a comprehensive review on solar cookersdocshare01.docshare.tips/files/22448/224483481.pdfa...

Applied Energy 102 (2013) 1399–1421

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /apenergy

A comprehensive review on solar cookers

Erdem Cuce ⇑, Pinar Mert CuceSchool of the Built Environment, University of Nottingham, University Park, NG7 2RD Nottingham, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 May 2012Received in revised form 7 August 2012Accepted 2 September 2012Available online 1 October 2012

Keywords:Solar cookerEfficiencyCooking powerPCMExergy

0306-2619/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.002

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Cuce

a b s t r a c t

In this paper, a thorough review of the available literature on solar cookers is presented. The review isperformed in a thematic way in order to allow an easier comparison, discussion and evaluation of thefindings obtained by researchers, especially on parameters affecting the performance of solar cookers.The review covers a historic overview of solar cooking technology, detailed description of various typesof solar cookers, geometry parameters affecting performance of solar cookers such as booster mirrors,glazing, absorber plate, cooking pots, heat storage materials and insulation. Moreover, thermodynamicassessment of solar cooking systems and qualitative evaluation of thermal output offered by solar cook-ers are analyzed in detail. Complex designs of solar cookers/ovens with and without heat storage materialare illustrated and furthermore possible methods to be able to enhance the power outputs of solarcooking systems are presented. Feasibility analysis, environmental impacts and future potential of solarcookers are also considered in the study.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Energy is a thermodynamic quantity that is often understood asthe capacity of a physical system to do work. Besides its physicalmeaning, energy is vital for our relations with the environment[1]. Research to resolve problems related to energy is quite signif-icant since life is directly affected by energy and its consumption[2]. Fossil fuel-based energy resources still predominate with thehighest share in global energy consumption. However, cleanenergy generation becomes more and more crucial day by daydue to the growing significance of environmental issues. Especiallyafter the oil crisis of 1973 with soaring fuel prices, a strong stimu-lation of research into renewable energy technologies is observed.Currently, renewable energy resources supply about 14% of totalworld energy demand and their future potential is remarkable[3,4]. Among the clean energy technologies, solar energy is recog-nized as one of the most promising choice since it is free andprovides clean and environmentally friendly energy [1,5–10]. TheEarth receives 3.85 million EJ of solar energy each year [11]. Solarenergy offers a wide variety of applications in order to harness thisavailable energy resource. Among the thermal applications of solarenergy, solar cooking is considered as one of the simplest, the mostviable and attractive options in terms of the utilization of solarenergy [12].

Wood is still the primary energy source in much of the develop-ing world since it is seen the cheapest way to obtain the energyrequired. However, this situation causes some serious ecological

ll rights reserved.

).

problems such as deforestation [13]. Especially in rural areas ofAfrica, a major amount of total available energy resource is utilizedfor cooking. The energy required for cooking is supplied by non-commercial fuels like firewood, agricultural waste, cow dung andkerosene [14]. Similarly, in India, energy demand for cooking ac-counts for 36% of total primary energy consumption. As reportedby Pohekar et al. [15], 90% of rural households in India are stilldependent on biomass fuels. People in rural areas are left no choicebut to walk several kilometers every day to collect firewood. Onthe other hand, people in urban areas spend too much money onfirewood which can be considered a major expenditure especiallyfor poor families. Besides the environmental and economic burdenof firewood use, there are some serious health problems such asburns, eye disorders and lung diseases originate from the utiliza-tion of firewood [13]. It is also emphasized by the World HealthOrganization (WHO) that 1.6 million deaths per year are causedby indoor air pollution [16]. Therefore, there is a rising attentionconcerning the renewable energy options to meet the cookingrequirements of people in developing countries. It is well-knownthat most of the thickly populated countries from the developingpart of the world are blessed with abundant solar radiation withmean daily illumination intensity in the range of 5–7 kW h/m2

and have more than 275 sunny days in a year [17,18]. From thispoint of view, it can be easily said that solar cookers have a big po-tential in these countries in order to meet the energy demandespecially in the domestic sector. In addition, utilization of solarcookers provides many advantageous like no recurring costs, highnutritional value of food, potential to reduce drudgery and highdurability [17]. Hence, in this paper, a comprehensive review of so-lar cooking technology is presented. Appropriate recommenda-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.002

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03062619

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

1400 E. Cuce, P.M. Cuce / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 1399–1421

tions are made in order to enhance current performance of solarcookers and future potential of this technology is evaluated.

2. Historic overview of solar cooking

The history of solar cookers goes back to the eighteenth century.Halacy and Halacy [19] reports that the first experiments on solarcookers were carried out by a German Physicist named Tschirn-hausen (1651–1708). In 1767, French–Swiss Physicist Horace deSaussure attempted to cook food via solar energy. He constructeda miniature greenhouse with 5 layers of glass boxes turned upsidedown on a black table and reported cooking fruit [20]. Englishastronomer Sir John Herschel attempted to cook food in a similarinsulated box on an expedition to South Africa in 1830. A FrenchMathematician Augustin Mouchot integrated the heat trap ideawith that of the burning mirror in 1860 and built an efficient solaroven. He also succeeded to create a solar steam engine but it wastoo large to be practical. In 1876, W. Adams developed an octago-nal oven equipped with 8 mirrors and he reported that the ovencooked rations for 7 soldiers in 2 h [21]. One year later, Mouchotdesigned solar cookers for French soldiers in Algeria, including ashiny metal cone, made from a 105.5� section of a circle [20]. Healso wrote the first book on Solar Energy and its Industrial Applica-tions. In 1891, Clarence Kemp, an American plumbing and heatingmanufacturer, invented the first commercial solar water heater forbathing and dishwashing. In 1894, Xiao’s Duck Shop in Sichuan,China, roasted ducks via the principle of solar cooking.

In 1930s, France sent many solar cookers to its colonies in Afri-ca. On the other hand, India began to investigate solar energy as anoption for avoiding deforestation. In 1940s, Dr. Maria Telkes in theUSA analyzed various types of solar cookers including some heatstorage materials also published a book named Solar Ovens in1968 [19,20]. The first commercial box-type solar cooker wasproduced by an Indian pioneer named Sri M.K. Ghosh in 1945[22]. In 1950s, Indian researchers devised and constructed com-mercial solar ovens and solar reflectors, but they were not readilyaccepted due to the lower-cost alternatives. Also, United NationsFood and Agriculture Association (FAO) investigated water-heatingcapacities of a parabolic cooker and an oven type cooker. In 1961, aUnited Nations Conference on New Sources of Energy includingmany authorities on solar cooking technology was held. In 1970s,as a result of the increasing fuel prices due to the oil crisis, anintensive interest on renewable energy technologies was observedworldwide especially in China and India [23]. Barbara Kerr in theUSA constructed several types of concentrating and box-type solarcookers using recycling materials and aluminium foil. In 1979,water pasteurization was performed using box-type solar cookersby Dr. Metcalf and his student Marshall Longvin. In 1980s,especially the Governments of India and China expanded nationalpromotion of box-type solar cookers. Heather Gurley Larson wrote

Fig. 1. Types of solar cookers: (a) solar panel cooker; (b

first US solar cookbook, Solar Cooking Naturally, in 1983 [20].Mullick et al. [24] presented a method to analyze the thermal per-formance of solar cookers in 1987. In 2000, Funk [25] proposed aninternational standard for testing solar cookers. It was observedthat the resulting solar cooker power curve is a useful device forevaluating the capacity and heat storage ability of a solar cooker.Especially in recent years, intensive efforts have been made to beable to enhance the cooking power capacity of solar cookers.Numerous analytical, numerical and experimental studies on noveldesigns of solar cookers have been carried out by many research-ers. Today, solar cooking technology is very promising with itspotential in order to narrow the gap between renewable and con-ventional power sources.

3. Solar cookers

A solar cooker or solar oven is a device which utilizes solarenergy to cook food. Solar cookers also enable some significantprocesses such as pasteurization and sterilization. It is a clear factthat there are countless styles of solar cookers in the world andthey are continually improved by researchers and manufacturers.Therefore, classification of solar cookers is a hard work. However,it may be asserted that most of the solar cookers today fall withinthree main categories called solar panel cookers, solar box cookersand solar parabolic cookers as shown in Fig. 1.

3.1. Solar panel cookers

Solar panel cookers may be considered the most common typeavailable due to their ease of construction and low-cost material. Insolar panel cookers, sunlight is concentrated from above [26]. Thismethod of solar cooking is not very desirable since it provides alimited cooking power. On the other hand, this type of solar cook-ers is highly appreciated by people living or travelling alone. Solarpanel cookers utilize reflective equipment in order to direct sun-light to a cooking vessel which is enclosed in a clear plastic bag.Solar panel cooker of Dr. Roger Bernard (CooKit) is one of the mostpopular designs in this category [17]. Only cardboard and foilshaped was utilized to manufacture the CooKit. It was an afford-able, convenient and effective solar cooker which enabled topreserve nutrients without burning or drying out. Bernard alsoinvestigated how the solar cooking technology is taken up by pop-ulations [27]. Performance of solar panel cookers highly depend onreflected radiation thus, they do not seem effective under cloudyconditions [28]. In recent years, some efforts have been made in or-der to expand the utilization areas of panel cookers. Kerr and Scott[29] designed and built a solar powered apparatus for sterilization.They also indicated that the prescribed system can be used forcooking and food preserving purposes.

) solar parabolic cooker; and (c) solar box cooker.

Fig. 2. Components of a solar box cooker [20].

E. Cuce, P.M. Cuce / Applied Energy 102 (2013) 1399–1421 1401

3.2. Solar box cookers

History of solar cooking technology started with the inventionof box-type solar cookers. The first solar box cooker was inventedby a French–Swiss naturalist named Horace de Saussure in 1767.Especially in the twentieth century, this solar cooker type demon-strated a considerable development in terms of design and perfor-mance parameters. A solar box cooker basically consists of aninsulated box with a transparent glass cover and reflective surfacesto direct sunlight into the box [20]. The inner part of the box ispainted black in order to maximize the sunlight absorption. Maxi-mum 4 cooking vessels are placed inside the box [30,31]. A detaileddescription of solar box cookers is illustrated in Fig. 2. Each compo-nent of the box cooker has a significant influence on cookingpower. Therefore, optimization of these parameters is vital forobtaining maximum efficiency.

It is observed from the cooker designs of 1950s that the food isdirectly exposed to sunlight [32–34]. Telkes [35] focused on boxtype cookers and noted that they are slow to heat up, but workwell even where there is diffuse radiation, convective heat losscaused by wind, intermittent cloud cover and low ambient temper-atures [36]. At the beginning of 1960s, Schaeffer [37] presented areport on the current situation of solar box cookers. In the follow-ing years, outdoor testing of box-type solar cookers was carried outby several researchers [38–42]. Garg et al. [43] comparedperformances of five available solar cookers [44].

After the 1980s, researchers especially focused on optimizationof geometry parameters of solar box cookers since they have adominant effect on performance. In this context, some researchersanalyzed the booster mirror effect on efficiency of box-type solarcookers. Dang [45] investigated the concentrators for flat platecollectors and explained that booster mirrors can be utilized in or-der to increase the efficiency of solar collectors since it provides ex-tra solar radiation. The results indicated that the effectiveness ofconcentrators highly depends on the angle of mirrors. Garg andHrishikesan [46] presented a comprehensive analysis of a systemconsisting of a flat plate collector integrated with two reflectors.They proposed a model which was numerically simulated for con-ditions prevailing in three different Indian stations for three differ-ent months. They found that the enhancement is maximum for themonth of December in all the three stations for both horizontal andtilted surfaces. Narasimha et al. [47–50] comprehensively analyzedthe solar cookers augmented with booster mirrors. They provided asingle adjustable booster mirror to a solar box cooker andcalculated the total energy falling on the cooking aperture for thelatitude of 18�N (Warangal City, India) and for five different decli-nations of the sun. The results showed that the total energy was

enhanced at all hours of the day by intermittent adjustment, con-tinuous adjustment and fixed orientation of the supporting mirror[47]. They also analyzed elongation effect (ratio of length/width ofbooster mirror) on total energy collection. Rectangular apertureswere found more efficient than the equal are of square aperturein terms of total energy absorbed. On the other hand, the efficiencywas approximately the same for a value of elongation [48]. Energycontribution by the booster mirror became increasingly significantwith an increase in latitude of the location [49]. El-Sebaii et al. [51]constructed and tested a box-type solar cooker with multi-stepinner reflectors. A transient mathematical model was proposedfor the cooker. The transient performance of the cooker was deter-mined by computer simulation for typical summer and winter daysin Tanta, Egypt. They observed that the cooker is able to boil 1 kg ofwater in 24 min when its aperture area equals 1 m2. Habeebullahet al. [52] introduced an oven type concept to minimize theamount of heat losses and maximize the concentrated solar energy.They expressed that if the solar box cooker is augmented with fourbooster mirrors, heat losses due to wind will reduce since windwill not be in direct contact with the glazed surface. Results ofthe mathematical model indicated that oven type receiving pothas both a higher fluid temperature and overall receiver efficiencycompared to the bare receiver type, working under similar condi-tions. El-Sebaii and Aboul-Enein [53] presented a transient mathe-matical model for a box-type solar cooker with a one-step outerreflector hinged at the top of the cooker. The model was basedon analytical solution of the energy balance equations usingCramer’s rule for different elements of the cooker. The boilingand characteristic boiling times of the cooker were decreased by50% and 30%, respectively, on using the cooker around midday.Buddhi et al. [54] designed and analyzed a solar cooker augmentedwith three reflectors and a phase change material storage unit. Theexperimental results showed that late evening cooking is possiblein the solar cooker proposed. Algifri and Al-Towaie [55] carried outa research in order to find out effect of the cooker orientation on itsperformance. The analysis was applied to a cooker placed at Aden,Yemen. They found that the reflector tilt angle and the elevationangle are related by the relationship 3R� 2a ¼ 180� and the cookerwhich satisfies this condition gives the best performance. Mirdhaand Dhariwal [56] theoretically investigated several designs ofsolar cookers in order to optimize their performance. Various com-binations of booster mirrors were analyzed as shown in Fig. 3 to beable to arrive at a final design, aimed at providing a cooker, whichcan be fixed on a south facing window. The results indicated thatthe proposed new cooker can provide higher temperature through-out the day and round the year. They also noted that the cooker canbe used for preparation of two meals in a day and to keep the foodwarm in late evening.

