Energy 36 (2011) 5710e5715

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

An exergy based test protocol for truncated pyramid type solar box cooker
Naveen Kumar*, G. Vishwanath, Anurag Gupta
IIITD&M Kancheepuram, IIT Madras Campus, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600036, India

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 31 December 2010 Received in revised form 16 May 2011 Accepted 20 June 2011 Available online 30 July 2011 Keywords: Truncated pyramid solar box cooker Exergy analysis Heat loss coefcient Quality factor Peak exergy temperature gap product

a b s t r a c t
Developing a test standard/protocol for solar box type cookers has drawn a considerable interest among the researchers throughout the world. Recent publications on solar cookers emphasize the need of introducing the thermal performance indicators determined through exergy analysis. In the present paper, the time variation of instantaneous exergy output and energy output as function of its temperature and also of the instantaneous ambient temperature have been reported for truncated pyramid type solar box cooker and compared with those of box type cooker. Further, variations in the exergy lost with temperature difference have been depicted for the selected water temperature range from 60  C to 95  C. Based on this study, quality factor, exergy temperature difference gap product, and heat loss coefcient are determined and are proposed as benchmark parameters of solar cookers thermal performance. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction SBC (Solar box type cooker) is a very useful and popular thermal device which is available throughout the world. It is one of the few renewable energy thermal gadgets which are portable, user friendly, easily operable, meant to fulll the very basic need and economically competitive. Its affordable price makes it very attractive commercially, especially among the rural populace in the developing countries. A reasonable interest has been shown by the scientists, from time to time, in proposing various parameters which can be considered as the measure of its thermal performance. Mullick et al. [1,2] conducted no load and full load tests on SBC and recommended two gures of merit (F1 and F2), as the measure of its thermal performance. Subsequently, these parameters were also accepted by BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) [3] as the benchmark indicators of its thermal performance. Funk and Larson [4] and Funk [5] stressed the need for international standards and proposed cooking power/standardized cooking power as a new parameter for performance evaluation of SBC. Standardized cooking power obtained by this method [5] was proposed to be an estimation of SBCs fuel ratings. Variations in the standardized cooking power and F2 with mass of the cooking uid were reported by Sebaii and Ibrahim [6]. Ishan [7] discussed the effects of instrumentation error on performance of SBC. Pranab et al. [8]

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 91 44 22578555. E-mail address: vatsnaveen@yahoo.co.in (N. Kumar). 0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.06.046

reviewed and identied the correlations between thermal performance indicators of SBC. Pohekar et al. [9] assigned utility values to various cooking devices to judge their usefulness to common man with special reference to SPC and the Harmim et al. [10] presented the results of water heating tests on SBC with nned absorber plate. The nancial [11], economic [12] and multi-objectives analysis [13] have been also carried out by different authors from time to time. In all above mentioned thermal performance evaluation processes, energy based approach is employed. But, the benchmark parameters derived from the energy based method does not provide complete information and are inadequate performance indicators because their values can be misleadingly high or low depending on the temperature difference between source and sink, even though input energy condition may remain same. In the recent times, a considerable interest has been shown in solar cookers of different geometries for formulating a test standard based on exergy analysis. Ozturk [14,15] has estimated the energy output, exergy output and the respective efciencies for SPC (solar parabolic type cooker) and SBC. Petela [16] developed an analytical tool for analysing the exergy output of cylindrical parabolic trough type solar cooker and details of the exergy analysis for SBC have been also upgraded by him [17]. Kaushik and Gupta [18] has reported experimental study of full load tests on SPCs and carried out the exergy output and exergy efciencies of domestic and community type solar cookers. However, the energy and exergy balance of a TPSBC (truncated pyramid type solar box cooker) has not been reported so far. In the present manuscript, the energy and exergy output of TPSBC and their variations with time and also as a function of water and

