Advances - lightwaveonline.com · Advances - lightwaveonline.com
ADVANCES IN SOLAR COOKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - A …
Transcript of ADVANCES IN SOLAR COOKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - A …
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 77
ADVANCES IN SOLAR COOKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES -
A REVIEW
O. Kapting'ei1; M. N. Muchuka2; D. M. Nyaanga3
1aCorresponding Author, Department of Agric. Engineering, Egerton University - Njoro
2Department of Electrical and Control Engineering, Egerton University - Njoro
3Department of Agric. Engineering, Egerton University - Njoro
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37017/jeae-volume7-no1.2021-5
Publication Date: 14 May 2021
ABSTRACT:
Increased energy demand has forced societies to rely on traditional fuel sources with negative health and
environmental impacts. In most developing countries, solar energy is available for long hours and in ranges that
if exploited can reduce dependence on biomass and fossil fuels. However, despite its potential, uptake of solar
cooking devices is low due to intermittent radiation, technological challenges, lack of awareness and slower
cooking rates compared to other energy sources. There are four traditional types of solar cookers, box, panel,
parabolic and tube. The latest technology is the PV conversion to electricity. Since the advent of solar cooking,
numerous experiments, designs and improvements of solar cookers have been successfully developed. Research
has focused on improving solar cooker performance such as; improved design, sun tracking mechanisms, solar
thermal storage or “hybrid” designs that remove limitation of nighttime cooking or periods of poor irradiance.
These improvements have increased the efficiency, reduce the cost of the solar cookers, and addressed
sociocultural challenges such as sheltered cooking, visual appearance, and the ability to cook traditional
recipes. However, more needs to be done to increase ease of adoption, the capacity of energy storage and
flexibility. The cost of domestic workloads and environmental degradation should also be a factor in energy
policy formulation.
Keywords: solar cookers, thermal storage, solar tracking, solar electric cooking, domestic cooking,
efficiency
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In Energy is the one of main components for sustained
development and poverty alleviation. Increase in
energy demand has forced societies to switch back to
traditional biomass sources while avoiding traditional
meals that require long cooking hours. The earth
receives about 3.85 million Exa-joules of solar energy
annually (Johnson et al., 1993) making solar energy
harnessing one of the most promising technologies.
This energy is also available in most developing
countries for long hours and in ranges that if exploited
will reduce dependence on fossil fuel and biomass
(International Renewable Energy Agency, 2014).
However, despite its potential, uptake of solar cookers
is low due to low efficiency caused by intermittent
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 78
radiation, technological challenges, lack of awareness
and slower cooking rates compared to other sources.
Solar cookers are classified as direct or indirect
depending on how the energy is transferred to the
cooking vessel (Farooqui, 2014). They can also be
classified as box, panel, concentrated or tube based on
configuration (Schwarzer et al., 2008). Box cookers
consist of an insulated box with a transparent glass or
plastic cover (window) on top to let in the sunlight and
create the greenhouse effect. Panel solar cookers use
reflective panels to direct sunlight to the entire surface
of a dark colored food container, which is placed in a
transparent heat resistant plastic bag (Cuce et al.,
2013). Parabolic cookers: A parabolic reflector
focuses a narrow beam of intense sunlight onto a food
container that is located at the focal point of the solar
cooker.
In this paper, solar cooking technology is analyzed
from inception, design improvements to current
modern systems. We highlight research efforts aimed
at addressing adoption challenges, such as efficiency,
flexibility, convenience, economy, and sociocultural
practices such as visual appearance, ease of handling
and the ability to cook traditional recipes.
Figure 1: General Classification of Solar Cookers.
Figure 2: Types of Solar Cookers Based on Configuration (Schwarzer & Da Silva, 2008).