Some researchers focused on glazing factor in solar box cookers[57–62]. It is well known from the literature that there are variousglazing materials such as glass, fibreglass, and acrylics which arecommonly used in box-type solar cookers. Single pain glass anddouble pain glass are the most common structures which enableto receive a higher solar transmission. Optimization of the gapbetween panes is a significant problem since a large air gap mayencourage convective heat transfer and cause a heat loss. In litera-ture, recommended air gap depth varies from 1 to 2 cm [20,57–59].Absorption of long wave radiation emitted by collector plates in-creases the glass temperature and this increment causes heat lossfrom the cooker to the surrounding atmosphere. Therefore, trans-parent insulating materials are suggested in order to improve theefficiency of solar box cookers [63,64].

Absorber tray is one of most significant component of a solarbox cooker. Solar radiation passes through the glazing part and ab-sorbed by a surface painted black called absorber tray. An absorbertray first of all should have a remarkably high absorptivity in order

Fig. 3. (a) Conventional box-type solar cooker with south facing mirror; (b) solar box cooker with south tilted collecting surface and south facing mirror; (c) cooker with southtilted collecting surface and north facing mirror; and (d) cooker with south tilted collecting surface, north facing mirror and a fixed south facing vertical mirror [56].


to transfer maximum radiant energy to food in the cooking pot[65,66]. Harmim et al. [67] experimentally investigated a box-typesolar cooker with a finned absorber plate as shown in Fig. 4. Testswere carried out on the experimental platform of the RenewableEnergies Research Unit in Saharan Environment of Algeria at Adrar.The results indicated that solar box cooker equipped with fins wasabout 7% more efficient than the conventional box-type solar coo-ker. The time required for heating water up to boiling temperaturewas reduced about 12% when a finned absorber plate was used.

Fig. 4. (a) Schematic of the finned absorber plate; (b) con

Comparative results are illustrated in Fig. 5. Pande and Thanvi[68] designed, developed and tested an efficient solar cooker. Thesignificant part of the proposed cooker was its stationary modeand maximum capture of energy through improved design andoptimum tilt of the system. They found that the cooker could saveabout 40% of the cooking fuel via the proposed absorber. Shrestha[69] concluded that if the external surface of the absorbing topplate is treated with selective coating, it demonstrates a betterperformance compared to the simple black coated absorber tray.

ventional (A) and improved (B) solar box cooker [67].

Fig. 5. (a) Finned and ordinary absorber plate temperatures and (b) comparison between internal air temperatures of cooker ‘‘A’’ and internal air temperatures of cooker ‘‘B’’[67].

Fig. 6. Solar box cooker with a conventional cylindrical cooking vessel on the floorof the cooker and another vessel with central annular cavity kept on three lugsspaced at 120� [82].


Thulasi Das et al. [70,71] carried out some simulation analysis onperformance parameters of solar box cookers like the thicknessand size of the absorber plate, emissivity of the vessels and insula-tion thickness. Anderson et al. [72] investigated performance ofcoloured solar collectors. They showed that coloured solar collectorabsorbers can make remarkable contributions to heating loads.Although their thermal efficiency is lower than highly developedselective coating absorbers, they offer the advantage of sensitiveintegration with buildings. Tripanagnostopoulos et al. [73,74] alsoanalyzed coloured absorbers. They obtained that unglazed collec-tors with coloured absorbers are in general of low efficiency andmight be used in low temperature solar applications. Amer [75]presented a novel design of solar cooker in which the absorber isexposed to solar radiation from the top and the bottom sides. Aset of plane diffuse reflectors was used to direct the radiation ontothe lower side of the absorber plate. Results under the same oper-ating conditions showed that the absorbers of the solar box cookerand the double exposure cooker attain 140 and 165 �C, respec-tively. Kumar [76] carried out a thermal analysis in order to eval-uate natural convective heat transfer coefficient in a trapezoidalenclosure of box-type solar cooker. It was underlined that themajor advantage of using a trapezoidal shaped absorber tray isthe absorption of a higher fraction of incident solar radiation fallingon the aperture at larger incident angles, due to a more exposedsurface area. Ogunwole [77] designed, constructed and test a solarcooker which absorber was a square base pot, blackened withsmoke and was made of stainless steel. In the design, aluminiumfoil was used as reflectors. An average temperature of 100 �C wasobtained from the cooker for an ambient temperature of 34 �C.

Any type of cooking vessel can be used in solar box cookers butgenerally cylindrical shaped cooking vessels made of aluminium orcopper are recommended. As reported by Saxena et al. [20], num-ber of cooking vessels in a solar box cooker may vary depending onthe quantity and the nature of the food. Khalifa et al. [78]conducted some experiments on an Arafa cooker, basically a pointfocus concentrator featured with Pyrex pots. The tracking was per-formed manually for every 15–20 min. It was observed that cook-ing food by directly reflected solar radiation decreases the cookingtime. Gaur et al. [79] revealed that performance of a solar cookermay be improved if a utensil with a concave shape lid is used in-stead of a plain lid. Narasimha Rao and Subramanyam [80,81]investigated effects of some modifications on cooking vessels andanalyzed performance enhancement of solar box cookers. They ob-served that raising the cooking vessel by providing a few lugswould make the bottom of the vessel a heat transfer surface. Thischange would improve the performance of the system by improv-ing the heat transfer rates in both heating and cooling modes [80].

They also found that cooking vessel with central annular cavity onlugs performs much better than the conventional vessel kept onthe floor of the cooker [81]. Reddy and Narasimha Rao [82] com-pared performances of conventional solar box cooker and im-proved cooker having cooking vessel with central annular cavityas it is illustrated in Fig. 6. The experiments were conducted forseveral days using water and thermic fluid as working medium.The results indicated that when the vessel with central annularcavity is placed on lugs in the cooker interior, the hot air circulationthrough the gap between the bottom of the cooking vessel and thefloor of the cooker and through the central annular cavity improvesthe heat transfer to the water in the vessel and results in the reduc-tion of cooking time. Harmim et al. [83] experimentally investi-gated a box-type solar cooker with two different cooking vessels:the first one conventional and the second one identical to the firstin shape and volume but its external lateral surface augmentedwith fins. They found that cooking time considerably reduces withthe finned design. The average difference in power was calculated7.49 W. Srinivasan Rao [84] analyzed the effects of fins attachedinside the central cavity on cooker performance. A maximum tem-perature gain of 17 �C was observed with new design of cookingvessel in comparison of conventional type.

Some researchers performed intensive efforts on solar boxcookers in order to allow late evening cooking. In this context, agreat deal of solid–liquid phase change materials (PCMs) wereinvestigated for heating and cooling applications [85–92]. At theend of 1980s, Ramadan et al. in Tanta University [93] augmented

Fig. 7. Schematic of the solar cooker based on evacuated tube solar collector with PCM storage unit [96].


a simple flat plate solar cooker with a jacket of sand as heat storagematerial. They observed a considerable longer cooking period withheat storage medium. Six hour per day of cooking time wasreported. Haraksingh et al. [94] used coconut oil as the heat trans-fer fluid in a double-glazed flat plate collector solar cooker. Tem-peratures of approximately 150 �C were achieved between 10:00and 14:00. Nandwani et al. [95] constructed a solar hot box withtwo similar compartments. They compared the behaviour of ametallic slab filled with a phase change material for short termstorage with that of a conventional absorbing sheet. Advantage ofthe heat storage material could not be confirmed due to some rea-sons like high transition temperature and low quantity of PCM aswell as losses while opening the door. Sharma et al. [96] investi-gated thermal performance of a prototype solar cooker based onan evacuated tube solar collector with PCM storage unit. The de-sign had separate parts for energy collection and cooking coupledby a PCM storage unit as shown in Fig. 7. It was observed nooncooking did not affect the evening cooking and evening cookingusing PCM heat storage was found to be faster than noon cooking.They also noted that the system is expensive but shows good po-tential for community applications. Hussein et al. [97] experimen-tally investigated a novel indirect solar cooker with outdoorelliptical cross section integrated indoor PCM thermal storageand cooking unit. Magnesium nitrate hexahydrate (Tm = 89 �C,latent heat of fusion 134 kJ/kg) was used as the PCM inside theindoor cooking unit of the cooker. They found that the cooker pro-posed can be used for heating or keeping the meals hot at night andearly morning for breakfast of the next day. Chen et al. [98] numer-ically studied PCMs used as the heat storage media for solar boxcookers. Magnesium nitrate hexahydrate, stearic acid, acetamide,

acetanilide and erythritol were selected as PCMs. For a two-dimen-sional simulation model based on the enthalpy approach, calcula-tions were made for the melt fraction with conduction only.Stearic acid and acetamide were found to be good compatibilitywith latent heat storage system. It was also noted that the initialtemperature of PCM does not have very important effects on themelting time. El-Sebaii et al. [99] utilized acetanilide and magne-sium chloride hexahydrate as PCM in solar box cooker and ob-tained 134 �C of stagnation temperature. They also presentedtransient mathematical models of single slope-single basin solarstill with and without PCM under the basin liner of the still[220]. Oturanc et al. [100] constructed and tested a solar box coo-ker which uses engine oil as heat storage material. It was observedthat the cooker was successful to cook only light meal like rice,eggs macaroni, etc. under the climatic conditions of Turkey.Mawire et al. [101,102] carried out some simulation studies onan oil-pebble bed thermal energy storage system for a solar cooker.

It is well known from the literature that insulation is one ofmost crucial key points for a solar cooker to provide an efficientcooking [103,104]. Insulation in a solar box cooker should not belimited to the walls of the frame box and absorber tray since aremarkable amount of heat loss occurs through the glazing [20].In this context, Nahar et al. [105,106] carried out some studieson utilization of transparent insulation material (TIM) in solarbox cookers. Under an indoor solar simulator, they tested a hotbox solar cooker with glazing surface consisting 40 and 100 mmthick TIM. The stagnation temperature with the 40 mm TIM wasfound to be 158 �C, compared with 117 �C without the TIM [105].A double reflector hot box solar cooker with TIM was designed,constructed, tested and its performance was compared with a

Fig. 8. (a) Double reflector solar box cooker with TIM and (b) conventional hot box solar cooker [106].


single reflector hot box solar cooker without TIM. Fig. 8 depicts thefield installation of the proposed cookers. 40 mm thick honeycombmade of polycarbonate capillaries was placed between two glazingsurfaces in order to minimize the heat loss due to convection. Theefficiencies were determined to be 30.5% and 24.5% for the solarbox cooker with and without TIM, respectively. Energy saving byusing a solar cooker with TIM was estimated to be 1485 MJ of fuelequivalent per year [106]. Mishra and Prakash [107] evaluated thethermal performance of solar cookers with four different insulationmaterials readily available in rural areas. Their performance wascompared with that of the glass wool. It was aimed at minimizingthe cost of the cooker with a view to enhance its widespread appli-cation in the rural Indian environment. Bjork and Enochsson [108]experimentally investigated three different insulation materials(glass wool, melamine foam and corrugated sheets of celluloseplastics) in terms of condense formation, drainage and moisturedependent heat transmittance. It was noted that the all materialsprovide best insulation in dry form. Nyahoro et al. [109] carriedout a simulation study on an indoor, institutional solar cooker.The cooker storage unit consisted of a cylindrical solid block andit was insulated by a material with thermal conductivity of0.1 W/mK and specific heat capacity of 1000 J/kgK.

3.3. Solar parabolic cookers

The first solar parabolic cooker was developed by Ghai [110] inthe early 1950s at the National Physical Laboratory, in India. Then,Lof and Fester [111] investigated various geometries and mountingconfigurations of parabolic cookers. These type of cookers attractedpeople immediately all over the world due to their outstandingperformance. Solar parabolic cookers can reach extremely hightemperatures in a very short time and unlike the panel cookersor box cookers, they do not need a special cooking vessel. However,a parabolic cooker includes risk of burning the food if left unat-tended for any length of time because of the concentrated power.A solar parabolic cooker simply consists of a parabolic reflectorwith a cooking pot which is located on the focus point of the cookerand a stand to support the cooking system.

Ozturk [112–115] conducted several experimental researcheson solar parabolic cookers and analyzed the performance parame-ters in terms of thermodynamic laws. Ozturk experimentallyexamined energy and exergy efficiencies of a simple design andthe low cost parabolic cooker under the climatic conditions ofAdana which is located in Southern Turkey (at 37�N, 35�E). The

energy output of the parabolic cooker was determined to be20.9–78.1 W, whereas its exergy output was in the range of 2.9–6.6 W. The results showed that the energy and exergy efficienciesof the parabolic cooker were calculated between 2.8–15.7% and0.4–1.25%, respectively [114]. He also compared energy and exergyefficiencies of box-type and parabolic-type solar cookers. Experi-mental study indicated that the power output of the box-type coo-ker ranged from 8.2 to 60.2 W, whereas it varied between 20.9 and73.5 W for the parabolic cooker. On the other hand, the exergy out-put of the solar box cooker ranged from 1.4 to 6.1 W, whereas itwas in the range of 2.9 to 6.6 W for the parabolic cooker. It was alsoobserved that the energy and exergy efficiencies of the box-typeand the parabolic-type cookers were in the range of 3.05–35.2%,0.58–3.52% and 2.79–15.65%, 0.4–1.25%, respectively [115]. Arenas[116] described a portable solar kitchen with parabolic solar reflec-tor that folded up into a small volume. The experimental studyindicated that the solar cooker reached an average power outputof 175 W, with an energy efficiency of 26.6%.