N. Kumar et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 5710e5715

5711

Nomenclature A c Eo Exi Exo F1 F2 G m n Tam Tf Ti Ts Dt gross area of glazing surface, m2 specic heat capacity of water, J/kg K output energy, J input exergy, kJ output exergy, kJ rst gure of merit, m2 K/W second gure of merit instantaneous solar insolation, W/m2 mass of water, kg number of reections at side walls instantaneous ambient temperature, K nal water temperature, K initial water temperature, K surface temperature of sun, K time interval, s

aluminum and are having diameters 160 (10) mm and height 70 (10) mm. The bottom absorbing plate as well as cooking pots is painted mat black to absorb the maximum solar energy falling on them. 3. Test methodology/protocol As per the proposed method, only full load test should be conducted on solar cookers, wherein cooking pots are lled with water and kept inside the cooking tray. Keeping in mind the consideration that the test conditions should resemble the real time/actual cooking environment, it is proposed to impose the minimum limitations on test/ambient conditions during the test period so that almost all of the acquired data could be used in assessing the performance of the device. In principle, the test condition should take care of the real e time cooking circumstances i.e. in the beginning of the test, the water temperature should be of similar magnitude as that of ambient temperature and the test should start before 10.30 a.m. Based on these considerations, it is proposed that the full load test should start at/around 10.10 a.m. and the water temperature inside the cooking vessels should be a few degrees (5  Ce10  C) higher than the ambient temperature at the begin e time of the test. The water temperature inside the vessel should be observed at an interval of every 5 min and the testing may be stopped as the water temperature crosses 95  C. The variations in the insolation (peak to valley) can be as high as 300 W/m2. The wind speed during the testing may vary from 1 m/s to 3 m/s [3,5]. The probe/sensors employed in measuring parameters viz. temperature, insolation etc. should not give error greater than 1% of the measured value of the recorded data. The average solar insolation during the testing period should be greater than 600 W/m2. The data points corresponding to the solar insolation less than 500 W/m2, and the peak to valley insolation difference greater than 300 W/m2, can be neglected in performing analytical calculations for determining the proposed performance indicators. Higher uctuations in insolation increases the variabilties caused by thermal inertial effects, which may supply bad data [3,5]. However, in an exergy based approach, more variations in the solar insolation can be accommodated due to the involvement of term related to ambient temperature, which can offset these effects to some extent. 3.1. Energy analysis of the TPSBC For the steady-state ow process during nite time intervalDt, the overall energy balance equation for SBC can be written as

Greek letters q concentrating angle, degrees a angle of incidence, degrees hE energy efciency hX exergy efciency ambient temperature is discussed. The results obtained for TPSBC are also compared with those calculated for SBC. Based on the exergy analysis, four different parameters, which can act as the thermal performance indicators, have been proposed. These are named as peak exergy, quality factor, exergy temperature difference gap product, heat loss coefcient and are determined for SBC and TPSBC. 2. Truncated pyramid type solar cooker (TPSBC) A truncated pyramid shaped solar cooker/oven was designed and constructed by Kumar et al. [19]. Owing to the geometry of the design (see Fig. 1), rays hitting the inner side walls (made of highly reective anodized aluminum) of the truncated pyramid concentrator are reected downward so as to create a zone of high temperature at the bottom. In such geometry, larger value of concentrating angle q leads to smaller size of the bottom absorbing plate, which results in higher concentration ratio. However, there is a restriction on the angle q and the numbers of reections (n) in such geometry [14] so that incident rays reach the bottom absorbing plate after undergoing reection at the side walls and it is expressible through

Energy gained by water in the vessel Energy supplied to water in the vessel Energy lost from water in the vessel (2)

2n 1 1q a

90

(1)

Where, n is the number of reections, and a is the rays angle of incidence on the glass glaze surface. If the incident radiations do not satisfy this condition, rays will reverse their path leading to their exit from the concentrator. For the time period of 7 h (typical average sunshine hours in a day), maximum value of the angle a  would be 52 . Assuming n 1, the maximum permissible value  (using Eq. (1)) of the angle q z 12 . In our conceptual design,  q z 10 , which also gives the approximate optimum size of bottom absorbing plate. Further, the glazed surface of the fabricated cooker is made of glass of dimension 50 cm 50 cm as is generally chosen in standard domestic SBC used in India. The size of the aluminum bottom absorbing plate is 32.6 cm 32.6 cm. The depth of the device (distance between the glazing surface and the bottom absorbing plate) is 49.2 cm (see Fig. 2). The two cooking pots are made of

The energy gained by water in the vessel kept inside the cooker can be considered as the output energy Eo of the system (in kJ) and is given as

  Eo mc Tf Ti

(3)