ENERGY COLLECTION
SOLAR COOKERS
3.Insulation
• BOX COOKERS
• PANEL COOKERS
• CONCENTRATED COOKERS
• EVACUATED TUBE
SOLAR THERMAL
• DIRECT
• INDIRECT
• LATENT HEAT
• SENSIBLE HEAT
SOLAR PV
STRUCTURAL COOKING METHOD
• DIRECT PV
• BATTERY STORAGE
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 79
2.0 EVOLUTION OF SOLAR COOKERS
a) History of Solar Cooking
The use of solar energy for cooking was first
introduced in 1767 by Horace de Saussure (Halacy
and Halacy, 1992) and Kimambo, 2007). But the real
development of solar cookers started in the 1950s
(Harmin et al., 2013). Since then, numerous
experiments, designs and improvements of solar
cookers have been successfully developed. (Saxena et
al., 2010a). Research has however been done on
methods and techniques that improve the performance
of solar cookers, such as; improving the design of
cooker or cooking vessel, solar thermal storage or by
making them “hybrid” (enabling them to cook on dual
fuel) (Saxena et al., 2018).
b) Traditional Solar Cookers
There are four traditional types of solar cookers,
panel, box, parabolic and tube. Box solar cookers
(BSC): consists of an insulated cardboard or wood
box covered by a transparent glass or plastic cover
(window) on top to let in the sunlight creating a
greenhouse effect. Panel solar cookers (PSC): Use
reflective panels to direct sunlight to the entire surface
of a dark colored food container, the container is
placed in a transparent heat resistant plastic bag to
generate the greenhouse effect (Cuce et .al, 2013).
Parabolic solar cookers (PbSC): a parabolic reflector
focuses a narrow beam of intense sunlight onto a food
container that is located at the focal point of the solar
cooker. PbSCs are superior to other types of solar as
they can reach extremely high temperatures in a few
minutes. (Mendoza et al., 2018). The point focus in a
parabolic cooker sometimes lead to localized high
temperatures leading to food burning and accidental
burns to the user. (Patel et al., 2000)
c) Improved Solar Cookers
i. Cookers with Solar Tracking
Many experimental and theoretical studies aimed at
improving the capabilities and thermal and radiative
performance of solar cookers, include various sun
tracking mechanisms to improve radiation absorption
during the day (Al- Soud et al., 2010).
Parabolic cookers with adjustable flat mirrors
mounted on a parabolic curved substrate that uses the
response surface method to find the optimized
position of the mirrors at any given time was
developed by Zamani et al. (2015). This design
increased the effective and overall energy efficiencies
by 32.07% and 35.5%, respectively. Farooqui (2013)
presented a single vacuum tube based linear Fresnel
solar cooker with mirror strips that synchronously
tracked the sun electronically. A well-insulated
cooking chamber fitted through a silicon hose directly
above the vacuum tube substantially reduced heating
time and could be housed in a shelter, with the
collector part remaining in the Sun. Temperatures of
up to 250°C with about 30% overall efficiency and a
maximum of thermal power of 208W/m2 of the
collector area were achieved. The cooker could also
attain more than five times heat absorption capacity
compared to a conventional box solar cooker. In
another study by Farooqui (2015)) designed a power-
free tracking system where a solar box cooker is
placed on top of a horizontal cylinder connected to a
timing belt comprising of a spring and a water
container. Water is discharged at a predetermined rate
driving a timing belt mounted wooden disc to rotate
with the sun at a uniform rate. The author reported that
the system can track the sun for six hours, three hours
before solar noon to three hours after. Separately,
Farooqui (2013) presented another design where
water discharged from the container proportionally
un-stretches a spring and hence rotate the solar cooker
to follow the sun. These tracking systems are simple,
low cost and ideal for developing countries as they
operate without the need for an external power source.
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 80
Figure 3: Gravity Based Solar Tracking System (Farooqui, 2015)
ii. Cookers with Thermal Storage
There are concerted efforts to regulate the mismatch
between solar energy supply and demand with
research focusing on improving the efficiency of
energy conversion and utilization systems. (Mawire et
al., 2013). Solar thermal storage can be through latent
heat thermal energy storage (LHTES) where heat is
absorbed and then released during a phase change
period, or sensible heat thermal energy storage
(SHTES) where heat absorption and removal occur by
heating and cooling a material (Mawire 2015).