Al-Soud et al. [117] designed, operated and tested a paraboliccooker with automatic two axes sun tracking system. The testresults showed that the water temperature inside the cooker’s tubereached 90 �C when the maximum registered ambient temperaturewas 36 �C. A parabolic cooker was investigated from the exergyviewpoint by Petela [118]. According to the results, the exergyefficiency of parabolic cooker was relatively very low approxi-mately 1% while the energy efficiency ranged from 6% to 19%. Shu-kla [119] presented the energy and exergy efficiencies of two typesof parabolic solar cookers which were tested in summer and winterin the climatic conditions of India. The results showed that the en-ergy output of the community and domestic solar cookers variedfrom 2.73 to 43.3 W and 7.77 to 33.4 W, respectively whereasthe exergy output of the cookers ranged from 1.92–2.58 W to0.65–1.45 W, respectively. On the other hand, the energy efficien-cies of the community and domestic solar cookers were in therange of 8.3–10.5% to 7.1–14.0%, respectively. Pohekar and Rama-chandran [120] conducted a survey about present disseminationof nine cooking energy alternatives in India to compare theirtechnical, economic, environmental/social, behavioural and com-mercial issues. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) stove was foundthe most preferred device, followed by kerosene stove, solar boxcooker and parabolic solar cooker in that order while electric ovenhad the lowest ranking. They also determined utility assessment ofparabolic cooker as a domestic cooking device in India. The studyindicated that if the parabolic cookers have to become a reality

Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of (a) cylindrical and (b) rectangular box-type of solar cookers [145].


the utility has to be increased. They stressed that the advantages ofparabolic cookers in terms of technical, behavioural and commer-cial should be improved [121].

4. Different designs of solar cooking systems

In recent years, researchers highly focused on producing noveldesigns of solar cookers to provide the most appropriate operatingconditions and hence obtain efficient cooking. Nahar et al. [122–129] presented numerous studies to enhance the performance ofsolar cookers with low cost modifications. Khalifa et al. [130,131]also conducted some studies on new design concentrating type so-lar cookers. Tiwari and Yadav [132] devised a new box-type solarcooker integrated with a single reflector at the hood. In their de-sign, the base of the oven acted as the lid unlike the conventionalsolar box cooker and hence the problem of preheating was solvedas faced in conventional box-type solar cooker. The results showedthat the newly designed cooker was more efficient compared to theconventional cooker. Nandwani [133] experimentally and theoret-ically investigated a solar oven in the climatic conditions of CostaRica. The cooker was augmented with a reflector to increase theillumination intensity on absorbing plate. Maximum plate temper-ature measured was between 130 and 150 �C. Thermal efficiency ofthe cooking system varied from 30% to 40%. At University of Jordanin the early 1990s, Al-Saad and Jubran [134] developed a low costclay solar cooker. The most outstanding features of the cooker werethat it was made cheap, locally available materials. In addition, noskilled labour was in need in order to operate the cooker. In theirdesign, absorber plate of the cooker was replaced with locallyavailable black stones. Using black stones instead of absorber plateallowed storing solar energy, hence making late cooking possible.Grupp et al. [135] presented a novel box-type solar cooker con-sisted of a fixed cooking vessel in good thermal contact with a con-ductive absorber plate. The novel cooker provided easier access tothe cooking pots and less maintenance due to the protection of allabsorbing and reflecting surfaces. Outdoor tests also indicated that5 L of water per m2 of opening surface could be brought to full boil-ing in less than 1 h. Nandwani and Gomez [136] experimentallyinvestigated two folding and light solar ovens constructed by SolarBox Cookers International (SBCI) in the climatic conditions of CostaRica. Performances of the cookers were compared with a conven-tional oven during 30 days. The tests were conducted at load andno load condition, and with or without a reflector. Cardboard ovenswere found to be 15–25% less efficient than the conventional oven.

Wareham [137] developed a solar cooker stove calledSUNSTOVE which is an affordable, easy to use, suitable for family,rugged and stackable for shipping. By using the SUNSTOVE, the re-duce fuel consumption decreased the cost of living and helped toimprove the health of the people. The unit of SUNSTOVE held fourpots with 2 L. The cooker pasteurized water in 15 min at 71 �C andit did not burn foods. The cooker’s sides had wings to increase thesolar collecting area to provide for the elimination of reflectors andto reduce internal volume to be heated [137]. Beaumont et al. [138]designed a family sized ultra-low cost solar cooker in Tanzania. Thehot box style cooker was developed to be built on site by the userswith minimal tools, skills or special materials. The cooker consistedof a shallow 1 m2 square hole in the ground, insulated with strawand lined with adobe, a glass or plastic roof and a 1 m2 aluminizedplastic reflector with guy ropes for adjustment. It provided cookedfor 10–12 people on clear days with midday and dusk. A 4 L load ofwater brought up to cooking temperature in 60–70 min. Suhartaet al. [139] designed three different solar cookers called HS 7534,HS 7033 and the newest design HS 5521. They carried out variousexperiments for comparison of these cookers’ cooking performanceand the other parameters. It was calculated oven temperature of202 �C between 12:00 and 12:45 p.m. on October in 1997 for typeof HS 7033. It was found that these solar cookers have a good heatstorage capability; therefore they can be used for consecutivecooking. Volume of HS 5521 was 35% of HS 7033’s and it wascheaper than HS 7033. Although it was seen that HS 5521 hadthe same heat collection rate with the others, it was able to cookas fast as HS 7033. Sonune and Philip [140] developed a Fresneltype domestic SPRERI concentrating cooker. The cooker was foundcapable of cooking food for a family which consisted of 4 or 5 peo-ple. The highest plate bottom temperature was calculated 255 �C inapproximately 40 min while ambient temperature was 30 �C anddirect solar radiation was 859 W/m2. Negi and Purohit [141] com-pared the performances of a conventional box type cooker and aconcentrator cooker. The experimental results obtained showedthat the concentrator solar cooker provided stagnation tempera-ture 15–22 �C higher than the conventional box type cooker usinga booster mirror. It was also observed that the boiling point ofwater with concentrator cooker is reached faster, by 50–55 min,than the conventional box type cooker. It was seen that the solarcooker utilizing non-tracking reflectors provided increased heatcollection and faster cooking compare to the conventional box typecooker.

El-Sebaii and Ibrahim [142] experimentally tested a solar boxcooker for two different configurations under the weather

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of truncated pyramid-type solar cooker [147,148].


conditions of Tanta, Egypt. The experiments were conductedduring July 2002 with and without load. The cooking power (P)was correlated with the temperature difference (DT) between thecooking fluid and the ambient air. Linear correlations between Pand DT had correlation coefficients higher than 0.90 satisfyingthe standard. It was also underlined that the improved cookerwas able to cook many kinds of food with an overall efficiency of26.7%. In Cornell University, Rachel Martin et al. [143] devised no-vel solar ovens for the developing world. Different types of solarovens like fix cooker, bowl cooker, cone cooker, box type cookerand parabolic type cooker were constructed and tested in Nicara-gua in fall of 2005 and the spring of 2006. Nandwani [144] de-signed, constructed and tested a hybrid multifunctional solarcooking system in Costa Rica. The device proposed enabled cook-ing, drying and heating/pasteurizing purposes in a single system.Kurt et al. [145] experimentally investigated the effect of boxgeometry on performance of solar cookers. Two different modelsolar box cookers, which are in rectangular and cylindrical geome-tries as shown in Fig. 9 were constructed using the same materialand tested under the same operating conditions. Performanceparameters of each cooker were determined for 0.5, 1 and 1.5 kgof fresh water. The thermal efficiency increased from 12.7% to36.98% for cylindrical and 9.85% to 28.25% for rectangular model,when the amount of water was increased from 0.5 to 1.5 kg. Thecylindrical model provided higher thermal efficiency and lowercharacteristic boiling time than the rectangular model. Schwarzerand Silva [146] described four types of solar cookers (flat platecollector with direct use, flat plate collector with indirect use, par-abolic reflector with direct use, parabolic reflector with indirectuse) in terms of their basic characteristics and test procedures.They also presented a simplified analytical model to design simplecooking systems.

At Sardar Patel Renewable Energy Research Institute, Kumaret al. [147,148] designed, fabricated and tested a novel solar boxcooker: truncated pyramid-type solar cooker. The truncatedpyramid geometry illustrated in Fig. 10 allowed concentrated theillumination intensity towards the bottom and the glazing surfaceon the top facilitated the trapping of energy inside the cooker. Oneof the salient features of the novel cooker was to totally eradicatethe need of a solar tracking system. Maximum absorber plate stag-nation temperature was determined to be 140 �C and water tem-perature inside the cooker reached 98.6 �C in 70 min. In additiontwo figures of merit, F1 and F2 were found to meet the standardsprescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards for solar box-typecookers. They also observed the financial viability of the device

via a simple economic analysis [148]. Bello et al. [149] investigatedperformance analysis of a simple solar box cooker in the climaticconditions of Nigeria. The average efficiency of the cooker was esti-mated to be 47.56%. It was recommended that the device proposedmight be used as a pre-cooking and alternative to domesticcooking stove.

Grupp et al. [150] developed a metering device for the determi-nation of solar cooker use rate. The device allowed recording foodtemperature, ambient temperature and illumination intensity le-vel. Moreover, the assessment of fuel savings and greenhouse-gasemission reduction compared to other cooking options was avail-able with the proposed system. Zhou and Zhang compared theperformances of two different solar cooking systems by simulationmethod: solar energy storage vessel between vacuum tubecollector and plate collector. The temperature distribution, energyreleasing rate and liquid fractions during the energy releasing pro-cess were compared for summer and winter conditions. The platecollector storage vessel was found more reliable and suitable forthe climatic conditions of Nanjing [151]. Kurt et al. [152] estimatedperformance parameters of solar box cookers with and withoutreflector using artificial neural network. The experimental dataset consisted of 126 values. 96 values were used for training/learn-ing of the network and the rest of the data for testing/validation ofthe network performance. The results indicated that the thermalperformance parameters of a solar cooker can be determined witha high degree of accuracy via artificial neural network.

Hernandez-Luna and Huelsz [153] developed a solar oven forthe intertropical zones and evaluated its performance. Tempera-ture measurements of the oven were performed using 36 thermo-couples type T and the data was recorded by a data acquisitionsystem. Cooking tests showed that the oven is suitable to cookthree basic Mexican meals: beans, nixtamal and corn cobs. A con-servative estimation of the wood savings per solar oven is 850 kgper year which accounts for the 30% firewood used to cook by atypical Mexican rural family. Prasanna and Umanand [154,155]proposed a hybrid solar cooking system where the solar energywas transported to the kitchen. The thermal energy source wasused to supplement the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) whichwas in common use in kitchens. In the prescribed system, solar en-ergy was transferred to the kitchen by means of a circulating fluid.Energy gain from the sun was maximized by changing the flow ratedynamically. It was concluded from the results that as using thenovel cooking system proposed, cooking can be carried out atany time of the day with time taken being comparable to conven-tional systems. Saitoh and El-Ghetany [156] devised a solar water-sterilization system with thermally controlled flow. They carriedout a heat transfer analysis in order to determine the effects ofenvironmental conditions on the behaviour of the system. Thermaland biological tests of the water samples during the sterilizationprocess were obtained. It was found that the proposed systemcan be used in clear-sky areas with a high illumination intensitypotential to produce a large amount of sterilized water. Chaudhuri[157] estimated the electrical backup for an Indian solar cooker tobe able to use the cooker throughout the year. It was found thatapproximately 160 W heater would be sufficient for cooking.Abu-Malouh et al. [158] designed, constructed and tested a spher-ical type solar cooker augmented with automatic sun tracking sys-tem. The system components are illustrated in Fig. 11. Theexperimental results indicated that the temperature inside thepan reached more than 93 �C in a day where the maximum ambi-ent temperature was 32 �C. It was underlined that this temperatureis suitable for cooking purposes and was obtained by means of atwo axes solar tracking device. All measured parameters in thestudy are depicted in Fig. 12. As it is easily seen from the resultsfor three different days, temperature inside pan and temperatureoutside pan have almost the same behaviour as a function of time.

Fig. 11. Spherical type solar cooker: (a) the whole system; (b) the pan and the dish; and (c) the control devices [158].