Where, m and c are the mass (kg) and specic heat capacity of the water J=kg k respectively. Tf and Ti are the instantaneous nal and initial temperatures (K) of the water during the full load test. In the expression above, the output energy depends only on the difference in nal and initial values of temperatures Tf Ti but in actual practice, ambient temperature as well as the initial and nal temperature values also play the role in deciding the efciency of the system, and this kind of qualitative effect can not be

5712

N. Kumar et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 5710e5715

Fig. 1. Truncated pyramid type solar cooker (TPSBC).

accommodated in the energy based approach. Funk [5] plotted the adjusted cooking power 700Eo =GDt against the temperature difference Tf Tam , where Tf Tam is the difference in the instantaneous water temperature and the instantaneous ambient temperature. The linear regression line obtained by curve tting of the plotted points is used to nd the relationship between adjusted cooking power and the temperature difference in terms of intercept and slope. However, the standardized cooking power [5] provided by this method does not represent the actual cooking potential of the cooker as value of the intercept is obtained from extrapolation of the regression line which in turn depends on the time, place, and circumstances during testing at the specic location. The energy supplied to water in the vessel kept inside the cooker can be considered as the input energy Ei of the system (in kJ) and is written as

  Mc Tf Ti Eo hE GADt Ei

(5)

3.2. Exergy analysis of TPSBC For the steady-state ow process during a nite time interval, the overall exergy balance equation for SBC can be written as

Output Exergy from SBC Input Exergy to SBC Exergy lost from SBC (6)

Ei GADt
2

(4)

Where, G is the instantaneous solar insolation (W/m ) recorded over a time intervalDt, during the test period; A is the gross area (m2) of the glazing surface of TPSBC. Thus, the instantaneous energy efciency hE of the system can be dened as the ratio of the energy gained by water to the ratio of the energy supplied to water and is expressed below

The exergy of solar radiation, as the exergy input EXi to the solar cooker, can be calculated using the available solar energy ux GADt and is expressible through Eq. (7) which has the widest acceptability [15,16].

EXi

#   1 Tam 4 4Tam ADt G 1 3Ts 3 Ts "

(7)

where, Ts is surface temperature of sun. The suns black body temperature of 5762 K results in a solar spectrum concentrated primarily in the 0.3e3.0 mm wavelength band [20,21]. Although the surface temperature of the sun Ts varies due to the spectral distribution of sunlight on the earths surface, the value of 5800 K has been considered for performing calculations. The exergy gained by water in the vessel kept inside the cooker due to rise in temperature can be considered as the output exergy EXo [16e20] of the system and is expressed as

Tf EXo Eo mcTam ln Ti

(8)

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram/model of TPSBC with cooking vessels.

The beauty of the exergy analysis/approach is self evident in this expression as, in addition toTf Ti , it also considers the effect of ambient temperature as well as the absolute values of initial and nal temperature on output exergy. The second term on the right hand side of this expression signies the exergy losses elucidating the true potential of the system in converting the input energy. Thus, exergy analysis is a more complete synthesis tool because it

N. Kumar et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 5710e5715

5713

Energy Output (kJ)

70 60 Temperature ( oC) 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 11 Time (Hr) 12 13 Temperature Difference Ambient Temperature Insolation

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

25 20 15 10 5 0 10 11 Time (Hr) 12 Energy Exergy 13

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Exergy Output (kJ)

Insolation (W/m2)

Fig. 4. Variations in exergy output and energy output with time for TPSBC.

Fig. 3. Variations in the temperature difference, ambient temperature and the insolation with time during testing of TPSBC.

accounts for the temperatures associated with energy transfers to and from the cooker, as well as the quantities of energy transferred, and consequently provides a measure of how nearly the cooker approaches ideal efciency. Thus, the instantaneous exergy efciency hX of the system can be dened as the ratio of the exergy gained by water to the ratio of the exergy supplied to water and is depicted as

hX

E Xo EXi

#   1 Tam 4 4Tam ADt G 1 3 Ts 3Ts "

Eo mcTam ln

Tf Ti

(9)