LHTES materials are favored as they offer large
thermal energy storage density and exhibit an
isothermal behavior during charging. However, they
are costly, have a complicated design, have low
thermal conductivities and degradation of phase
change materials (PCMs) occur after charging and
discharging cycles. SHTES materials are metals,
rocks, salts, water, and thermal oils which are more
viable than LHTES in developing countries where
cost effectiveness and simplicity outweighs superior
thermal performance (Nyeinga et al., 2016 and
Mawire, 2016).
A solar cooker with engine oil as a storage medium
outperforms one without thermal storage (Nahar,
2003). For instance, a comparison of oil and
aluminum-based heat storage systems charged with a
small-scale solar parabolic trough shows that the oil-
based system is more efficient (Mussard et al., 2013).
Mawire et al., (2014) compared the heating powers of
sunflower oil, Shell Thermia B, and Shell Thermia C
oils during the charging process. They reported that at
a high flow rate and low power charging, the oils have
a similar performance. At low flow rate and high-
power charging, sunflower which has the highest
density and specific heat capacity outperforming the
others and attained a maximum temperature of about
235°C. Thermal analysis of heat transfer through
steel, glass and pebbles as storage media with oil as
the working fluid presented by Abdel-Rehim (2007)
showed that steel charged up in four cycles while the
pebbles charging up in two cycles only. This was
attributed to the different thermal and physical
properties of these materials. Buddhi et al., (2003)
used commercial grade acetanilide as a PCM to
develop a thermal storage unit for a cooker with three
reflectors. Their experiments showed that solar noon
cooking performance was not affected by energy
storage and the energy stored could be utilized for late
evening cooking. They also recommended that for
evening cooking, the melting temperature of a PCM
should be between 105°C and 110°C.
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 81
Table 1. Examples of Thermal Storage Research
Author Analysis Findings Remarks
Mussard et
al., (2013)
Compared oil and aluminum-
based heat storage systems
Oil based system is
more efficient
The Aluminium storage cannot be
charged over 200°C in a reasonable
time.
Mawire et
al., (2014)
Compared heating powers of
sunflower oil, Shell Thermia B,
and Shell Thermia C oils
The oils had similar
performance
Sunflower attained a maximum
temperature of about 235°C.
Abdel-
Rehim
(2007)
Heat transfer through Steel,
glass and pebbles as storage
media with oil as working fluid
Steel charged up in
four cycles while the
pebbles charging up
in two cycles
Attributed to their different thermal
and physical properties
Buddhi et
al., (2003)
Commercial grade acetanilide
as a phase change material
(PCM) for a cooker with three
reflectors.
Energy storage
doesn’t affect noon
cooking performance
and stored energy
could be utilized for
late evening cooking
Recommended a PCM melting
temperature for evening cooking of
between 105°C and 110°C
iii. Design / Vessel Geometry
Research has shown that the shape, size, and type of
solar cookers affect performance and cooking time.
(Muthusivagami et al., 2010) investigated the effect
of enhanced food vessel geometries to increase heat
transfer on thermal and radiation performance
optimization of solar cookers. In another study,
Harmim et al, (2008) applied geometry (truncated
pyramids) in their finned cooking vessel to improve
efficiency without resorting to sun tracking systems.
A comparison of a normal vessel with one having fins
on the lateral external surface showed an average of
7.49W difference in power. The cooking vessels had
the same volume and shape; fins therefore, improved
the transfer of hot air towards the vessel interior
considerably reducing cooking time. Other
modifications include mirrors added to solar cookers
to concentrate more radiation. Focus being on the
effect of their configuration such as varied tilt angle,
length-to-width ratios (Zamani et al. 2016). Farooqui
(2015) improved the performance of a box cooker by
adding flat mirrors on both sides.
Incorporating well-insulated cooking chambers
ensure that heat is retained in either the food or some
thermal storage medium (Watkins et al., 2017). Nahar
et al., (1994) found that a hot box solar cooker with
40 mm Transparent Insulation Material (TIM) had a
stagnation temperature of 158°C compared with
117°C without the TIM. They were able to
successfully cook a variety of foods common in India.