On the other hand, ambient temperature increases from morningtill noon and then it gradually decreases till sunset. In Universityof Nigeria, Ekechukwu and Ugwuoke [159] designed and con-structed a solar box cooker and analyzed its performance for withand without plane reflector. The experiments were carried outwith four cooking vessels each capable of holding 1 kg of water.Absorber plate temperatures with and without reflector werefound to be 138 and 119 �C, respectively. Boiling times for 1 kg ofwater were determined to be 3600 s and 4200 s for with and with-out reflector, respectively. Jaramillo et al. [160] developed a novelsolar cooker for intertropical zones called optogeometrical design.In their design, the oven box had seven faces instead of the sixfaces of most common designs reported in the literature. The mostoutstanding feature of this oven was that the oven needed onlyfour simple movements to be able to obtain sufficient solar con-centration throughout the year. The results showed that, at noon,the solar cooker achieves a concentration level greater than 1.95during the whole year. Mohamad et al. [161] constructed andtested a simple wooden, hot box solar cooker with one reflectorunder the climatic conditions of African Sahel Region. It was ob-served that the cooker reached 160 �C under field conditions ofGiza, Egypt. Different types of foods were successfully cooked suchas rice, meat, fish, and beans. The cooking time varied from 1 to2.5 h. Hussain et al. [162] investigated performance analysis of abox-type solar cooker with auxiliary heating. The reason of usingan auxiliary heater was the cloudy days in Bangladesh which makesolar cooking impossible. Six heating elements were connected inseries to generate 150 W heat from 220 V AC source and wereplaced below the absorber plate. It was found that the use ofauxiliary heating equipment allows cooking on most cloudy days.Schwarzer et al. [163] developed indoor and outdoor solar cookerswith or without storage as shown in Fig. 13 for families andinstitutions in different countries of the world. Thermal storagewas provided with a tank which was filled with pebbles. Vegetableoil was used as the working fluid which flows in cooper pipes.Approximately 250 systems were constructed in various sizesand installed in different countries for different purposes. It wasstressed in the study that large-scale use of solar cookers in devel-oping countries can only be possible through the developmentwith financial aid.

5. Performance analysis of solar cookers

Thermal performance of solar cookers can be determined by anelaborate analysis of the optical and thermal characteristics of thecooker materials and the cooker design or by experimental testingunder operating conditions [20]. However, as stated by Lahkar andSamdarshi, it is very difficult to compare the cookers’ performancereported by previous researchers and establish the criteria re-quired for selection of a cooker which can provide a successfuland satisfactory cooking [12]. There are some performance param-eters such as energy and exergy efficiency, cooking power, figuresof merit, and parameter index which are commonly used forperformance investigation of solar cooking systems. These param-eters have been analyzed theoretically and experimentally bymany researchers in order to provide the most appropriate operat-ing conditions for solar cookers.

5.1. Theory of solar cookers

In the mid of 1980s, overall utilizable efficiency for a solar boxcooker was developed by Khalifa et al. [164] and presented by thefollowing formula:

gu ¼Q F

Q inð1Þ

where QF is the useful heat stored in the food for a temperature riseof DT. Qin is the solar input and for a constant illumination intensitylevel GNR, collector area Ac and cooking time Dt, it is determined asfollows:

Qin ¼ GNRAcDt ð2Þ

For the mass of water M, the specific boiling time ts and the charac-teristic boiling time tc are calculated by the Eqs. (3) and (4),respectively.

ts ¼DT Ac

Mð3Þ

tc ¼tsG

�

GNRð4Þ

Fig. 13. (a) Outdoor cooker with thermal storage installed in an elementary schoolin northern Chile, South America; (b) outdoor cooker without thermal storageinstalled in Mali, Africa; and (c) indoor solar cooker with three circular pots (80, 40and 20 L) and one rectangular flat pot (60 L) installed in a school in Nicaragua,Central America [163].

Fig. 12. Variation of (a) ambient temperature; (b) illumination intensity level; (c)temperature inside pan; and (d) temperature outside pan with time [158].


GNR is a reference radiation level and commonly taken to be900 W/m2. G� is the average illumination intensity level. Thereare two figures of merit F1 and F2 which are largely used for eval-uating thermal characteristics of any solar cooker type. The firstfigure of merit F1 is determined by conducting the no load stagna-tion temperature test and given as follows [12]:

F1 ¼Tps � T�a

G�ð5Þ

In Eq. (5), Tps and T�a are maximum absorber plate temperatureand average ambient temperature, respectively. The second figureof merit F2 is obtained by the full load water heating test as follows[12]:

F2 ¼ F 0g0CR ¼F1ðMCÞw

Asln

1� ð1=F1ÞððTw1 � T�aÞ=G�Þ1� ð1=F1ÞððTw2 � T�aÞ=G�Þ

� �ð6Þ

where F0 is heat exchange efficiency factor, g0 is optical efficiency,CR is heat capacity ratio, (MC)w is product of the mass of waterand its specific heat capacity, A is absorber area, s is time interval,Tw1 is initial temperature of water and Tw2 is final temperature ofwater. It can be concluded from Eq. (6) that the second figure ofmerit is more or less independent of climatic variable. Eq. (6) canbe rearranged in terms of time constant s0 as follows [12]:

s0 ¼F1ðMCÞw

AF2ln

1� ð1=F1ÞððTw1 � T�aÞ=G�Þ1� ð1=F1ÞððTw2 � T�aÞ=G�Þ

� �ð7Þ

The measurements required to estimate the F1 and F2 areillumination intensity falling on the surface of solar cooker, ambient

Table 1Thermal performance parameters, their expressions developed by several researchers and range of values [12].

Author Parameters Expression Range of values

1. Mullick et al. [24] F1 Tps�T�aG�

0.12–0.16 m2 K/W

F2 F 0goCR ¼ F1ðMCÞwAs ln 1�ð1=F1ÞððTw1�T�aÞ=G� Þ

1�ð1=F2ÞððTw2�T�aÞ=G� Þ

h i0.254–0.490

2. Funk [25] Ps700MCwDT

600G�348.83 W at DT = 50 �C

3. Khalifa et al. [164] gu Qf/Qin 7.4–29.6%ts DTAc

M25.843–85.757 min m2/kg

tc tsG�

GNR20.1–66.7 min m2/kg

4. Nahar [18] g ðMCwþM1 CuÞðTw2�Tw1ÞCAR T

0Gdt

27.5%

Table 2Values of variables used in calculations [219].

Variable Value Variable Value

Ac (BC) 0.492 m2 C (CC) 8.88Ac (CC) 1.545 m2 M1 1.477 kgAt 0.174 m2 M2 4.751 kgAg 0.235 m2

Ta 30 �CCw 4186 J/kgK Tw2 95 �CC (BC) 2.09 Ta 30 �C

GT 906 W/m2


temperature, wind speed, initial water temperature and final watertemperature. Mullick et al. [165] carried out some tests in order todetermine the F2 through the experimental data. They observed thatthe F2 increases with increase in number of cooking vessels if load iskept constant and equally distributed. This is attributed to animprovement in the heat exchange efficiency factor (F0) withnumber of cooking vessels [12]. Funk [25] developed a cookingpower expression for solar cookers as follows:

P ¼ MCwdTw

dtð8Þ

where P is the cooking power, M is the mass of water, Cw is specificheat of water, dTw is temperature difference of water and dt is thetime interval. Funk [25] also presented a term called standard cook-ing power which is given as follows:

Ps ¼700MCwDT

600G�ð9Þ

where Ps is the standard cooking power and DT is the temperaturedifference. It is clear from the Eq. (9) that in order to calculate thestandard cooking power, the reference illumination intensity levelshould be 700 W/m2. Patil et al. [166] developed an expression forthe cooking time using the standard cooking power:

s ¼ MCw

C3Nln

PsðTw1ÞPsðTw2Þ

ð10Þ

where N is number of pots and C3 is coefficient which characterizesthe solar cooker. Nahar [18,106] developed an expression in orderto determine the efficiency of solar cookers:

g ¼ ðMCw þM1CuÞðTw2 � Tw1ÞCAR s

0 Gdtð11Þ

where g is the efficiency of the cooker, M1 mass of cooking utensil,Cu is specific heat of cooking utensil, C is concentration ratio and G isthe illumination intensity. A brief of the reported expressions byseveral researchers on performance parameters of solar cookers isgiven in Table 1.

5.2. Analytical models of solar cookers

In Indian Institute of Technology, Yadav and Tiwari [167] car-ried out a simple transient analysis to get the overall picture ofthe performance of solar box cookers. They found that the timerequired to obtain the stagnation temperature is largely dependenton the heat capacity of water or the ingredient to be cooked in thecooking vessel. If the heat capacity of the contents of the cookingvessel has greater value, then the cooking period becomes long.Medved et al. [168] presented a new solar heater named SOLAR-BALL which was shaped as an inflatable hemisphere. A mathemat-ical and numerical model was developed to analyse solar radiationand heat transfer in such a solar heater. The numerical model wasverified by a series of experiments. It was found that typical optical

efficiency and overall heat transfer coefficient of the hemisphericalsolar heater are between 0.45–0.50 and 0.6–1.6 W/m2K, respec-tively. The time required for the preparation of hot drinks andheating of food was found entirely acceptable. Kablan [169] evalu-ated energy saving potential of solar water heating systems inJordan between the years of 2001–2005. He calculated that the to-tal savings over the entire period are estimated to be 46.28 millionUS$ if solar water heaters are used instead of commonly used LPGpowered cookers. Diallo et al. [170] theoretically investigated theperformance analysis of a solar cooker with tilted walls. The north-ern side wall was tilted at an angle of 38� and other walls weretilted at an angle of 9� relative to the vertical. All these walls werecovered with a thin reflective aluminium film. Theoretical resultswere in agreement with the experimental results with an inaccu-racy less than 2%. Fared et al. [171] presented a mathematical mod-el based on an electric resistances analogy which describes andsimulates the thermal behaviour of a solar stove. The mathematicalmodel included three different heat transfer mechanisms betweendifferent surfaces of the solar stove and the environment. The pro-posed model allowed predicting the solar stove entropy generationand its efficiency.

Saitoh and El-Ghetany [156] constructed a solar water-steriliza-tion system with thermally controlled flow and analyzed it theo-retically and experimentally. Thermal and biological tests of thewater samples during the sterilization process were obtained.Overall efficiency of the hot box solar cooker was found to be35%. Effect of the plate thickness on the performance of the cookerwas theoretically investigated. The results indicated that crucialparameters for the solar water-sterilization system are the levelof contamination of water, type of bacteria, type and size of thetransparent water container, the intensity of solar radiation, thewater temperature inside the transparent container, the quantityof water being exposed, environmental conditions, exposure dura-tion and water flow rate.

Recently, Lahkar et al. [219] have developed a novel perfor-mance parameter called cooker opto-thermal ratio (COR) basedon Hottel–Whillier–Bliss (HWB) equation. A single step test proce-dure has been used to obtain COR and to establish its utility ininner-cooker comparison, box type (BC) and concentrating type(CC) solar cookers have been tested initially. COR has been definedas follows:

Fig. 14. Rise in water temperature with time for BC and CC [219].

Table 3Mean values of parameter set with COR, experimental variables and maximumachievable fluid temperature [219].

Parameters BC CC

Mean Std. deviation Mean Std. deviation

FUL/C (W/m2 K) 1.576 0.138 2.260 0.011Fg0 0.213 0.008 0.348 0.013COR 0.136 0.011 0.155 0.007Tfx (�C) 147.75 4.950 161.82 16.688


COR ¼ g0CUL

ð12Þ

where g0 is the optical efficiency, C is the concentration ratio and UL

is the heat loss factor. The experimental data which is illustrated inTable 2 has been fitted in HWB equation to determine the relevantparameters. In Table 2 M1, M2, Ta, Tw2, Ac, At, Ag, Cw, C and GT refer tomass of water for BC, mass of water for CC, average ambient tem-perature, final temperature of water, aperture area, pot surface areafor CC, glazed surface area for BC, specific heat capacity of water,concentration ratio for CC and average total solar radiation on theplane of aperture, respectively. Rise in water temperature (Tw) withtime (t) is given in Fig. 14. Calculated parameters in the study arelisted in Table 3. In Table 3 F, UL and Tfx refer to heat exchangeefficiency factor, heat loss factor and maximum achievable fluidtemperature, respectively. The results indicated that COR is a robustperformance parameter derived from HWB equation analytically. Acooker with a higher value of COR may be graded higher than theone having a lower value of COR.

Al-Soud et al. [117] constructed, operated and analyzed a para-bolic cooker with automatic two axes sun tracking system as illus-trated in Fig. 15. The experiments were performed for three daysfrom 8:30 h to 16:30 h in the year 2008. The test results indicatedthat the water temperature inside the cooker’s tube reached 90 �Cwhen the maximum registered ambient temperature was 36 �C. Itwas also noticed that the water temperature increases when theambient temperature gets higher or when the solar intensity isabundant. This is in favour of utilizing the proposed cooker inmany developing countries, which are characterized by high solarinsulations and high temperatures. Besides cooking, the aforemen-tioned cooker could be utilized for warming food, drinks as well asto pasteurize water or milk.

5.3. Numerical models of solar cookers

El-Sebaii [172] numerically analyzed a box-type solar cookerwith outer-inner reflectors. Numerical calculations were carriedout for different tilt angles of the outer reflector on a typical winterday (20 January) in Tanta, Egypt. The optimum tilt angle of theouter reflector was 60�. For this specific value, it was observed thatthe specific and characteristic boiling times were decreased by 50%and 35%, respectively, compared to the case without the outerreflector. The overall utilization efficiency of the cooker was deter-mined to be 31%. Terres et al. [173] numerically investigated theheating of bee honey, olive oil, milk and water in a solar box cookerintegrated with internal reflectors. In the study, climatic values ofMexico City for February 26, 2006 were used. It was observed thatthe maximum simulation temperatures were 91.8, 91.6, 86.2 and85.3 �C that correspond to bee honey, olive oil, milk and water,

respectively. Olwi and Khalifa [174] presented an elaborate analy-sis on a solar cooker used for meat grilling. Several experimentswere performed in order determine the effects of thermal param-eters on cooking performance. In addition, a mathematical modelwas developed. Heat balance equations were solved via 4th orderRunge–Kutta method. It was observed that an air-tight solar cookerwith double glazing and maximum meat charge provide the bestperformance and highest efficiency for the solar grill. Similarly toOlwi and Khalifa [174], Bidotnark and Turkmen [175] used 4th or-der Runge–Kutta method to investigate thermal performance of ahot box solar cooker named ITU-2 which was manufactured inIstanbul Technical University, Turkey. Jubran and Alsaad [176] pre-sented the theoretical analysis and performance investigation of asingle, as well as double, glazed box-type solar cooker with orwithout reflectors. The mathematical model was based on heatbalance equations arranged for various components of the cooker.In the study, the properties of the cooking materials and the overallheat loss coefficient were allowed to vary as a function of theabsorber plate and food temperature. Effects of thermal parame-ters on cooking performance were investigated.

