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

https://doi.org/10.37017/jeae-volume7-no1.2021-5


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


(2013). Design and experimental testing of an

innovative building-integrated box type solar

cooker. Solar Energy, 98, 422–433.


(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


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.

Documents

ADVANCES IN SOLAR COOKING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - A …