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 82
Lids
Fins Vessels
Figure 4: Cooking Vessels (Without and With Fins) (Harmim et al., 2008)
iv. Solar Electric Cooking
The latest technology on PV conversion to electricity
focuses on induction and resistive pressure cookers
(Chakaborty, 2018). Unlike conventional solar
cooking technologies that rely on direct solar thermal
conversion, PV cooking is indirect enabling indoor
cooking. The electric energy could also be stored in
batteries for later use during periods of poor
irradiance. The idea of an electric stove was first
conceived in Britain in 1885, but was dismissed
because a stove without a true flame was deemed
“unsuitable in comparison to fossil-fuel burning
appliances. Eight years later, Crompton and Co.
marketed the first electric cooker. Its rate of domestic
acceptance was impeded by slow and unreliable and
elements poor electricity connectivity. By the 1930s,
most technical problems were overcome, and the
electric cooker could effectively compete with other
cooking equipment (Probert, 1985).
a) Modern Solar Cookers
i. Indirect Cookers
In indirect solar cookers, the cooking vessel is
physically detached from the solar collector with a
medium to convey the collected energy to the cooking
pot. Examples are cookers with flat plate collector,
evacuated tube collector and concentrating type
collector (Mohammadreza et al., 2014). These require
some form of thermal storage medium that can be
latent heat thermal or sensible heat thermal energy
storage (Mawire 2015). Others are solar PV cookers
in that energy is converted to electricity and
transmitted through electric cables or stored in
batteries for later use. (Batchelor et al., 2015 and
Watkins et al., 2017).
ii. Insulated Solar Electric Pressure
Cookers (ISECs)
Compared to conventional solar cookers that rely on
direct thermal conversion of sunlight, ISECs first
converts the sunlight to electricity, physically
disconnecting the collection of solar energy from the
cooking (Watkins et al., 2017). Most households are
however not aware that when non-monetary cost of
using biomass are included, electricity is almost
always ‘cost effective’. (Nerini et al., 2017).
Joshi et al., (2015) presented a Photovoltaic thermal
hybrid solar cooker that integrated a solar box cooker
with five PV panels each of 15W connected to an
electrical heater. This reduced cooking time and
electrical energy stored by a battery increased
flexibility on when to cook. Outdoor testing of the
prototype cooker, attained boiling temperature within
40 minutes compared to 70 mins during indoor
testing. Their Improved Small-Scale Box Type
Hybrid (ISSBH) specially designed for a small family
attained 38% efficiency and could cook upto five
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 83
meals per day. In an attempt to improve hot air
circulation, Saxena et al., (2018) attached a 200W
halogen lamp into a trapezoidal duct to a box cooker
with copper balls. They reported that on forced
convection, the cooker consumed low energy rate of
about 210W and performed efficiently in all climatic
conditions. Overall efficiency increased to 45.11%,
estimated cooking power was 60.20W and overall
heat loss coefficient of about 6.01W/m2 °C. Mahavar
et al., (2017) introduced a solar cum electric cooker
and tested it using a novel analytical method of
calculating “required electric back-up power” (Prb).
Their design was able remove limitation of nighttime
cooking or periods of poor irradiance. Their
experimental and calculated values of Prb were nearly
equal with outdoor and indoor efficiencies of 33% and
52% respectively. The SBC was able to cook food
within 80 minutes on power back-up of between
130W to 170W).
Watkins et al., (2017) Developed an Insulated solar
electric cooker by directly connecting a low wattage
solar panel to a heater inside a cooking chamber. They
made their heating element using a 26-gauge Nickel-
Chromium (NiCr) wire (resistance of 8.14 Ω/m)
immersed in a concrete tile 1.3 cm thick. The chamber
was made from a 5-gallon steel drum insulated with
fiberglass to reduce heat loss from the container. The
authors used a simplified cylindrical model to get a
rough estimate of the thermal behavior, (hollow
cylindrical cooking chamber and two disks above and
below the cooking chamber). The ISEC was able to
completely cook a raw meal, keep food warm after
being removed from fire and significantly reduced
power demand and therefore cost. The cooker was
also safer for both the users and the environment.
Figure 5: An Insulated Solar Electric Cooker (ISEC). (Watkins et al., 2017)
Batchelor et al. (2019) investigated the feasibility of
using solar PVs as the energy source for cooking.
