ARTICLE IN PRESS

Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266 www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Design, development and testing of a portable parabolic solar kitchen

M. Arenas Jose
cnica de Madrid (UPM), E.U. Ingenier a Te cnica Industrial, C/ Rondad de Valencia, 3, Universidad Polite Madrid 28012, Spain Received 2 July 2005; accepted 31 January 2006 Available online 23 March 2006

Abstract In this project we describe the design, manufacture and testing of a new portable solar kitchen with a large, parabolic solar reector that folds up into a small volume. Technical trials carried out with a prototype have determined that the solar kitchen reaches an average power scale of 175 W, with an energy efciency of 26.6%. This power scale provides sufcient energy to cook a simple meal for two people in an average time of 2 h. Improvements in the design have reduced the weight of the solar kitchen to less than 5 kg and the assembly and disassembly times to 2 and 1 min, respectively. Moreover, its competitive price (48.62 h) encourages the substitution of solar energy for conventional energy. The parabolic solar kitchen described here thus provides a portable, inexpensive, environmentally friendly food heating system that can improve the quality of life of needy people in the Third World and reduce consumption of conventional energy. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Parabolic solar kitchen; Portable; Energetic efciency; Payback period

1. Introduction Over the past few years, planetary climate change has demonstrated itself in numerous ways. One of the most outstanding examples has been the prevalence of prolonged droughts in the deprived areas of Africa (although also in other regions of Australia, America, etc.). Affected regions have experienced a considerable loss of vegetation, due not
Tel.: +34 91 336 76 94; fax: +34 91 336 76 77.

E-mail address: jmarenas@egi.upm.es. 0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2006.01.013

ARTICLE IN PRESS
258 J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266

only to the drought itself but also to the extensive forest res that these conditions provoke. The population of these regions is generally nomadic, has little or no access to resources, and uses wood res to heat food. The persistent droughts therefore add the loss of capacity to heat food to an already precarious situation. With the objective of contributing to a resolution of this situation, various sophisticated (and normally expensive) techniques have been developed. The most satisfactory systems are those based on the use of renewable energy (wind, tides, sun, etc.), since they give clean and inexpensive energy if selected with due consideration to their intended surroundings. In this spirit, it would seem advisable to analyse solar energy possibilities as a means of heating food in drought-affected areas since the regions in question normally have abundant solar radiation. In India, for example, the arid areas have an annual radiation of between 7600 and 8000 MJ m2 [1]. 1.1. Historical background of the solar kitchen The rst solar oven was made by the naturalist Louis Leclerck (17071788). Nevertheless, Horace-de-Saussure (17401799) was the rst technician to use solar energy to heat food. The French physicist Augustin Mouchot described the rst solar kitchen in his book La chaleur-solaire, published in Paris in 1869. This same book indicates that the British astronomer Sir John Herschel created the rst solar kitchen in South Africa between 1834 and 1838. Since that time, a great deal of work has been put into improving solar kitchens. The developments made during the second half of the 20th century are particularly important. At the beginning of the 1950s, a large solar kitchen was designed and manufactured using a reector [2,3]. Later on in the 1960s and 1970s, new types of reectors were made that improved the technical characteristics of the solar kitchen [47]. The limitations of these rst reecting solar kitchens (the requirement of constant readjustment towards the sun, complex design, etc.) motivated the almost simultaneous development of other solar kitchen systems. Among these, the most used were the solar oven and the solar hot box. In the solar oven design a solar collector was installed on the outside of the house, while the cooking chamber was located inside [8,9]. Although the energy output of the solar oven was good, it still needed constant re-adjustment towards the sun. It was large in volume, complex, and above all had a very high economic cost. The solar hot box was a closed, thermally insulated receptacle heated by a at reector oriented towards the sun [1012]. This system also needed constant re-adjustment towards the sun, and was greatly affected by the intermittence of solar radiation. For these reasons, over the past few years, investigation of solar kitchens has been focussed on improving technical performance (less frequent re-adjustment towards the sun, improved thermal insulation, etc.) and reducing manufacturing costs. 1.2. Portable solar kitchens A common characteristic of potential solar kitchen users is that they travel frequently (from their house to arable land, to the mountain, etc.). On many occasions, the areas they go to also change depending upon the agricultural or livestock season.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266 259