Here, we propose to plot a graph between output exergy power and temperature difference and t the data points with second order polynomial; temperature difference is the difference in the instantaneous water temperature and ambient temperature. From the tted curve, it is easier to obtain the peak value of exergy, which is very near to the actual value of the instantaneous peak exergy output. The temperature difference gap corresponding to the half exergy points of the curve can be determined. The exergy lost during the test period can also be plotted against temperature difference so as to estimate the overall heat loss coefcient of the cooker. 4. Experiment For conducting full load test, two cooking vessels were lled with 2 L of water and were placed on bottom surface of the cooking tray inside the TPSBC. During this test, the booster mirror was covered with black cloth. For measuring water temperature during full load test, we placed a calibrated RTD (PT 1000) sensor, in one of the cooking pots with its measuring tip submerged in the water. The temperature probe lead was sealed at the point it left the

cooking pots and the cooker. Ambient temperature was measured by a calibrated RTD sensor placed inside Stevenson box. For observing real-time insolation, a pyranometer (Kipp & Zonen make) was placed at one of the corner of the glazing/aperture of the cooker. The output terminals of all these sensors were connected to the Data logger, which was programmed through software Delogger Plus so as to observe the real-time data on computer. The time interval between two successive readings of various variables/parameters, recorded on computer, was kept as 5 min. The full load test was started in the morning around 10.10 a.m. of Indian standard time and the initial water and ambient temperature were 43.18  C and 33.43  C, respectively. The water temperature inside the vessels reached Tf 90.6  C from Ti 60  C in 70 min. The accuracy in measurement of temperature, mass of water, area and insolation was 0.1  C, 0.1 kg, 0.01 cm2 and 1 W/m2, respectively. The ambient temperature, temperature difference and insolation variation with time during full load test is shown in Fig. 3. The values of maximum, minimum and arithmetic mean of various variables viz. temperature difference, exergy, energy input/output and respective efciency etc. for TPSBC and SBC are tabulated in Table 1for comparison. The necessary Data for performing these calculations is taken from Kumar et al. [19] for TPSBC and Kumar [22] for SBC. From the Fig. 3, the maximum and minimum values of insolation can be observed to be 929 W/m2 and 376 W/m2, at 11.10 a.m. and 10.15 a.m., respectively. The Fig. 3 also indicates that the water temperature is rising over the ambient temperature almost linearly despite some changes in the insolation level. In the beginning, at 10.10 a.m., the temperature difference was 9.75  C and at 12.30 p.m., it was 97  C. 5. Results and discussion The variations in the energy output and exergy output as a function of time for TPSBC are presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen

Table 1 Calculated parameters for TPSBC and SBC during the full load test period. Sr.No Variables Solar Box Cooker (SBC) [22] m 2 kg Maximum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Temperature Difference ( C) Energy Input (Watts) Energy Output (Watts) Exergy Input (Watts) Exergy Output (Watts) Insolation (W/m2) Energy Efciency Exergy Efciency 59.20 202.61 75.87 188.13 7.30 827.00 0.3854 0.0390 Minimum 15.85 196.86 14.88 182.78 2.38 803.50 0.0748 0.0201 Mean 40.75 200.15 52.43 185.84 5.31 816.93 0.2621 0.0285 Truncated Pyramid Type Solar Box Cooker (TPSBC) [19] m 2 kg Maximum 61.28 232.30 69.60 215.86 7.70 929.30 0.3638 0.0389 Minimum 9.75 94.16 25.13 87.53 1.76 376.70 0.1098 0.0132 Mean 37.65 207.86 53.66 193.16 5.46 828.80 0.2652 0.0278

5714

N. Kumar et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 5710e5715

0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 10

TPSBC

Energy Efficiency

SBC

11

12 Time (Hr)

13

14

Fig. 5. Variations in energy efciencies with time for TPSBC and SBC. Fig. 7. Variations in exergy output power with temperature difference for SBC.