They focused on minimizing heat loss without
compromising important cultural meal preparation
processes. They presented a prototype 300W solar
home system e-cooker powered by 48V batteries to
enhance reliability under poor sunshine conditions. A
resistive heating element was placed inside a
stainless-steel pot with fiber glass sheet and glass
wool insulation. Their cooking pan was also insulated
on all sides except for the bottom, to allow heat from
the stove to the pan. Once the pan was taken from the
stove, it was placed on an insulated base to ensure that
additional cooking takes place through preserving of
the heat inside the pan. They were able to show that a
well-insulated chamber could drastically reduce heat
loss raising efficiency of hot plates from less than 70%
to about 90% and that it is possible to cook with a
power source less than 500W. They also
recommended that cooking system redesign should
take into account not just the technical aspects but
also, human preference for when and how cooking
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 84
occurs. They also presented a cost analysis showing
that such a cooker could be cost effective in off-grid
areas if connected to a properly designed Solar Home
System. An ultra-efficient DC Electric Pressure
Cooker (EPC) that drew power from a lithium ion
attery was presented by Leary et al. (2019). This
cooker combined with efficient cooking practices was
able to cut the cooking time of long boiling dishes like
beans in half. Their prototyping showed that it was
possible to assemble a compact, affordable and
energy-efficient direct DC eCook device that can cook
both ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ foods.
Figure 7: A Sectional View of a DC Electric Pressure Cooker – (CLASP, 2019)
A: Pressure Release Valve: B: Locking Pin: C: Thermal Fuse: D: Secondary Pressure Relief
Valve: E: Temperature Sensor: F: Pressure Sensor: G: Pressurizing Seal: H: Insulation: I:
Interface Control mechanism J: Hot Plate:
3.0 ADOPTION
One of the main obstacles in the widespread
application of solar cookers is social acceptance
(Aramesh et al., 2019). Most research and
improvements are not adopted in practice as direct
cookers require users to be outdoors during its use. In
an attempt to understand why people, use or disuse
solar cookers, Bashir, (2004) employed a theoretical
study of technology, sociology, interviews,
workshops and direct observation. They found that
many could not adjust their daily routine to match
solar box requirements while others lacked suitable
storage for their solar cookers. Otte. (2013) developed
a list of variables that influence the adoption of
technical improvements of solar cookers: These
include (1) Economic, (2) Social, (3) Cultural, (4)
Environmental, (5) Political and (6) Technical. They
proposed that technology developers not only
consider technical aspects but also the conditions of
prospective users in technology development
processes. Harmim et al., (2013) designed a double
exposure solar box cooker integrated into a building
wall such that the cooking vessel could be accessed
from inside the house. It consisted of a non-tracking,
fixed asymmetric compound parabolic concentrator
and absorber-plate bent like a step. This reflector
enabled the absorber plate to reach a maximum
Electric Pressure Cooker Charge Controller
3.Insulation
Solar PV Panel
BATTERY
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 85
temperature of 166°C and 165°C for hot and cold
seasons respectively. With a standardized cooking
power of 78.9W under no load conditions, the cooker
could make two meals per day for a family of four,
even in cold seasons. In a different design, an absorber
plate is placed directly behind the double glazing of
an insulated box. Solar radiation incident on the
horizontal aperture is reflected through the glazing
towards the absorber plate by the concentrator. The
authors separately developed a mathematical model to
predict the thermal behavior of the cooker under
transient conditions which demonstrated promising
competitiveness and performance (Harmim et al.,
2012).
Essen (2004) Developed an indirect solar cooking
system using vacuum-tube collectors with heat pipes
containing a refrigerant as a working fluid. The spatial
separation of the collector and oven unit allowed
cooking in the shade or even in conventional kitchens
eliminating the risk of being blinded by concentrated
sunlight. The cooker could provide high thermal
power and temperatures without tracking and was able
to obtain short heat-up times. The maximum
temperature obtained in a pot containing 7litres of
edible oil was 175°C with cooking times of between
27 and 70 minutes. Arenas (2007) designed a low cost,
portable easy to use solar concentrating cooker that
could be folded like an umbrella. The cooker weighed
about 5 kg and required two and one minutes to
assemble and disassemble respectively. 175W of
thermal power and energy efficiency of 26.6% was
sufficient to cook a meal for two people in about two
hours.