5.4. Modeling and simulation

In North West University, Mawire et al. [177] carried out dis-charging simulations for an oil/pebble-bed thermal energy storagesystem (TES). Accuracy of the model was verified by the experi-mental results. Discharging results of the TES system were pre-sented using two different methods. The first method dischargedthe TES system at a constant flow rate while the second methodchanged the flow rate in order to provide a desired power at a con-stant load inlet temperature. It was observed from the results thatthe TES system at a constant flow rate demonstrate a higher rateheat utilization. However, this is not beneficial to the cooking pro-cess since the maximum cooking temperature is not maintainedfor the duration of the discharging period. On the other hand, thecontrolled load power discharging method has a slower initial rateof heat utilization but the maximum cooking temperature is

Fig. 15. Schematic of the two axes sun tracking system [117].


maintained for most of the discharging process and this is what isexpected for the cooking process. Mawire and McPherson [178]simulated the temperature distribution of an oil-pebble bed TESsystem under a variable heat source during charging. The chargingoutlet temperature was controlled by a combined feedforward andPID feedback control structure to maintain thermal stratificationduring the experiment and the simulations. In the study, Schu-mann model and modified Schumann model were simulated inorder to analyse thermodynamic behaviour of the TES system. Itwas found that the discharging results were in good agreementwith the experimental results. Thulasi Das et al. [70,71] presentedthermal models for the solar box cookers augmented with differentnumber of cooking vessels. The effect of parameters such as thethickness and size of the absorber plate, emissivity of the vessel,insulation thickness, and cooking time were studied. Differentcooker sizes were simulated in order to assess their adequacy incooking. It was found that the black paint on the vessels could beavoided if weathered stainless steel or aluminium vessels are used.In addition, the cooker with inner dimensions of 0.6 � 0.6 � 0.1 m3

was found to be adequate to cook lunch and dinner on a clear dayeven in the winter months. Besides these specific studies, someresearchers focused on solar energy models in recent years [179–182]. Jebaraj and Iniyan [183] presented a review on energy mod-els including renewable energy models.

5.5. Experimental work

Purohit [184] carried out a large number of experiments on abox-type solar cooker in the climatic conditions of New Delhi, In-dia. He determined absorber tray temperature (Tps), ambient tem-perature (Tas) and illumination intensity (Hs) in order to determinefirst figure of merit (F1). Similarly, he measured initial water tem-perature (Tw1), final water temperature (Tw2), average ambienttemperature ðT�aÞ, average illumination intensity (H�) and timedifference in which water temperature rises from Tw1 to Tw2 tobe able to calculate second figure of merit (F2). The measuredand calculated parameters are listed in Tables 4 and 5. In IndianInstitute of Technology, Kumar [185] presented a simple test

procedure for determination of design parameters to predict thethermal performance of a solar box cooker. In order to determinetwo figures of merit (F1 and F2), a series of outdoor experimentswere conducted on double glazed solar cooker with aperture areaof 0.245 m2. Experimental setup for determination of F1 and F2 isillustrated in Fig. 16. The parameters required, optical efficiencyand heat capacity of the cooker were calculated using the linearregression analysis of experimental F2 data for different load ofwater. The results indicated that optical efficiency and heat capac-ity of the cooker are crucial design parameters to be able to predictthe thermal performance of solar cookers. Kumar et al. [186,187]experimentally investigated the heat loss from a parabolic concen-trator solar cooker with and without wind condition. Values of theheat loss factor for the tilted reflector were compared with thoseobtained with the reflector in a horizontal position. It was foundthat a parabolic reflector is not required for heat loss determina-tion. It was also noted that thermal performance of a parabolicconcentrator solar cooker depends greatly on the wind speed. InTaiwan, Yeh et al. [188] experimentally and analytically investi-gated a novel design for inserting an absorbing plate to dividethe air duct into two channels (the upper and the lower) for dou-ble-flow operation in solar air heaters with fins attached overand under the absorbing plate. Both the theoretical predictionsand experimental results indicated that the optimal fraction of air-flow rate in upper and lower subchannels is around the value of0.5. They also examined the effect of the flow-rate ratio of thetwo air streams of flowing over and under the absorbing plate onthe enhancement of collector efficiency. It was underlined thatproviding fins attached on the collector, will improve the collectorefficiency. Moreover, constructing the collector with fins attachedmay scarcely increase the fan power. Rathore and Shukla [189]experimentally analyzed two different solar cookers: flat platebox type solar cooker (SBC) and parabolic solar cooker (SPC). Theexperiments were carried out at the roof top of Renewable EnergyLab, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technol-ogy, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), Varanasi, India during monthof October and November 2008. The cookers were operated underthe same climatic conditions. It was found that the daily average

Table 4First figure of merit (F1) of a typical Indian solar box cooker obtained from outdoortesting [184].

Tps (�C) Tas (�C) Hs (W/m2) F1

106.84 26.33 603 0.1335111.05 27.05 630 0.1333105.66 26.33 603 0.1316118.44 28.81 687 0.1316117.52 28.81 687 0.1302104.71 26.33 603 0.1299106.52 24.64 631 0.1298118.78 29.71 687 0.1296118.67 29.71 687 0.1294108.39 27.05 630 0.1291112.61 28.65 651 0.1289112.21 26.76 663 0.1288107.97 27.05 630 0.1284111.88 26.76 663 0.1284102.54 23.14 619 0.1283105.59 24.64 631 0.1282111.42 26.76 663 0.1276111.56 28.65 651 0.1274111.29 28.65 651 0.1269125.35 31.84 737 0.1268104.04 24.64 631 0.1258101.52 23.14 619 0.1258122.01 29.16 742 0.1251105.23 27.05 630 0.1248100.58 23.14 619 0.1243

Average value of F1 0.1285Standard deviation 0.0024Standard error of mean 0.0005

Table 5Second figure of merit (F2) of a typical Indian solar box cooker obtained from outdoortesting [184].

Tw1 (�C) Tw2 (�C) T�a (�C) H� (W/m2) T (s) F2

60.00 90.00 38.05 712 5100 0.499760.10 90.27 32.00 798 5520 0.498560.00 90.00 38.03 692 5640 0.486460.00 90.00 38.30 696 5340 0.485260.34 90.03 28.09 803 6120 0.483860.59 90.03 22.62 885 5580 0.482960.00 90.00 36.90 764 4740 0.479260.00 90.00 38.00 712 5220 0.478960.00 90.00 38.18 655 6120 0.478760.00 90.00 36.74 631 6900 0.478760.10 90.03 25.23 865 5640 0.478060.00 90.00 35.55 631 7200 0.475260.00 90.00 34.59 731 5400 0.474960.00 90.00 36.90 764 4740 0.474760.00 90.00 35.58 728 5340 0.473260.02 90.29 37.27 819 4500 0.472161.37 91.54 35.95 767 5100 0.466760.83 90.03 30.17 738 7320 0.466560.59 90.03 30.95 842 5280 0.465260.00 90.00 35.45 631 7500 0.464960.00 90.00 37.70 676 6060 0.464760.39 90.76 37.31 767 5100 0.461860.39 90.79 35.59 890 4200 0.457760.59 90.27 32.16 809 5760 0.457260.10 90.03 28.19 800 6600 0.4543

Average value of F2 0.4744Standard deviation 0.0117Standard error of mean 0.0023

Fig. 16. Experimental setup for determination of (a) F1 and (b) F2 [185].


temperature of water in the SPC was 333 K and for SBC was 326 Kand the daily average difference between the temperature of waterin the cooking vessel and the ambient air temperature was 31.6 Kfor SPC and 26.4 K for SBC. The energy output of the SPC variedfrom 0.65 to 39.3 W and 7.44 to 33.49 W for SBC, whereas its exer-gy output was in the range of 0.92 to 2.58 W for SPC and for SBC itvaried from 0.65 to 1.45 W. The energy efficiency of the SPC variedfrom 0.42% to 5.27% and for the SBC it varies from 4.7% to 29.81%.

Prasanna and Umanand [154] developed a hybrid solar cookingsystem as shown in Fig. 17 where the solar energy was transportedto the kitchen. The thermal energy source was used to supplementthe Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) which was in common use inkitchens. In the prescribed system, cooking could be carried outat any time of the day with time taken being comparable to con-ventional systems. Design and sizing of different components ofthe system were described with equations.

5.6. Effective parameters on performance of solar cookers

It is well known in literature that thermal performance param-eters of solar cookers are highly dependent on the main compo-nents of the cookers. If a solar box cooker is considered, thesecomponents will be the booster mirror, glazing, absorber tray,cooking vessel, heat storage material and insulation as expected.On the other hand, characteristic features of the reflective surfaceswill play the main role if a solar panel cooker or a parabolic cookeris evaluated.

5.6.1. Booster mirrorA booster mirror is quite significant for a solar cooker since it

allows higher illumination intensity falling on the transmittingsurface of the cooker hence higher working temperatures whichenhance the efficiency. Ibrahim and Elreidy [190] investigatedthe performance of a solar cooker integrated with a plane boostermirror reflector under the climatic conditions of Egypt. The exper-iments lasted 2 years for various operating conditions. Cookerposition and the tilt angle of the booster mirror were adjusted inorder to maximize the sunlight concentration. It was observed thata good meal for a family of four was cooked in 3–4 h. It was alsofound that better heat transfer occurred when the cooking pot

Fig. 17. Block diagram of the hybrid solar cooking system [154].


was covered with an airtight plastic transparent cover rather thanusing an ordinary metallic cover. Gayapershad et al. [191] evalu-ated the performances of two solar cooking units: a low-cost,low-technology Sunstove unit and the more expensive Ishisa boxunit. The cookers were tested with and without tracking systemunder summer radiometric conditions at the Solar Thermal Appli-cations Research Laboratory (STARlab) between December 2005and April 2006. The Ishisa box unit also augmented with externalmirror panels. The Sunstove unit could not succeed to boil water.The maximum water temperature reached in the Sunstove unitwas found to be 88 �C for tracked conditions. On the other hand,the Ishisa box unit enabled boiling water for both tracked andnon-tracked conditions. The tracked unit reached the boiling tem-perature 20 min earlier than the untracked unit. It was noted thatthe Ishisa box unit benefitted from tracking efficiently via its exter-nal booster mirrors. In Indian Institute of Technology, Shukla andGupta [192] presented an energy and exergy analysis of a concen-trating solar cooker. The cooker was devised for community cook-ing and integrated with a linear parabolic concentrator whichconcentration ratio is 20. The experiments were carried out in bothsummer and winter conditions. Through the experimental results,the average efficiency of the solar cooker was determined to be14%. Heat losses caused low efficiency were classified as opticallosses (16%), geometrical losses (30%) and thermal losses (35%).The rest of the losses were due to edge losses, etc. The maximumtemperature that the water in the cooker reached was 98 �C duringthe tests.

5.6.2. GlazingBarker [193] interestingly showed that, if it is not needed to ex-

ceed 100 �C, an efficient solar cooker can be made for less than 5$with materials that are available almost everywhere. He under-lined that multiple glazings and highly insulated boxes are notnecessary in the proposed design. A double glazed transparentpolyethylene plastic film was used as a glazing material in the coo-ker. It was concluded that most of the foods can be cooked in thisvery low cost cooker with a 0.25 m2 collector area. Bell mentionedabout the glazing selection for various heat transfer applications.One or more sheets of glass or other diathermanous (radiation-transmitting) material was utilized in order to transfer the solarenergy to the collector/absorber plate. The transparent cover wasused to minimize convection losses from the absorber platethrough the restraint of the stagnant air layer between the absor-ber plate and the glass. It also enabled reducing radiation lossesfrom the collector as the glass is transparent to the short waveradiation received by the sun but it is nearly opaque to long-wavethermal radiation emitted by the absorber plate [20,194,195].Hussain and Khan [196] experimentally investigated a low cost

box-type solar cooker made of two paper carton boxes with crum-pled newspaper balls as insulation. The cooker was supported by areflector covered with aluminium foil. Experimental results ob-tained from the novel cooker were compared with a standard cost-lier solar box cooker. It was observed that the water temperaturerapidly increase in novel cooker compared to the standard cooker.Two figures of merit of the new cooker also found satisfactory.