In addition, these users generally have little economic capacity and the cost of purchasing a solar kitchen must therefore be minimal. An increased use of free solar energy rather than conventional sources (coal, oil, etc.) will also improve the economic capacity of the population and reduce atmospheric contamination. Nevertheless the majority of solar kitchens are not conceived using these criteria, instead having complex designs and high manufacturing costs. Over the past few years, however, research has been carried out along these lines focussing basically on closed box systems with a parabolic reector [13]. In the case of closed box solar kitchens, efforts have been made to improve the thermal insulation of the receptacle and to increase its energy efciency [1416]. Standing out in this eld is the contribution of Nahar [17,18] who proposed the use of a double reector to decrease the frequency of solar re-adjustment and a new transparent insulation material (TIM) to minimise convection losses in the solar kitchen. Although the solar kitchen proposed by N.M. Nahar is reasonably priced (approximately 50 h in materials), its excessive weight (around 20 kg) and volume (560 560 180 mm3) make it difcult for the user to travel long distances without consuming additional transport resources. Moreover, the design does not improve on the typical closed box limitation of restricting access to the food during the cooking process, which in practice limits its use to baking. On the other hand, solar kitchens with a parabolic reector require large reection surfaces to obtain a sufciently high temperature. This imposes a complex design and tends to increase both weight and volume. For this reason most research has been carried out on xed solar kitchens, focussing on improvements in design such as the incorporation of new reector materials (aluminium lm, silver-polymer/silver-steel technology and stretched membrane technology) and the reduction of manufacturing costs [19,20]. However, the increasing demand for portable solar kitchens has encouraged researchers to open new lines of investigation that are attempting to nd a satisfactory solution to the problems previously described. The most outstanding progress in this eld took place in the nineties, when updated reector designs were put forward based on concave parabolic cylinders [21,22], the use of lighter reecting materials [23,24], or modular construction to make assembly and disassembly easier [25]. Despite the specic advantages given by these new designs, however, a satisfactory general solution was not found. In the present project a new solar kitchen with a foldable solar reector is therefore proposed, combining a large reection surface with a small volume when folded up. With reduced cost, minimum weight, and easy assembly and disassembly the proposed solar kitchen is very competitive when compared with other energy sources and solar kitchen designs. 2. Design The design of the kitchen incorporates both systemised design tools [26] and quality improvement techniques [27]. CAD (Inventor system) advanced techniques have been used in its design, allowing a three dimensional construction by means of solid molding. The parabolic solar collector is designed to be both adjustable and totally dismountable, with a screen and heat concentrator made from reective, elastic aluminium lm and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
260 J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266

having light, rigid, metallic parabolic rods to extend and fold up the screen as required. The solar collector is divided into two units: the support and the reector. The reector in turn is divided into three sub-units: the parabolic dish, the tray and the handle (Fig. 1). A prototype conceptual design has been achieved by means of three-dimensional CAD techniques and the simulation of various materials and joint movements. CAD system utilities allow the automatic production of blueprints for the manufacture of the solar collector components. The support is a tripod made with round aluminium tubes and at aluminium bars (alloy 6061, commercially named Simagaltok 61). The triangular structure has telescopic

Fig. 1. Schematic solar kitchen design: (a) support with telescopic legs, (b) assembly of reector on support, (c) automatic reector opening, (d) assembly of grid, (e) solid solar kitchen model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266 261

legs (maximum length 100 cm), giving the solar kitchen a stable footing on uneven ground and allowing any necessary inclination for the reector. The structure of the parabolic reector is made up of a central body (where the automatic opening mechanism is located) and a set of metal rods (some parabolic shaped, others straight) allowing the opening and closing of the reector. All the elements are constructed from aluminium (alloy 6061), and each parabolic rod has a length of 57 cm. The assembly achieves a reection surface 100 cm in diameter when the structure is completely open. To facilitate the automatic opening and closing of the structure, a special aluminium tube handle (alloy 6061) has been designed that screws into the central body.