In a comparison of three solar box cookers with
different types of soda lime silicate glazing: an
evacuated glazing, a double glazing, and a single
glazing coated with antimony-doped indium oxide
(IAO), A single side IAO coated glass, temperature of
cooker box rose above 100°C. Other advantages of
IAO over double glazing include its light weight, ease
of handling, and lower material cost which makes it
convenient for domestic cooking. (Ghosh et al., 2017)
Patel et al., (2000) compared thermal performances of
three solar concentrating cookers using stagnation
temperature, water heating and cooking tests.
Philippine and Chinese models made of Fresnel
concentrators and a German parabolic type. The
cookers attained maximum temperatures of 166°C,
256°C, and 280°C respectively under no-load
conditions. Their results indicated that the German
model was the most convenient and efficient.
A solar oven where a spiral concentrator supplied
energy was developed and simulation done to predict
its thermal behavior. The cooker consisted of a hot
box with insolation windows such that the reflected
radiation would heat the pot in the hot box from the
bottom or the side, depending on the season. This
oven showed greater promise over concentrated
cooker particularly due to its simplicity, higher
efficiency, ease of operation, ease of construction with
locally available materials (Khalifa et al., 1987).
4.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
To be successful in the global market, solar cookers
must be both economically and socially acceptable for
customers. Whereas direct solar cookers are more
economical than the indirect types, cooking is done
outside which is cumbersome if meal preparation is
done in multiple steps. Weather changes impact the
devices’ cooking abilities and the cooker needs to be
stored indoors when not in use. Current cookers can
only be used to cook specific foods. Indirect thermal
storage cookers are often expensive, occupy a large
space and require a sun tracking system to increase
their efficiency. Most cookers also lack desirable
visual appearance for both indoor and outdoor
applications (Aramesh et al., 2019).
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 86
Carmody et al., (1997) assessed solar power as an
economically viable and environmentally safe fuel
source. They examined the costs and benefits analysis
of solar box cookers (SBCs), and presented a
comprehensive energy plan for sustainable
development, potential benefit to traditionally
disempowered household groups and gender relations
in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors also proposed that
the cost of domestic workloads and environmental
degradation be considered in national income
accounting.
5.0 CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper reviews the development of solar energy
as an alternative energy source for domestic cooking.
The scope covers the history of solar cooking, from
traditional cookers, and their improvements leading to
modern solar cookers. Several researchers have
focused on solving adoption challenges with a major
focus on maximizing the efficiency of the available
radiation, through solar tracking and modification of
vessel geometry. Flexibility on when to cook and the
capacity of energy storage systems is a challenge
addressed through research on insulation, indirect
cooking, thermal storage, and solar electric cooking.
It is evident that despite its huge potential, the
adoption of solar energy for cooking is still low
despite all the research done to improve efficiency and
convenience such as sheltered or indoor cooking.
In Sub-Saharan Africa and the developing world,
Solar energy is not considered as a priority cooking
energy source among the communities. It is unlikely
that consumers will venture into solar as a primary
cooking energy source unless they are fully developed
and promoted. Technology developers need to invest
in disassociating energy collection from cooking
devices, increasing energy storage capacity and
improving efficiency. Sensitivity towards cultural
diversity, perceptions of different decision-making
groups and conditions of prospective users should also
be incorporated in the technology development
processes. Gender inequity, the cost of domestic
workloads and environmental degradation should also
be a factor in energy policy formulation
REFERENCES
Abdel-Rehim, Z. S. (2007). Heat Transfer Analysis of
Different Storing Media Using Oil as Working
Fluid. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 29(12),
1081–1096.
Al-Soud, M. S., Abdallah, E., Akayleh, A., Abdallah,
S., & Hrayshat, E. S. (2010). A parabolic solar
cooker with automatic two axes sun tracking
system. Applied Energy, 87(2), 463–470.
Arenas, J. M. (2007). Design, development and testing
of a portable parabolic solar kitchen. Renewable
Energy, 32(2), 257–266.