5.6.3. Absorber plateAbsorber tray of a solar cooker is a crucial component since it

absorbs the useful energy from sun to be able to succeed cookingprocess. Geometric structure of an absorber plate is quite signifi-cant as well as its thermophysical properties. In order to maximizethe illumination intensity falling on the absorber tray and enhancethe heat transfer from the absorber tray to the food in cookingvessels, absorber tray is a key item which allows various modifica-tions. Harmim et al. [67] devised and constructed a box-type solarcooker with a finned absorber plate to maximize the solar energyabsorption. The results showed that solar box cooker integratedwith fins was approximately 7% more efficient than the conven-tional solar box cooker. The time required for water to boil wasreduced approximately 12% when a finned absorber plate was uti-lized. In Turkey, Ozkaymak [197] experimentally investigated theperformance of a hot box solar cooker. The cooker has a cylindricalgeometry as shown in Fig. 18, with a 38 cm inner diameter, 40 cmouter diameter and 25 cm height. The outer wall of the cooker wasmade of 1 mm thick metal sheet tray. The absorber plate was madeof thin copper sheet, which was painted black for absorbing solarradiation better. Glass wool insulation was used on the bottomand sides of the cooker to minimize thermal losses through con-duction. A clear window glass of 4 mm thickness was fixed overthe inner tray. Three 4 mm thick plane mirror reflectors wereplaced around the cooker. The three reflectors were kept fixed.The constant tilt of the reflector is 678 from the horizontal plane.The cooking pot was a black painted aluminium pot with 10 cmdiameter and 16.5 cm height. The experiments were carried outduring July and August 2004 at Karabuk, Turkey. The solar cookerwith three reflectors was exposed to solar radiation between10.00 a.m. and 4 p.m. It was observed from the experimentalresults that absorber plate temperature was over 100 �C during aperiod of 5 h which is a sufficient time to cook most of the foods.Mawire et al. [198] developed a thermal energy storage systemusing a packed pebble bed. An electrical hot plate heated up oilcirculating in a copper absorber plate which charges the storagesystem. A Visual Basic program was developed to acquire datafor monitoring the storage system and to maintain a nearly con-stant outlet temperature from the charging point. It was concluded

Fig. 18. Hot box solar cooker with cylindrical cooking vessel and experimentalsetup [197].

Fig. 19. (a) Communal solar cooker and (b) cooking pot [201].


that the results obtained can be used to characterize the cookingsystem.

5.6.4. Cooking equipmentCooking pots are the items which are in conduction with the ab-

sorber tray in order to receive the absorbed energy and transfer itto the food. Any type of cooking vessel can be used in solar cookersbut generally rectangular and cylindrical shaped cooking vesselsmade of aluminium or copper are recommended. Saxena et al.[20] emphasized in their comprehensive review that number ofcooking pots in a solar box cooker may vary depending on thequantity and the type of the food. Gaur et al. [79] found that per-formance of a solar cooker can be enhanced if a cooking vessel witha concave shape lid is used instead of a plain lid. Joshi et al.[199,200] presented experimental and numerical studies on solarcookers in the early 2012 in order to provide an efficient designincluding cooking equipment. They aimed at increasing the solarcooking efficiency from 10–25% to 60% or more. In their novel de-sign, the cooking pots gained energy from condensing steam on theoutside surface. The cooking charge (water + rice or lentils and/orvegetables) received heat by the mode of natural convection. Theresults of CFD indicated that optimum heat flux is in the range of16,200–25,000 kcal/h m2 where m2 is the bottom surface area ofthe cooking system. Cooking pots with perforations were recom-mended for higher efficiency. Franco et al. [201] introduced a mul-tiple use communal solar cooker. The parabolic concentrator andthe cooking pot are shown in Fig. 19. The cooking pot with 10 Lcapacity was painted black and placed on the focus of the concen-trator. Stew as food was tested in the cooking system. A stew isgenerally made with potatoes, noodles or rice, meat, vegetableslike peppers and carrots, and spices. The cooking is done in water,adding the ingredients according to the time span each one needsto be cooked. It was expressed in the study that about 18 kg of foodcan be cooked using only one concentrator. They noted that about18 kg of stew can be cooked on each solar cooker within 3 or 4 h.

5.6.5. Heat storage materialIt is a clear fact from the literature that solar cookers are very

promising devices in the upcoming future. However, there aresome handicaps concerning the solar cooking technology. Perhaps,the most challenging point of solar cookers is that they are not ableto serve when the sun goes down. Some researchers performedintensive efforts on solar box cookers in order to allow late eveningcooking. PCMs were considered as a solution in most cases.Bushnell [202] designed, constructed and evaluated a solar energy

storing heat exchanger as a step toward a solar cooking concept.The solid–solid transition of pentaerythritol was the principalmechanism for energy storage. The methods for describing thesystem performance were explained and applied to a test systemcontaining a controllable replacement for the solar input power.This first stage of this research work followed by a heat exchanger,which was connected to a concentrating array of CPC cylindricaltroughs. Author also described the size of the solar collector areaand mass of PCM mass needed in order to provide adequate energyfor several family-size meals with sufficient storage to cook atnight and 1 or 2 days later. The performance was described fromefficiency measurements and the determination of a figure of mer-it. Bushnell and Sohi [203] also designed a modular phase changeheat exchanger with pentaerythritol used as a PCM for thermalstorage (solid–solid phase change at 182 �C) was tested in an ovenby circulating heat transfer oil which was heated electrically in amanner to simulate a concentrating solar collector. Thermal energyretention times and cooking extraction times were determined,and along with the efficiencies, were compared with the resultspreviously reported for a non-modular heat exchanger. Buddhiand Sahoo [204] designed a box-type solar cooker as shown inFig. 20 with latent heat storage for the composite climatic condi-tions of India. The experimental results demonstrated the feasibil-ity of using a phase change material as the storage medium in solarcookers. It also provided a nearly constant plate temperature in the

Fig. 20. Solar box cooker with thermal energy storage material (G: double glass lid,A: absorber tray, B: PCM tray, C: pot container, P: PCM and I: glasswool insulation)[204].

Fig. 21. Schematic model of TPSBC with cooking vessels [208].


late evening. The experimental results were also compared withthose of a conventional solar cooker. The test of the cooker wasperformed without a cooking load. The results indicated that solarcooker with PCM provides an environment in which the cooking ispossible even the sun goes away. The absorber plate temperatureof the solar cooker remained constant at about 70 �C for a longperiod of time.

5.6.6. InsulationIt is well-documented in literature that insulation is one of most

crucial key points for a box type solar cooker to be able to providean efficient cooking [103,104]. All materials with low thermal con-ductivity may be used as an insulation material in solar cookers.However, the main purpose for material selection should be mini-mizing heat loss from the solar cooker to the environment withminimal cost. Vandana [205] devised and constructed a very lowcost for Indian women who are burdened with household work,agriculture work and care of animals in addition to all time finan-cial crisis. The proposed fireless cooker was insulated with straw-board and tested in terms of cooking efficiency. The resultsindicated that the fireless cooker of strawboard could both cookas well as keep the food hot with in safe temperatures well above6 h. Nyahoro et al. [206] presented an explicit finite-differencemethod to simulate the thermal performance of short-term ther-mal storage for a focusing, indoor, institutional, solar cooker. Thecooker storage unit consisted of a cylindrical solid block. The blockwas enclosed in a uniform layer of insulation except where therewere cavities on the top and bottom surfaces to allow heating ofa pot from storage and heating of the storage by solar radiation.A paraboloidal concentrator focused solar radiation through a sec-ondary reflector onto a central circular zone of the storage blockthrough the cavity in the insulation. The storage was charged fora set period of time and heat was subsequently discharged to apot of water. In these simulations a pot of cold water was placedon the hot storage block and the time then estimated until thewater either boiled or the temperature of the water reached a max-imum value. Simulations were made for a given pot capacity withthe storage block made from either cast iron or granite (rock). Theeffects on cooker performance were compared for a variety ofheight to diameter ratios of the storage block and size of the areaof solar input zone. Bollin [207] proposed a detailed study aboutthe transparent insulation in various solar applications includingsolar cookers with thermal energy storage.

6. Thermodynamic assessment of solar cookers

Energy and exergy analysis provide an alternative means ofevaluating and comparing solar cookers. Ozturk [115] definedenergy and exergy efficiency for the solar cookers as given inEqs. (13) and (14), respectively. Several studies were carried outabout this topic. However, the first study on energy and exergyefficiencies of solar cookers was conducted by Ozturk [115]. Itwas stressed in his article that there was large difference in energy

and exergy output and efficiency because of changes in cooker con-figuration. It was also seen that the exergy analysis was moreconvenient than the energy analysis for predicting solar cookerefficiency.

g ¼ energy outputenergy input

¼ Eo

Ei¼

mwcpwðTwf � TwiÞ� �

=tItAsc

ð13Þ

where g is energy efficiency, mw is water mass, cpw is specific heat ofwater, Twf is final temperature of water, Twi is initial temperature ofwater, t is time, It is total instantaneous solar radiation and Asc isintercept area of solar cooker.

w ¼ exergy outputexergy input

¼ Exo

Exi¼

mwcpw ðTwf � TwiÞ � To ln Twf

Twi

h i=t

It 1� 4Ta3Ts

h iAsc

ð14Þ

where w is exergy efficiency, To is outside temperature, Ta is ambi-ent temperature and Ts is sun temperature. Kumar et al. [208] inves-tigated a truncated pyramid type solar box cooker (TPSBC) in termsof exergy and energy efficiencies. Two cooking vessels which filled2 L of water were used for conducting full load test. During the testperiod, the booster mirror was covered with black cloth. The watertemperature inside the vessels reached 90.6 �C from 60 �C in 70 minwhereas the initial water and ambient temperatures were 43.18 �Cand 33.43 �C, respectively. The maximum and minimum values ofinsulation were observed as 929 W/m2 and 376 W/m2, respectively.The maximum and minimum energy gained from water inside thesolar cooker was calculated 20.8 kJ and 7.5 kJ, respectively. An inter-esting result in the article was the shift in the output exergy peakfrom that of the output energy peak on the time scale, which is adirect consequence of the decrease in the exergy lost after the watertemperature became >60 �C. In addition exergy analysis of solar boxcookers was a practical, comprehensive and realistic tool for solarcookers’ performance evaluation. The schematic view of TPSBC isillustrated in Fig. 21.

It is necessary to determine the exergy of incoming solar radia-tion for conducting second law analysis of solar cookers. In thiscontext, Petela [118] defined an expression for the utilizable partof the solar energy as follows:

w ¼ 1þ 13

T0

T

� �4

� 43

T0

Tð15Þ

where w is maximum efficiency ratio, T0 is ambient temperatureand T is absolute temperature. It is understood from the Eq. (15)that for T0 = 300 K and T = 6000 K, approximately 0.93 G is the util-izable part of the incoming energy where G is the illuminationintensity.


7. Methods to enhance solar cooking performance

There are many opportunities in order to improve the perfor-mance of solar cookers. First of all, amount of absorbed solar en-ergy may be increased via a concentrating system. Fresnel lens isa good choice to achieve this purpose. Especially in recent years,many applications of Fresnel lens have been recorded in not onlysolar cookers but also other solar energy technologies [209–214].However, if a photovoltaic cell is considered, when the PV cell issupported with a Fresnel lens it definitely should be cooled by anefficient cooling system for a desired increment in power output.Otherwise, as reported by Wu et al. [215] efficiency of the cell dra-matically decreases depending on the huge temperature increaseof the cell. Amount of solar energy falling on the surface of a solarcooker can also be enhanced with reflecting mirrors or surfaces.Secondly, thermophysical properties of the absorber tray play animportant role on the performance parameters of solar box cook-ers. Absorber trays should be selected from materials with highthermal conductivity and painted black. It is also possible to devel-op new materials with higher absorptivity coefficients. As recom-mended by Harmim et al. [67], absorber plate can be constructedwith extended surfaces in order to enhance the heat transfer fromabsorber tray to food in the cooking vessels. Saxena et al. [20] re-ported a cooking vessel modified to reduce the cooking time fora solar box cooker. The cooking vessel had a trapezoidal shapewhich absorbs a good amount of solar radiation due to its exposedsurface area and made of aluminium with a 150 mm bottom enddiameter and 180 mm top end diameter. A series of lugs in acurvature form at the bottom of vessel was provided as shown inFig. 22 to enhance the heat transfer. The lid became hot and gener-ated a current of hot air, which circulated inside the box cooker.The heat carrying by this hot air circulation, reached to the foodvia the most sides of the vessel. A heat transfer between foodand the lid took place by means of convection in the air layer be-tween the food and the lid. The air convection was effective intransferring heat from the food to the lid and vice versa. The totaldepth of the cooking vessel was 600 mm + 40 mm. The radius ofcurvature of a lug was 2.5 mm. To measure the temperature ofcooking fluid stored in the modified cooking vessel during the test-ing a lid holder openable knob (screw threaded) was provided onthe top of cooking vessel. There was also a locking system of lidto the cooking vessel for proper closing. The testing was performed

Fig. 22. A modified cooking pot

to determine the cooking power. Thirdly, an efficient and low costinsulation should be provided in order to avoid heat loss from thewalls of the cooker to the ambient. Transparent insulation materi-als (TIMs) are highly recommended by many researchers for theinsulation of glazing [105,106]. Finally, solar cookers should beused with thermal energy storage materials (water, rock, pebble,PCMs, etc.) to enable late evening cooking.

8. Environmental impacts of solar cookers

Nandwani [216] carried out a study on the ecological benefits ofsolar cookers. The study aimed at estimating the energy used forcooking in Costa Rica and comparing advantages and limitationsof solar ovens with conventional firewood and electric stoves.The payback period of a common hot box type solar oven, even ifused 6–8 months a year, was found to be around 12–14 months.Even if only 5% of persons facing fuel shortages in the year 2005use solar ovens, roughly 16.8 million tons of firewood will be savedand the emission of 38.4 million tons of carbon dioxide per yearwill be prevented according to the results. Escobar [217] proposeda low cost solar cooker which was designed and developed at theSchool of Physics seeking to reduce the consumption of wood asan energy source. According to National statistics, this source ofenergy represents 53% of the primary energy consumed in thecountry. The solar cookers were made with cardboard, glass,aluminium foil iron sheet, and vegetable residues as thermal insu-lator, other insulators were polyurethane residue which testing hasdetermined its thermal resistance. The economics savings by usingthe prescribed cooker in terms of wood burning and electricitywere properly highlighted. Wentzel and Pouris [14] investigatedthe development impact of solar cookers in South Africa. Theirobservations were based on field tests in South Africa that startedin 1996 to investigate the social acceptability of solar cookers andto facilitate local production and commercialization of the technol-ogy. It was concluded that only 17% of solar cooker owners do notuse their stoves after purchase. Active solar cooker users utilisetheir stoves on average for 31% of their cooking incidences. Solarcooking technology may be a very good opportunity especially inrural areas of developing world in order to avoid deforestation.Solar cookers are quite attractive to deal with the health problemsin developing countries caused by firewood use and minimize theCO2 emission all over the world.

for solar box cookers [20].