Fig. 2. Solar kitchen components and assembly: (a) kitchen components and (b) ready for cooking.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
262 J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266

The reecting material is a lm of metallised polypropylene 45 mm thick, with a light reection index of 99.9% and traction resistance of 45 N/mm2 (MOPP CST 45, Type D designation). A parabolic framework for the reective surface is created using ten circulars sections, which are joined to the parabolic rods with double reinforced beading. Saucepans and frying pans can be placed on the tray, which is provided with a grill and an adjustment mechanism. Made of aluminium (alloy 6061), it is large and strong enough to allow the use of saucepans (preferably black) of up to 25 cm in diameter with a maximum capacity of 5 l. The low weight of this solar kitchen (4.75 kg all included), together with its low volume when folded (approximately the same as a conventional umbrella) make the kitchen easy to take anywhere. Additionally its simple design based on the use of threaded joints has reduced the assembly (2 min) and disassembly (1 min) times of the solar kitchen to a minimum. In Fig. 2 the solar kitchen is shown before and after assembly. 2.1. Performance and trials Numerous trials have been carried out to verify the performance of the solar kitchen. A black aluminium saucepan with 1.5 l of water was used in each trial. The ambient temperature was measured with a digital thermometer, and the temperature of the water was measured using a thermopar probe (transmitting the measurement to an electronic screen). The exposure time was 120 min, with a re-positioning of the reector every 20 min. Fig. 3 shows the temperature variation of the water over time for one of the trials (the 15th of April at 13:00 h in Madrid). Throughout the trial duration, the solar radiation received by the reector was measured using a calibrated photovoltaic solar panel. A simple analysis allows determination of the efciency of the solar kitchen by means of the following equation: Z Thermal energy used ma ca mc cc tf ti 100 100 26:6%, RT Solar energy received S I dT
0

(1)

Tra. water C 100 80 Tra. (C) 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40

Tra. Amb C

Radiation W/m2 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 90 100 110 120 Radiation (W/m2)

50

60

70

80

time (min)
Fig. 3. Variation of ambient temperature and water in the solar kitchen.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266 263

where ma is the water mass in saucepan (kg), ca the specic heat of water (J kg1 1C1), mc the saucepan mass (kg), cc the specic heat of saucepan (J kg1 1C1), tf the nal water temperature (1C), ti the initial water temperature (1C), S the reector cross-sectional area (m2), I the solar radiation (W m2 min1), T the time elapsed up to reaching a suitable cooking temperature (min). An analysis of the remaining trials reveals that this solar kitchen design has an average power output of 175 W and reaches suitable cooking temperatures after 3540 min of exposure. The results obtained conrm the ability of this solar kitchen to feed one or two people. A new prototype is being designed for larger groups, with a larger foldable parabolic reector. 3. Manufacturing costs of the solar kitchen and capital payback period The cooking time of a typical meal on a solar kitchen can be estimated as being 2 h, with an average energy consumption of 1260 KJ (for two persons). Considering an average use of 320 days a year (number of sunny days a year and two meals a day), the energy saving that can be obtained from a solar kitchen is 806.4 MJ a year.
Table 1 Manufacturing cost of the solar kitchen Solar kitchen sales price Type Direct costs Materials Description Quantity U. Cost Total

Aluminium tube 6061 25 21 Aluminium tube 6061 20 15 U shape aluminium strip 606125 15 2 Round aluminium 6061 30 Aluminium at strip 606190 55 40 Aluminium angle 606115 15 Aluminium rod 6061 5 Aluminium at strip 606160 45 5 Metallised sheet MOPP CST 45 Various (screws, nuts, split pins, etc.) Total materials