Batchelor, S., Brown, E., Leary, J., Scott, N., Alsop,
A., & Leach, M. (2018). Solar electric cooking in
Africa: Where will the transition happen first?
Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 257–272.
Batchelor, S., Talukder, M., Uddin, M., Mondal, S.,
Islam, S., Redoy, R., … Khan, M. (2018). Solar
e-Cooking: A Proposition for Solar Home System
Integrated Clean Cooking. Energies, 11(11),
2933.
Batchelor, S., Brown, E., Leary, J., Scott, N., Alsop,
A., & Leach, M. (2018). Solar electric cooking in
Africa: Where will the transition happen first?
Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 257–272.
Buddhi, D., & Sahoo, L. K. (1997). Solar cooker with
latent heat storage: Design and experimental
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 87
testing. Energy Conversion and Management,
38(5), 493–498.
Buddhi, D., Sharma, S.., & Sharma, A. (2003).
Thermal performance evaluation of a latent heat
storage unit for late evening cooking in a solar
cooker having three reflectors. Energy
Conversion and Management, 44(6), 809–817.
Cuce, P. M. (2018). Box type solar cookers with
sensible thermal energy storage medium: A
comparative experimental investigation and
thermodynamic analysis. Solar Energy, 166, 432–
440.
Cuce, E., & Cuce, P. M. (2013). A comprehensive
review on solar cookers. Applied Energy, 102,
1399–1421. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.002
url to share this paper:
Esen, M. (2004). Thermal performance of a solar cooker
integrated vacuum-tube collector with heat pipes
containing different refrigerants. Solar Energy,
76(6), 751–757.
Farooqui, S. Z. (2013). A vacuum tube based improved
solar cooker. Sustainable Energy Technologies
and Assessments, 3, 33–39.
Farooqui, S. Z. (2015). Angular optimization of dual
booster mirror solar cookers – Tracking free
experiments with three different aspect ratios.
Solar Energy, 114, 337–348.
Farooqui, S. Z. (2013). A vacuum tube based improved
solar cooker. Sustainable Energy Technologies
and Assessments, 3, 33–39.
Farooqui, S. Z. (2014). A review of vacuum tube based
solar cookers with the experimental determination
of energy and exergy efficiencies of a single
vacuum tube-based prototype. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 439–445.
Farooqui, S. Z. (2015). An improved power free
tracking system for box type solar cookers. Solar
Energy, 120, 100–103.
Farooqui, S. Z. (2013). A gravity-based tracking system
for box type solar cookers. Solar Energy, 92, 62–
68.
Ghosh, S. S., Biswas, P. K., & Neogi, S. (2017).
Thermal performance of solar cooker with special
cover glass of low-e antimony doped indium
oxide (IAO) coating. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 113, 103–111.
Harmim, A., Merzouk, M., Boukar, M., & Amar, M.
(2012). Mathematical modeling of a box-type
solar cooker employing an asymmetric compound
parabolic concentrator. Solar Energy, 86(6),
1673–1682.
Harmim, A., Merzouk, M., Boukar, M., & Amar, M.
(2013). Design and experimental testing of an
innovative building-integrated box type solar
cooker. Solar Energy, 98, 422–433.
Harmim, A., Merzouk, M., Boukar, M., & Amar, M.
(2013). Design and experimental testing of an
innovative building-integrated box type solar
cooker. Solar Energy, 98, 422–433.
Harmim, A., Boukar, M., & Amar, M. (2008).
Experimental study of a double exposure solar
cooker with finned cooking vessel. Solar Energy,
82(4), 287–289.
Joshi, S. B., & Jani, A. R. (2015). Design, development
and testing of a small-scale hybrid solar cooker.
Solar Energy, 122, 148–155.
Jon Leary. Batchelor, E. Brown, M. Leach, M.
Chepkemoi, R. Hanlin, N. Ng’oma, F. Mwila,
W. Hlaing, S. Sago, A. Minja, K. Chepkurui,
K.S. NG, X. Chen, R. Khan (2018)
capturing_the_experience_of_electric_cooking_
with_ethno-engineering.pdf
Khalifa, A. M. A., Taha, M. M. A., & Akyurt, M.