9. Future potential of solar cookers

As reported by Panwar et al. [4], renewable energy resourceswill play an important role in the world’s future. According tothe global renewable energy scenario, proportion of the solar ther-mal applications will be about 480 million tons oil equivalent by2040 [218]. Average cost of solar cookers decreases day by dayon the contrary their power output and efficiency considerablyincreases. In the upcoming future, widespread use of this technol-ogy is expected hopefully not only in developing countries but alsothroughout the world. Nowadays, solar cookers are also availableto use in the areas with limited solar radiation depending on thedevelopments in solar power concentrating systems and materialtechnology. In addition, the most challenging point of solar cook-ers, unavailable to use when sun goes away, is overcome with ther-mal energy storage techniques. Briefly, it is anticipated that solarcooking technology will be demanded by a huge group of peoplein the near future because of its outstanding features.

10. Conclusion

In this study, a comprehensive review of the available literatureon solar cookers is presented. The review covers a historic over-view of solar cooking technology, detailed description of varioustypes of solar cookers, performance analysis and thermodynamicassessment of solar cookers, novel designs on solar cookingtechnology, key items to enhance solar cooking efficiency and alsoecological aspects of solar cookers. Specific findings obtained in thereview are given as follows:

� Fresnel lenses or at least two booster mirrors should be used insolar cookers in order to maximize the incoming solar radiation.� Glazing should be double for a satisfactory insulation.� Absorber plate/tray should be painted black and augmented

with extended surfaces for better heat transfer.� Cylindrical shaped cooking vessels made of aluminium or coo-

per and painted black should be preferred for a higher cookingefficiency.� TIMs should be utilized between glazings in order to avoid nota-

ble heat loss from the top of the cooker.� Glasswool, rockwool, strawboard or sawdust can be used for the

insulation of side walls and bottom.� To enable late evening cooking water, rock, pebble, PCMs, etc.

should be utilized as thermal energy storage material beneaththe absorber tray.� Maximum payback period of solar cookers is about 2 years and

this time may be shorter depending on the design, frequency ofuse and location.� Solar cooking technology is a key item in order to deal with

deforestation and environmental pollution.

References

[1] Riffat SB, Cuce E. A review on hybrid photovoltaic/thermal collectors andsystems. Int J Low – Carbon Technol 2011;6(3):212–41.

[2] Sahin AD, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic analysis of solar photovoltaiccell systems. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells 2007;91:153–9.

[3] Hasan MA, Sumathy K. Photovoltaic thermal module concepts and theirperformance analysis: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2010;14:1845–59.

[4] Panwar NL, Kaushik SC, Kothari S. Role of renewable energy sources inenvironmental protection: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2011;15:1513–24.

[5] Cuce E, Bali T. Variation of cell parameters of a p–Si PV cell with different solarirradiances and cell temperatures in humid climates. In: Fourth internationalexergy, energy and environment symposium, Sharjah, UAE; 19–23 April 2009.

[6] Cuce E, Bali T. A comparison of energy and power conversion efficiencies ofm–Si and p–Si PV cells in Trabzon. In: Fifth international advancedtechnologies symposium, Karabuk, Turkey; 13–15 May 2009.

[7] Cuce E, Bali T. Improving performance parameters of silicon solar cells usingair cooling. In: Fifth international edge energy symposium and exhibition,Denizli, Turkey; 27–30 June 2010.

[8] Cuce E, Bali T, Sekucoglu SA. Effects of passive cooling on performance ofsilicon photovoltaic cells. Int J Low – Carbon Technol 2011;6(4):299–308.

[9] Cuce PM, Cuce E. A novel model of photovoltaic modules for parameterestimation and thermodynamic assessment. Int J Low – Carbon Technol2012;7(2):159–65.

[10] Cuce PM, Cuce E, Aygun C. Homotopy perturbation method for temperaturedistribution, fin efficiency and fin effectiveness of convective straight fins. IntJ Low – Carbon Technol 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts062.

[11] Johansson TB, Kelly H, Reddy AKN, et al. Renewable energy sources for fuelsand electricity. Earthscan Publications Ltd. and Island Press; 1993.

[12] Lahkar PJ, Samdarshi SK. A review of the thermal performance parameters ofbox type solar cookers and identification of their correlations. Renew SustEnergy Rev 2010;14:1615–21.

[13] Toonen HM. Adapting to an innovation: solar cooking in the urbanhouseholds of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Phys Chem Earth2009;34:65–71.

[14] Wentzel M, Pouris A. The development impact of solar cookers: a review ofsolar cooking impact research in South Africa. Energy Policy 2007;35:1909–19.

[15] Pohekar SD, Kumar D, Ramachandran M. Dissemination of cooking energyalternatives in India: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2005;9:379–93.

[16] World Health Organization (WHO). Fuel for life. WHO, Geneva; 2006.[17] Muthusivagami RM, Velraj R, Sethumadhavan R. Solar cookers with and

without thermal storage: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2010;14:691–701.[18] Nahar NM. Performance and testing of a hot box storage solar cooker. Energy

Convers Manage 2003;44:1323–31.[19] Halacy B, Halacy C. Cooking with the sun. Lafayette, CA: Jack Howell; 1992.[20] Saxena A, Varun, Pandey SP, Srivastav G. A thermodynamic review on solar

box type cookers. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2011;15:3301–18.[21] Narayanaswamy S. Making the most of sunshine: a handbook of solar energy

for the common man. New Delhi: Sangam Books Ltd.; 2001.[22] Hoda MM. Solar cookers. Lucknow, India: Appropriate Technology

Development Association; 1979.[23] Knudson B. State of the art of solar cooking: a global survey of practices and

promotion programs. Sacramento: SCI; 2004.[24] Mullick SC, Kandpal TC, Saxena AK. Thermal test procedure for box type solar

cooker. Solar Energy 1987;39(4):353–60.[25] Funk PA. Evaluating the international standard procedure for testing solar

cookers and reporting performance. Solar Energy 2000;68(1):1–7.[26] Ashok K. A review of solar cooker designs. TIDE; 1998.[27] Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995.[28] Kimambo CZM. Development and performance testing of solar cookers. J

Energy S Afr 2007;18(3).[29] Kerr B, Scott J. Use of the solar panel cooker for medical pressure steam

sterilization. In: Solar cookers and food processing international conference,Granada, Spain; 12–16 July 2006.

[30] Khan BH. Non-conventional energy resources. Tata McGraw Hill Publications;2008.

[31] Kothari DP, Singal KC, Ranjan R. Renewable energy resources and emergingtechnologies. Prentice-Hall; 2008.

[32] Ghai ML, Bansal TD, Kanl BN. Design of reflector type direct solar cooker. J SciInd Res 1953;12A:165–75.

[33] Ghai ML. Solar heat for cooking. J Sci Ind Res 1953;12A:117–24.[34] Telkes M. Solar cooking ovens. Princeton, New Jersey: Solar Energy

Laboratory, Curtiss–Wright Corporation; 1955.[35] Telkes M. Solar cooking ovens. Solar Energy 1959;3(1):1–10.[36] Funk PA, Larson DL. Parametric model of solar cooker performance. Solar

Energy 1998;62(1):63–8.[37] Schaeffer W. Report on solar cooker. Solar Energy Laboratory, University of

Wisconsin; 1960.[38] Telkes M, Andrassy S. Practical solar-cooking ovens. In: United Nations

conference on new sources of energy, Rome, Italy; 21–31 August 1961.[39] Duffle JA, Lof GOG, Beckman B. Laboratory and field studies of plastic reflector

solar cookers. Solar Energy 1962;6(8):94–8.[40] Lof GOG. Recent investigations in the use of solar energy for cooking. Solar

Energy 1963;7(3):125–33.[41] Ullah Khan E. Practical devices for the utilization of solar energy. Solar Energy

1964;8(1):17–22.[42] Abou-Hussein MSM. Temperature-decay curves in the box-type solar cooker.

In: United Nations Conference on new sources of energy, Rome, Italy; 21–31August 1961.

[43] Garg HP, Mann HS, Thanvi KP. Performance evaluation of five solar cookers.Sun: Mankind’s Future Source Energy 1978;3:1491–6.

[44] Garg HP, Prakash J. Solar energy: fundamentals and applications. TataMcGraw Hill Publications; 2000.

[45] Dang A. Concentrators: a review. Energy Convers Manage 1986;26(1):11–26.

[46] Garg HP, Hrishikesan DS. Enhancement of solar energy on flat-plate collectorby plane booster mirrors. Solar Energy 1988;40(4):295–307.

[47] Narasimha Rao AV, Sitharama Rao TL, Subramanyam S. Mirror boosters forsolar cookers – I. Energy Convers Manage 1988;28(3):265–9.

[48] Narasimha Rao AV, Sitharama Rao TL, Subramanyam S. Mirror boosters forsolar cookers – II. Energy Convers Manage 1989;29(3):157–64.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts062


[49] Narasimha Rao AV, Sitharama Rao TL, Subramanyam S. Mirror boosters forsolar cookers – III. Energy Convers Manage 1991;32(1):51–8.

[50] Narasimha Rao AV, Chalam RV, Subramanyam S, Sitharama Rao TL. Energycontribution by booster mirrors. Energy Convers Manage 1993;34(4):309–26.

[51] El-Sebaii AA, Domanski R, Jaworski M. Experimental and theoreticalinvestigation of a box-type solar cooker with multi-step inner reflectors.Energy 1994;19(10):1011–21.

[52] Habeebullah MB, Khalifa AM, Olwi I. The oven receiver: an approach towardthe revival of concentrating solar cookers. Solar Energy 1995;54(4):227–37.

[53] El-Sebaii AA, Aboul-Enein S. A box-type solar cooker with one-step outerreflector. Energy 1997;22(5):515–24.

[54] Buddhi D, Sharma SD, Sharma A. Thermal performance evaluation of a latentheat storage unit for late evening cooking in a solar cooker having threereflectors. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:809–17.

[55] Algifri AH, Al-Towaie HA. Efficient orientation impacts of box-type solarcooker on the cooker performance. Solar Energy 2001;70(2):165–70.

[56] Mirdha US, Dhariwal SR. Design optimization of solar cooker. Renew Energy2008;33:530–44.

[57] Jackson RS. Power boosted solar cooker – II; 1992.[58] Eckert ERG, Goldstein RJ, Ibele WE, Patankar SV, Simon TW, Strykowski PJ,

et al. Heat transfer – a review of 1993 literature. Int J Heat Mass Transfer1996;39(5):885–963.

[59] Duffle JA, Backman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 3rd ed. NewYork: Wiley Publications; 2006.

[60] Deubener J, Helsch G, Moiseev A, Bornhöft H. Glasses for solar energyconversion systems. J Eur Ceram Soc 2009;29:1203–10.

[61] Mullick SC, Kandpal TC, Kumar S. Top heat-loss factor of double-glazed box-type solar cooker from indoor experiments. Energy 1997;22(6):559–65.

[62] Akhtar N, Mullick SC. Approximate method for computation of glass covertemperature and top heat-loss coefficient of solar collectors with singleglazing. Solar Energy 1999;66(5):349–54.

[63] Kalogirou S. The potential of solar industrial process heat applications. ApplEnergy 2003;76:337–61.

[64] Kalogirou SA. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Prog Energy CombustSci 2004;30:231–95.

[65] Garg HP, Prakash J. Solar energy fundamentals and applications. Tata McGrawHill Publications; 2004.

[66] Curlydock. Some experiments on solar oven simulation test. Green manwaiting. Sustainable survival; 2007.

[67] Harmim A, Belhamel M, Boukar M, Amar M. Experimental investigation of abox-type solar cooker with a finned absorber plate. Energy2010;35:3799–802.

[68] Pande PC, Thanvi KP. Design and development of a solar cooker for maximumenergy capture in stationary mode. Energy Convers Manage 1987;27(1):117–20.

[69] Shrestha VM. Modification of the solar cooker. Solar Wind Technol1987;4(3):305–11.

[70] ThulasiDas TC, Karmakar S, Rao DP. Solar box cooker: part I. Modeling. SolarEnergy 1994;52(3):265–72.

[71] ThulasiDas TC, Karmakar S, Rao DP. Solar box cooker: part II. Analysis andsimulation. Solar Energy 1994;52(3):273–82.

[72] Anderson T, Duke M, Carson J. Performance of colored solar collectors. In: Thefirst international conference on applied energy, Hong Kong; 5–7 January2009.

[73] Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Souliotis M, Nousia Th. Solar collectors with coloredabsorbers. Solar Energy 2000;68(4):343–56.

[74] Kalogirou S, Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Souliotis M. Performance of solarsystems employing collectors with colored absorber. Energy Build2005;37:824–35.

[75] Amer EH. Theoretical and experimental assessment of a double exposuresolar cooker. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:2651–63.

[76] Kumar S. Natural convective heat transfer in trapezoidal enclosure of box-type solar cooker. Renew Energy 2004;29:211–22.

[77] Ogunwole OA. Flat plate collector solar cooker. AU J Technol2006;9(3):199–202.

[78] Khalifa AMA, Taha MM, Akyurt M. On prediction of solar cooker performanceand cooking in Pyrex pots. Solar Wind Technol 1986;3(1):13–9.

[79] Gaur A, Singh OP, Singh SK, Pandey GN. Performance study of solar cookerwith modified utensil. Renew Energy 1999;18:121–9.