that the maximum and the minimum heat energy gained by the water in cooker is 20.8 kJ and 7.5 kJ at 11.05 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., respectively. Though, during the testing period, the insolation level is lowest at 10.15 a.m. but energy gained by the water is minimum at 12.30 p.m., when water temperature crosses 97  C. In contrast, the maximum and minimum exergy gained by the water in cooker is 2.3 kJ and 0.53 kJ, at 11.30 a.m. and 10.15 a.m., respectively, i.e. the exergy output is minimum when the insolation is the lowest. After 55 min of full load testing, the output energy of the cooker starts decreasing even though the insolation level remains almost stagnant and the water temperature approximately varies from 65  C to 97  C during this period. In comparison to output energy, output exergy remains almost constant for the time period of 30 min from 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. and during this period the temperature of the water approximately varies from 79  C to 90  C. Another interesting feature is the shift in the output exergy peak from that of the output energy peak on the time scale, which is a direct consequence of the decrease in the exergy lost after the water temperature becomes >60  C. It is well known that the amount of heat energy at higher temperature is more valuable than the same amount of heat energy at lower temperature and in energy analysis it is not possible to take into account such qualitative difference. Fig. 4 illustrates this evidence and strengthens the case of exergy based analysis as more complete synthesis tool because it accounts for the temperatures associated with energy transfers to and from the SBC, as well as the quantities of energy transferred. For sake of comparison, variations in energy and exergy efciencies of TPSBC and SBC with time are depicted in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, respectively. Both of the devices are showing similar trends in their responses but the differences are only due to alteration in the testing time and it is difcult to predict, which type of the cooker is the better one.

Fig. 8. Variations in exergy output power with temperature difference for TPSBC.

The variations in exergy output power for TPSBC and SBC with temperature difference are shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It can be observed from Fig. 7 that the maximum exergy output power for TPSBC is attained at a temperature difference of 44.18  C whereas it reached at a temperature difference of 38.4  C for SBC. The corresponding exergy half power points (H.E.Ps.) lie at temperature difference of 19.17  C and 69.17  C for TPSBC whereas H.E.Ps. for SBC are located at temperature difference of 16.2  C and 60.1  C. It should also be informed that the three points (see Fig. 3), when insolation is less than 500 W/m2, are not considered in performing the calculation/analysis outlined in this section for TPSBC. Based on the above analysis, we propose four different parameters, which can be considered as the benchmark indicators of the performance of the cookers. These are a) Peak Exergy power, b) Quality factor, c) Exergy temperature difference gap product, and d) Heat loss coefcient. Peak exergy power is the highest/maximum

0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 10

11

12 Time (Hr)

13

14

Exergy Power Lost (W)

Exergy Efficiency

TPSBC

SBC

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20

y = -1.023x + 92.73 R = 0.902

40

60

80

Temperature Difference (o C)
Fig. 9. Variations in exergy power lost with temperature difference for TPSBC.

Fig. 6. Variations in exergy efciencies with time for TPSBC and SBC.

N. Kumar et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 5710e5715

5715

Exergy Power Lost (W)

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 Temperature Difference (oC) y = -1.199x + 95.99 R = 0.885