(1987). Design, simulation, and testing of a new
concentrating type solar cooker. Solar Energy,
38(2), 79–88.
Kimambo, C. Z. M. (2017). Development and
performance testing of solar cookers. Journal of
Energy in Southern Africa, 18(3), 41–51.
Kumaresan, G., Vigneswaran, V. S., Esakkimuthu,
S., & Velraj, R. (2016). Performance assessment
of a solar domestic cooking unit integrated with
thermal energy storage system. Journal of Energy
Storage, 6, 70–79.
Mahavar, S., Sengar, N., & Dashora, P. (2017).
Analytical model for electric back-up power
Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment. Volume 7. No.1 2021 88
estimation of solar box type cookers. Energy, 134,
871–881.
Mahavar, S., Sengar, N., & Dashora, P. (2017).
Analytical model for electric back-up power
estimation of solar box type cookers. Energy, 134,
871–881.
Mawire, A. (2016). Experimental de-stratification and
heat loss in a storage tank containing different
thermal oils. Journal of the Brazilian Society of
Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 39(6),
2279–2288.
Mawire, A., Phori, A., & Taole, S. (2014). Performance
comparison of thermal energy storage oils for
solar cookers during charging. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 73(1), 1323–1331.
Mawire, A. (2016). Performance of Sunflower Oil as a
sensible heat storage medium for domestic
applications. Journal of Energy Storage, 5, 1–9.
Mawire, A., Taole, S. H., & Van den Heetkamp, R. R.
J. (2013). Experimental investigation on
simultaneous charging and discharging of an oil
storage tank. Energy Conversion and
Management, 65, 245–254.
Muthusivagami, R. M., Velraj, R., &
Sethumadhavan, R. (2010). Solar cookers with
and without thermal storage—A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
14(2), 691–701.
Mussard, M., & Nydal, O. J. (2013). Comparison of oil
and aluminum-based heat storage charged with a
small-scale solar parabolic trough. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 58(1-2), 146–154.
Mendoza, J. M. F., Gallego-Schmid, A., Schmidt
Rivera, X. C., Rieradevall, J., & Azapagic, A.
(2019). Sustainability assessment of home-made
solar cookers for use in developed countries.
Science of The Total Environment, 648, 184–196.
Nahar, N. M., Marshall, R. H., & Brinkworth, B. J.
(1994). Studies on a hot box solar cooker with
transparent insulation materials. Energy
Conversion and Management, 35(9), 787–791.
Nerini F., Ray, C., & Boulkaid, Y. (2017). The cost of
cooking a meal. The case of Nyeri County,
Kenya. Environmental Research Letters, 12(6),
065007.
Otte, P. P. (2013). Solar cookers in developing
countries—What is their key to success? Energy
Policy, 63, 375–381.
Patel, N.., & Philip, S. . (2000). Performance evaluation
of three solar concentrating cookers. Renewable
Energy, 20(3), 347–355.
Saxena, A., & Agarwal, N. (2018). Performance
characteristics of a new hybrid solar cooker with
air duct. Solar Energy, 159, 628–637.
Simon Batchelor (2015) Solar Electric Cooking in
Africa in 2020 A synthesis of the possibilities
Schwarzer, K., & da Silva, M. E. V. (2008).
Characterisation and design methods of solar
cookers. Solar Energy, 82(2), 157–163.
Watkins T., Arroyoa P, Perryb R, Wanga R,
Arriagac O, Flemingd M, C. O'Daya, I.
Stoneb,J. Sekeraka, D. Masta, N. Hayesc, P.
Kellere, P. Schwartzb, (2017). Insulated Solar
Electric Cooking – Tomorrow's healthy
affordable stoves? Development Engineering,
Zamani, H., Moghiman, M., & Kianifar, A. (2015).
Optimization of the parabolic mirror position in a
solar cooker using the response surface method
(RSM). Renewable Energy, 81, 753–759.
Zamani, H., Mahian, O., Rashidi, I., Lorenzini, G., &
Wongwises, S. (2016). Exergy Optimization of a
Double-Exposure Solar Cooker by Response
Surface Method. Journal of Thermal Science and
Engineering Applications, 9(1), 011003.