1.5 m 1.5 m 0.3 m 0.4 m 0.1 m 0.8 m 10 m 0.1 m 1.5 m2 28.06

3.6 h/m 1.98 h/m 17.1 h/m 4.9 h/m 8.22 h/m 1.35 h/m 0.2 h/m 3.0 h/m 4 h/m2

5.40 2.97 5.13 1.96 0.82 1.08 2 0.3 6 2.40

Labour costs Assembly line (3 workers, 0.1 h, 25 h/h) 7.50 Use of machinery Amortisation costs of lathe, saw, planer, etc. (10% cost of material) 2.8 A. Total direct costs Indirect costs B. Cost of warehousing, auxiliary staff, etc. (6% direct costs) Overheads C. Company overhead (administration, technical staff, services, etc. 4% of direct and indirect costs) Prot D.Company prot margin (16% of total costs) Price of the solar kitchen (A+B+C+D) h

38.36 2.30 1.62 6.34 48.62

ARTICLE IN PRESS
264 J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266

The manufacturing cost of the solar kitchen is shown in Table 1. The direct costs (material, labour costs, and proportional cost of the machines used) and the indirect costs (warehousing costs, auxiliary staff, etc.) are listed separately. The sum total of the direct and indirect costs makes up the cost of the solar kitchen itself. If we add to these costs the overhead costs of the manufacturing company (administration, technical staff, general services such as electricity, water etc.), the total cost is reached. To this cost a prot margin is added, obtaining the prot for the company for each unit manufactured. Taking into account all these data, the sales price of the solar kitchen is 48.62 h (taxes not included). In Table 2, the thermal characteristics and costs of various fuels are shown, as well as the corresponding economic savings that the use of a solar kitchen offers against these conventional energies. The solar kitchen capital payback time is obtained by applying the following equation [16]: n logA M =r i logA M =r i C , log1 r=1 i (2)

where n is the Capital payback time (years), A the Cost of energy saved per annum (h/ year), M the Annual solar kitchen maintenance costs (estimated at 5% of the cost of the kitchen), r the Compound annual interest rate (5%), i the Estimated ination on energy and annual maintenance (3%), C the Cost of the solar kitchen (h).

Table 2 Thermal characteristics of conventional energy sources and annual economic savings obtained by using the solar kitchen Conventional energy sources Type Heating capacity Efciency (%) Unit cost (h) Amount necessary per annum 234.35 Kg 105.84 Kg 29.48 Kg 294.73 Kwh 36.89 Kg Annual saving (h) 28.12 26.46 16.21 26.52 14.75

Wood Coal Propane gas Electricity Parafn

19.89 MJ/Kg 27.21 MJ/Kg 45.59 MJ/Kg 3.6 MJ/Kwh 45.55 MJ/Kg

17.3 28 60 76 48

0.12 h/Kg 0.25 h/Kg 0.55 h/Kg 0.09 h/Kwh 0.40 h/Kg

Table 3 Payback time for conventional fuels Fuel Wood Electricity Coal Propane gas Parafn Capital payback period (years) 1.99 2.14 2.15 3.80 4.26

ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266 265

In Table 3 the capital payback time for conventional fuels in accordance with Eq. (2) are shown. The lowest payback time is obtained using wood (1.99 years) and the highest using parafn (4.26 years). As most of the material used for the solar kitchen is aluminium, a long life cycle is anticipated (more than 15 years); it should only be necessary to change the metallised polypropylene lm every 5 or 6 years (a cost included in the maintenance term of Eq. (2)). 4. Conclusions The principle feature of this solar kitchen is the radial folding of its screen (or parabolic heat concentrator), while the rest of the components can easily be assembled and disassembled and take up little space. Once opened the diameter of the screen is 1.00 m, giving a solar collection area of 0.78 m2. The large and strong of the tray and supports allow the use of 250 mm diameter saucepans (preferably black) with a capacity of 5 l. The use of advanced CAD techniques and systemised design improvement methods have simplied the design of the solar kitchen for the user, reducing the assembly (2 min) and disassembly (1 min) times to a minimum. Even with all these improvements, the kitchen can be sold at a reasonable price (48.62 h). The low weight (5 kg) and volume (approximately the same as a conventional umbrella when folded) of this solar kitchen make it easy to take anywhere using conventional means of transport. Trials carried out with the prototype have determined that the solar kitchen reaches an average power of 175 W on a sunny day, assuming that adjustment toward the sun occurs every 20 or 30 min. This supplies sufcient energy to cook a simple meal for two in an average time of 2 h. This parabolic solar kitchen therefore provides a portable, inexpensive, and environmentally friendly food heating system, which will contribute to improving the quality of life of needy people in the Third World and reduce consumption of conventional energy. Acknowledgements n of the Madrid The author is grateful to professors Runo Horcajo and Manuel Gavila Polytechnic University, and to the scholar Sergio de Castro for their cooperation and sound suggestions on the design and manufacture of the prototype. Thanks also to the Technology Transfer Ofce of UPM for the nancing of the present Project (AS 0301). References
[1] Mani A. Hand book of solar radiation. New Delhi: Allied Publisher; 1981. [2] Ghai ML. Design of reector type direct solar cooker. J. Sci Ind Res 1953;12A:16575. [3] Ghai ML, Pandhar BS, Dass H. Manufacture of reector type direct solar cooker. J. Sci Ind Res 1953;12A:2126. [4] Dufe JA, Lo f GOG, Beck B. Laboratories and eld studies of plastic reector solar cookers. In: Proceedings of UN conference on new source of energy, Rome. Paper S/87, vol. 5; 1961. p. 33946. [5] Lo f GOG, Fester DA. Design and performance of folding umbrella type solar cooker. In: Proceeding of UN conference on new sources of energy, Rome. Paper S/100, vol 5; 1961. p. 347352.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
266 J.M. Arenas / Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 257266 [6] Tabor H. A solar cooker for developing countries. Sol Energy 1966;10:1537. piate Technol 1977;4:810. [7] Von Oppen M. The sun basket. Apro bec (Canada ): Brace Research Institute; [8] Alward R. Solar steam cooker. In: Do it yourself leaet L-2. Que 1972. [9] Garg HP, Thanvi KP. Studys on solar steam cooker. Indian Farming 1977;27(1):234. [10] Ghosh MK. Utilisation of solar energy. Sci Cult 1956;22:30412. [11] Telkes M. Solar cooking ovens. Sol Energy 1959;3:111. [12] Garg MP. A solar oven for cooking. Indian farming 1976;27:79. [13] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Multi-criteira evaluation of cooking energy alternatives for promoting parabolic solar cooker in India. Renew Energy 2004;29:144960. [14] Nahar NM. Performance and testing of an improved hot box solar cooker. Energy Convers Manage 1990;30:916. [15] Crupp M, Montagne P, Wackernagel M. A novel advanced box-type solar cooker. Sol Energy 1991;47:10713. [16] Nahar NM, Marshall RH, Brinkworth BJ. Studies on a hot box solar cooker with transparent insulating materials. Energy Convers Manage 1994;35:78491. [17] Nahar NM. Design, development and testing of a double reector hot box solar cooker with a transparent insulation material. Renew Energy 2001;23:16779. [18] Nahar NM. Performance and testing of a hot box storage solar cooker. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:132331. [19] Kaushika ND, Redyy KS. Performance of a low cost solar paraboloidal dish steam generating system. Energy Convers Manage 2000;41:71326. [20] Franco J, Cadena C, Saravia L. Mu ltiple use communal solar cookers. Sol Energy 2004;77:21723. [21] Mart n N. Portable solar heating device and heating process utilizing solar energy. USA Patent number US511 38 45; 1992. P. Solar energy capture and concentration devide for use as a portable cooking or sterilization oven, [22] Herve comprises a number of focal mirrors superimposed on to a central mirror. France Patent number FR 2783042; 2000. [23] Minoru Y, Mitsuyoshi M, Toshiro M, Eizo A. Cooking apparatus using solar energy. Japan Patent number JP6330657; 1988. [24] Sergiu C. Portable solar energy appliance with cooking and water heating. Germany patent, number DE 197 36 223; 1998. [25] Adnan T. Solar cooking with a parabolic reector. USA Patent number US 5090399; 1992. [26] Sanz F, Lafargue J. Disen o industrial. Madrid (Espan a): Editorial Thomson; 2002. n General de la UPM, Madrid (Espan [27] Arenas JM. Calidad e ingenieria de disen o. Ed. Fundacio a); 2001.