6. Conclusion An energy and exergy balance for the TPSBC and SBC was carried out and the variations in their values with time and temperature difference were also compared. The peak exergy, exergy temperature difference gap product, quality factor, and the heat loss coefcient are the parameters which have been proposed for the rst time as performance indicators of the cooker and their values are calculated to be 7.124 W, 356.2 W K, 0.15, 4.09 W/m2K, respectively, for TPSBC. The values of these parameters for SBC are determined to be 9.95 W, 305.1 W K, 0.14, 4.89 W/m2K, respectively. Results show that exergy analysis of solar box cookers is a practical, comprehensive and realistic tool for solar cookers performance evaluation. References
[1] Mullick SC, Kandpal TC, Saxena AK. Thermal test procedure for box-type solar cookers. Solar Energy 1987;39(4):353e60. [2] Mullick SC, Kandpal TC, Kumar Subodh. Testing of box-type solar cookers: second gure of merit F2 and its variation with load and number of pots. Solar Energy 1996;57(5):409e13. [3] BIS 2000. IS 13429 (part 3): Indian standards solar e box type e specication part 3 test method (rst revision). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 2000. [4] Funk PA, Larson DL. Parametric model of solar cooker performance. Solar Energy 1998;62(1):63e8. [5] Funk PA. Evaluating the international standard procedure for testing solar cookers and reporting performance. Solar Energy 2000;68(1):1e7. [6] El-Sebaii AA, Ibrahim A. Experimental testing of a box type solar cooker using the standard procedure of cooking power. Renewable Energy 2005;30: 1861e71. [7] Purohit Ishan. Testing of solar cookers and evaluation of instrumentation error. Renewable Energy 2010;35:2053e64. [8] Pranab Lahker J, Samdarshi SK. A review of thermal performance parameters of box type solar cookers and identication of their correlation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14:1615e21. [9] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking devices with special reference to utility of parabolic solar cooker (PSC) in India. Energy 2006;31:1215e27. [10] Harmim A, Belhamel M, Boukar M, Amar M. Experimental investigation of a box-type solar cooker with a nned absorber plate. Energy 2010;35: 3799e802. [11] Kumar S, Rubab S, Kandpal TC, Mullick SC. Financial feasibility analysis of box type solar cookers in India. Energy 1996;21:1257e64. [12] Anoziea AN, Bakarea AR, Sonibarea JA, Oyebisib TO. Evaluation of cooking energy cost, efciency, impact on air pollution and policy in Nigeria. Energy 2007;32:1283e90. [13] Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS. A multi-objective analysis of cooking-energy alternatives. Energy 1994;19:469e78. [14] Ozturk HH. Experimental determination of energy and exergy efciency of solar parabolic-cooker. Solar Energy 2004;77:67e71. [15] Ozturk HH. Comparison of energy and exergy efciency for solar box and parabolic cookers. J Energy Engg 2007;133(1):53e62. [16] Petela R. Exergy analysis of the solar cylindrical-parabolic cooker. Solar Energy 2005;79:221e33. [17] Petela R. Engineering thermodynamics of thermal radiation for solar power utilization. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2010. [18] Kaushik SC, Gupta MK. Energy and exergy efciency comparison of community-size and domestic-size paraboloidal solar cooker performance. Energy for Sustainable Dev 2008;3:60e4. [19] Kumar Naveen, Agravat Sagar, Chavda Tilak, Mistry HN. Design and development of efcient multipurpose domestic solar cookers/dryers. Renewable Energy 2008;33:2207e11. [20] Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Solar Energy 2003;74: 469e88. [21] Edgerton Robert H. Second law and radiation. Energy 1980;5:693e707. [22] Kumar S. Thermal performance study of box type solar cooker from heating characteristic curves. Energy Conversion and Management 2004;45:127e39.

Fig. 10. Variations in exergy power lost with temperature difference for SBC.

exergy output power obtained through curve tting by plotting the graph between exergy output power and temperature difference. From Figs. 7 and 8, the peak exergy power of TPSBC and SBC is determined to be 7.124 W and 6.95 W, respectively and this can be realistically considered as a measure of devices fuel ratings. The ratio of the peak exergy power gained to the exergy power lost at that instant of time can be considered as the quality factor of the solar cooker. The quality factors for the devices are calculated to be 0.15 and 0.14, respectively, for TPSBC and SBC. A higher quality factor is always desirable. The product of the temperature difference gap corresponding to the half power points and the peak exergy power can also considered to be another benchmark indicator in this kind of analysis and its values are found to be 356.2 W K and 305.1 W K, respectively. Higher temperature difference gap means the lesser heat losses from the cooker. This kind of scheme is generally considered in electronics for elucidating the performance of a BJT amplier, as gain bandwidth product and also a quality factor in case of a notch/band pass lter. The cooker which attains higher exergy power at higher temperature difference is the better one. It has been also noticed that the variation in the exergy power lost with temperature difference is linear when temperature difference varies in the range of 60  C to 95  C (see Figs. 9,10). This range of temperature is also generally used in calculation/determination of F2, which is an important and well known performance indicator for SBC [1,2]. The heat loss coefcient of the device can be obtained by dividing the value of the slope of the line, obtained through linear curve tting of exergy power lost variations with temperature difference, by the value of glazing area. The values of the heat loss coefcients are then determined to be 4.09 W/m2K and 4.89 W/m2K. In this approach, we are not much dependent much on extrapolation and all performance indicators are realistically calculated from the graphs/data. The approach presented through this manuscript is comprehensive, realistic and exible for it can easily accommodate the effect of variations in solar insolation (peak to valley) can be >300 W/m2. The exergy output power, if required, can be converted into standardized exergy power on par with standardized cooking power. To establish a test standard for SBC, one may require more comprehensive testing and data analysis. However, the proposed parameters may stimulate the discussion and strengthen the case for exergy based test standards.