the non-tracking solar cooker is 25.2%. During testing in April, 2019, the highest plate stagnation temperature, under no-load condition, approached 138°C. The developed non-tracking solar cooker was tested as per different test procedures as standardized by American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) and Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). Stagnation and water boiling test of the solar cooker were performed during April, 2019 to determine the first figure of merit (F1), second figure of merit (F2) and standardized cooking power (Ps). Experimental evaluation showed these criteria (F1, F2 and Ps) as 0.121, 0.401 and 46.50 W, which indicate that the developed cooker falls under category “A”, as per standard. The cooker saves 2587.5 MJ of energy per year. The cost of the cooker is ? 9000.00 (1.0 US$ = ?67.16). The payback period of the solar cooker was calculated as compared to firewood, electricity, charcoal, LPG and kerosene-based cooking. The payback period was 1.58 yrs when compared to firewood.
1. Elliott D. (2004) Energy Environment, 15, 1099-1105.
2. Tingem M. and Rivington M. (2009) Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies Global Change, 14, 153-168.
3. Panwar N.L., Kaushik S.C. and Kothari S.C. (2011) Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 15, 1513-1524.
4. Huttunen S. (2009) Journal of Rural Studies, 25, 239-247.
5. Poonia S., Singh A.K., Santra P., Nahar N.M. and Mishra D. (2017) Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 54(1), 33-43.
6. Budzianowski W.M. (2012) Energy, 41, 280-297.
7. Poonia S., Singh A.K., Santra P. and Jain D. (2019) Agricultural Engineering Today, 43(1), 1-10
8. Funk P.A. (2000) Solar Energy, 68(1), 1-7.
9. Ahmad B. (2001) Solar Energy, 69, 209-215.
10. Rao A.V.N. and Subramanyam S. (2003) Solar Energy, 75, 181-185.
11. Rao A.V.N. and Subramanyam S. (2005) Solar Energy, 78, 19-22.
12. Kumar S. (2005) Renewable Energy, 30, 1117-1126.
13. Nahar N.M. (1986) Proc. 7th Miami International Conference on Alternative Energy Sources. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New York 1, 431-439.
14. Nandwani S.S., Steinhart J., Henning H.M., Rommel M. and Wittwer V. (1997) Renewable Energy, 12, 1-20.
15. Negi B.S. and Purohit I. (2005) Energy Conversion and Management, 46, 577-604.
16. Kumar S. (2008) Renewable Energy, 30, 1117-26.
17. Harmim A., Belhamel M., Boukar M. and Amar M. (2010) Energy, 35, 3799-802.
18. Mahavar S., Sengar N., Rajawata P., Verma M. and Dashora P. (2012) Renewable Energy, 47, 67-76.
19. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. (2003) ASAE S580: Testing and Reporting of Solar Cooker Performance, ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, Ml, USA, 825-826.
20. Bureau of Indian Standards (1992) BIS standards on solar cooker IS 13429: 1992, Part I, II and III, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1-10.
21. Bureau of Indian Standards (2000) BIS standards on solar-box type cooker - IS 13429: Part I, II and III, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 1-3.
22. Mullick S.C., Kandpal T.C. and Saxena A.K. (1987) Solar Energy, 39(4), 353-360.
23. Pande P.C. and Thanvi K.P. (1988) International Journal of Energy Research, 12, 539-545.
24. Mullick S.C., Kandpal T.C. and Kumar S. (1996) Solar Energy, 57(5), 409-413.
25. Nahar N.M. (2001) Renewable Energy, 23, 167-179.
26. Lahkar P. J. and Samdarshi S. K. (2010) Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 14(6), 1615-1621.
27. Folaranmi J. (2013) Journal of Renewable Energy, 184352, 1-8.
28. Hermelinda S.C. and Mauricio G.A. (2014) Energy Procedia, 57, 1573-1582.
29. Nahar N.M., Gupta J.P. and Sharma P. (1996) Renewable Energy, 7(1), 47-50.
30. Currin C., Nandwani S.S. and Marvin A. (1994) In: Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Solar Cookers, Heredra Costa Rica, 149-158.