[80] Narasimha Rao AV, Subramanyam S. Solar cookers – part I: cooking vessel onlugs. Solar Energy 2003;75:181–5.

[81] Narasimha Rao AV, Subramanyam S. Solar cookers – part II: cooking vesselwith central annular cavity. Solar Energy 2005;78:19–22.

[82] Reddy AR, Narasimha Rao AV. Prediction and experimental verification ofperformance of box type solar cooker – Part I. Cooking vessel with centralcylindrical cavity. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:2034–43.

[83] Harmim A, Boukar M, Amar M. Experimental study of a double exposure solarcooker with finned cooking vessel. Solar Energy 2008;82:287–9.

[84] Srinivasan Rao KVN. Innovative solar cooking vessel design. In: Fifthinternational energy conversion engineering conference and exhibit. St.Louis, Missouri, USA; 25–27 June 2007.

[85] Abhat A. Low temperature latent heat thermal energy storage: heat storagematerials. Solar Energy 1983;30(4):313–32.

[86] Garg HP, Mullick SC, Bhargava AK. Solar thermal energy storage. Dordrecht,Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1985.

[87] Hasnain SM. Review on sustainable thermal energy storage technologies –Part I: heat storage materials and techniques. Energy Convers Manage1998;39(11):1127–38.

[88] Zalba B, Marin JM, Cabeza LF, Mehling H. Review on thermal storage withphase change: materials, heat transfer analysis and applications. Appl ThermEng 2003;23:251–83.

[89] Farid MM, Khudhair AM, Siddique AKR, Said AH. A review on phase changeenergy storage: materials and applications. Energy Convers Manage2004;45:1597–615.

[90] Sharma SD, Sagara K. Latent heat storage materials and systems: a review. IntJ Green Energy 2005;2:1–56.

[91] Kenisarin M, Mahkamov K. Solar energy storage using phase changematerials. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2007;11:1913–65.

[92] Sharma A, Tyagi VV, Chen CR, Buddhi D. Review on thermal energy storagewith phase change materials and applications. Renew Sust Energy Rev2009;13:318–45.

[93] Ramadan MRI, Aboul-Enein S, El-Sebaii AA. A model of an improved low cost-indoor-solar-cooker in Tanta. Solar Wind Technol 1988;5(4):387–93.

[94] Haraksingh I, McDoom IA, Headley OSC. A natural convection flat-platecollector solar cooker with short term storage. Renew Energy 1996;9:729–32.

[95] Nandwani SS, Steinhart J, Henning HM, Rommel M, Wittwer V. Experimentalstudy of multipurpose solar hot box at Freiburg, Germany. Renew Energy1997;12(1):1–20.

[96] Sharma SD, Iwata T, Kitano H, Sagara K. Thermal performance of a solarcooker based on an evacuated tube solar collector with a PCM storage unit.Solar Energy 2005;78:416–26.

[97] Hussein HMS, El-Ghetany HH, Nada SA. Experimental investigation of novelindirect solar cooker with indoor PCM thermal storage and cooking unit.Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:2237–46.

[98] Chen CR, Sharma A, Tyagi SK, Buddhi D. Numerical heat transfer studies ofPCMs used in a box-type solar cooker. Renew Energy 2008;33:1121–9.

[99] El-Sebaii AA, Al-Amir S, Al-Marzouki FM, Faidah Adel S, Al-Ghamdi AA, Al-Heniti S. Fast thermal cycling of acetanilide and magnesium chloridehexahydrate for indoor solar cooking. Energy Convers Manage2009;50(12):3104–11.

[100] Oturanc G, Ozbalta N, Gungor A. Performance analysis of a solar cooker inTurkey. Int J Energy Res 2002;26:105–11.

[101] Mawire A, McPherson M. A feedforward IMC structure for controlling thecharging temperature of a TES system of a solar cooker. Energy ConversManage 2008;49:3143–54.

[102] Mawire A, McPherson M, van den Heetkamp RRJ. Simulated energy andexergy analyses of the charging of an oil-pebble bed thermal energy storagesystem for a solar cooker. Solar Energy Mater Solar Cells 2008;92:1668–76.

[103] Bokhoven T, Cotton N, Druck H, Pilgaard O, Stryi-Hipp G, Weiss W, et al. Solarthermal vision 2030. European Solar Thermal Technology Platform (ESTTP);2006.

[104] Kutz M. Mechanical engineers’ handbook, energy and power. 3rd ed. WileyPublications; 2005.

[105] Nahar NM, Marshall RH, Brinkworth BJ. Studies on a hot box solar cookerwith transparent insulation materials. Energy Convers Manage1994;35(9):787–91.

[106] Nahar NM. Design, development and testing of a double reflector hot boxsolar cooker with a transparent insulation material. Renew Energy2001;23:167–79.

[107] Mishra RS, Jai Sabberwal Prakash SP. Evaluation of solar cooker thermalperformance using different insulating materials. Int J Energy Res1984;8(4):393–6.

[108] Bjork F, Enochsson T. Properties of thermal insulation materials duringextreme environment changes. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:2189–95.

[109] Nyahoro PK, Johnson RR, Edwards J. Simulated performance of thermalstorage in a solar cooker. Solar Energy 1997;59:11–7.

[110] Ghai ML. Design of reflector type direct solar cookers. J Sci Ind Res1953;12A:165–75.

[111] Lof GOG, Fester D. Design and performance of folding umbrella-type solarcooker. Proc UN Conf New Sources Energy 1961;5:347–52.

[112] Ozturk HH. Second law analysis for solar cookers. Int J Green Energy2004;1(2):227–39.

[113] Ozturk HH, Oztekin S, Bascetincelik A. Evaluation of efficiency for solarcooker using energy and exergy analyses. Int J Energy 2003.

[114] Ozturk HH. Experimental determination of energy and exergy efficiency ofthe solar parabolic-cooker. Solar Energy 2004;77(1):67–71.

[115] Ozturk HH. Comparison of energy and exergy efficiency for solar box andparabolic cookers. J Energy Eng 2007;133(1):53–62.

[116] Arenas JM. Design, development and testing of a portable parabolic solarkitchen. Renew Energy 2007;32:257–66.

[117] Al-Soud MS, Abdallah E, Akayleh A, Abdallah S, Hrayshat ES. A parabolic solarcooker with automatic two axes sun tracking system. Appl Energy2010;87:463–70.

[118] Petela R. Exergy analysis of the solar cylindrical–parabolic cooker. SolarEnergy 2005;79:221–33.

[119] Shukla SK. Comparison of energy and exergy efficiency of community anddomestic type parabolic solar cookers. Int J Green Energy 2009;6:437–49.

[120] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Multi-criteria evaluation of cooking energyalternatives for promoting parabolic solar cooker in India. Renew Energy2004;29:1449–60.


[121] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Utility assessment of parabolic solar cooker asa domestic cooking device in India. Renew Energy 2006;31:1827–38.

[122] Nahar NM. Performance and testing of an improved solar water heater cumsteam cooker. Int J Energy Res 1985;9(1):113–6.

[123] Malhotra KS, Nahar NM, Ramana Rao BV. Optimization factor of solar ovens.Solar Energy 1983;31(2):235–7.

[124] Nahar NM. Performance and testing of a low cost solar water heater cumsolar cooker. Solar Wind Technol 1988;5(6):611–5.

[125] Nahar NM. Performance and testing of an improved hot box solar cooker.Energy Convers Manage 1990;30(1):9–16.

[126] Nahar NM. Performance studies of a large size non-tracking solar cooker.Renew Energy 1992;2:421–30.

[127] Nahar NM, Gupta JP, Sharma P. Design, development and testing of a large-size solar cooker for animal feed. Appl Energy 1994;48:295–304.

[128] Nahar NM, Gupta JP, Sharma P. A novel solar cooker for animal feed. EnergyConvers Manage 1996;37(1):77–80.

[129] Nahar NM, Gupta JP, Sharma P. Performance and testing of two models ofsolar cooker for animal feed. Renew Energy 1996;7(1):47–50.

[130] Khalifa AMA, Taha MMA, Akyurt M. An energy thrifty solar cooker – the minaoven. Solar Wind Technol 1984;1(2):81–91.

[131] Khalifa AMA, Taha MMA, Akyurt M. Design, simulation and testing of a newconcentrating type solar cooker. Solar Energy 1987;38(2):79–88.

[132] Tiwari GN, Yadav YP. A new solar cooker design. Energy Convers Manage1986;26(1):41–2.

[133] Nandwani SS. Experimental and theoretical analysis of a simple solar oven inthe climate of Costa Rica – I. Solar Wind Technol 1988;5(2):159–70.

[134] Al-Saad MA, Jubran BA. The performance of a low cost clay solar cooker.Renew Energy 1991;1:617–21.

[135] Grupp M, Montagne P, Wackernagel M. A novel advanced box-type solarcooker. Solar Energy 1991;47(2):107–13.

[136] Nandwani SS, Gomez OF. Comparative study of conventional and SBCIcardboard solar ovens. Renew Energy 1993;3:607–20.

[137] Wareham RC. Parameters for a solar cooker program. Renew Energy1997;10:217–9.

[138] Beaumont G, Eiloart T, Robinson P. Ultra low cost solar cookers: design detailsand field trials in Tanzania. Renew Energy 1997;10(4):635–40.

[139] Suharta H, Sayigh AM, Abdullah K, Mathew K. The comparison of three typesof Indonesian solar box cookers. Renew Energy 2001;22:379–87.

[140] Sonune AV, Philip SK. Development of a domestic concentrating cooker.Renew Energy 2003;28:1225–34.

[141] Negi BS, Purohit I. Experimental investigation of a box type solar cookeremploying a non-tracking concentrator. Energy Convers Manage2005;46:577–604.

[142] El-Sebaii AA, Ibrahim A. Experimental testing of a box-type solar cooker usingthe standard procedure of cooking power. Renew Energy 2005;30:1861–71.

[143] Cornell Solar Oven Team. Design of solar oven for use in the developingworld. Int J Service Learning Eng 2006; 2: 78–91.

[144] Nandwani SS. Design, construction and study of a hybrid solar food processorin the climate of Costa Rica. Renew Energy 2007;32:427–41.

[145] Kurt H, Deniz E, Recebli Z. An investigation into the effects of box geometrieson the thermal performance of solar cookers. Int J Green Energy2008;5(6):508–19.

[146] Schwarzer K, Silva MEV. Characterization and design methods of solarcookers. Solar Energy 2008;82:157–63.

[147] Kumar N, Agravat S, Chavda T, Mistry HN. Design and development ofefficient multipurpose domestic solar cookers/dryers. Renew Energy2008;33:2207–11.

[148] Kumar N, Chavda T, Mistry HN. A truncated pyramid non-tracking typemultipurpose domestic solar cooker/hot water system. Appl Energy2010;87:471–7.

[149] Bello AMA, Makinde V, Sulu HT. performance tests and thermal efficiencyevaluation of a constructed solar box cooker at a Guinea Savannah Station(Ilorin, Nigeria). J Am Sci 2010;6(2).

[150] Grupp M, Balmer M, Beall B, Bergler H, Cieslok J, Hancock D, et al. On-linerecording of solar cooker use rate by a novel metering device. Prototypedescription and experimental verification of output data. Solar Energy2009;83:276–9.

[151] Zhou SJ, Zhang XS. Comparison of two kinds of solar collector/energy storage.In: First international conference on building energy and environment,Dalian, China; 13–16 July 2008.

[152] Kurt H, Atik K, Ozkaymak M, Recebli Z. Thermal performance parametersestimation of hot box type solar cooker by using artificial neural network. IntJ Therm Sci 2008;47:192–200.

[153] Hernandez-Luna G, Huelsz G. A solar oven for intertropical zones: evaluationof the cooking process. Energy Convers Manage 2008;49:3622–6.

[154] Prasanna UR, Umanand L. Optimization and design of energy transportsystem for solar cooking application. Appl Energy 2011;88:242–51.

[155] Prasanna UR, Umanand L. Modeling and design of a solar thermal system forhybrid cooking application. Appl Energy 2011;88:1740–55.

[156] Saitoh TS, El-Ghetany HH. Solar water-sterilization system with thermally-controlled flow. Appl Energy 1999;64:387–99.

[157] Chaudhuri TK. Estimation of electrical backup for solar box cooker. RenewEnergy 1999;17:569–72.

[158] Abu-Malouh R, Abdallah S, Muslih IM. Design, construction and operation ofspherical solar cooker with automatic sun tracking system. Energy ConversManage 2011;52:615–20.

[159] Ekechukwu OV, Ugwuoke NT. Design and measured performance of a planereflector augmented box-type solar-energy cooker. Renew Energy2003;28:1935–52.

[160] Jaramillo OA, Huelsz G, Hernandez-Luna G, del Rio JA, Acosta R, Arriaga LG.Solar oven for intertropical zones: optogeometrical design. Energy ConversManage 2007;48(10):2649–56.

[161] Mohamad MA, El-Ghetany HH, Dayem AMA. Design, construction and fieldtest of hot-box solar cookers for African Sahel Region. Renew Energy1998;14:49–54.

[162] Hussain M, Das KC, Huda A. The performance of a box-type solar cooker withauxiliary heating. Renew Energy 1997;12(2):151–5.

[163] Schwarzer K, Eugenia M, Silva V. Solar cooking system with or without heatstorage for families and institutions. Solar Energy 2003;75:35–41.

[164] Khalifa AMA, Taha MMA, Akyurt M. Solar cookers for outdoor and indoors.Energy 1985;10(7):819–29.

[165] Mullick SC, Kandpal TC, Kumar S. Testing of box-type solar cooker: secondfigure of merit F2 and its variation with load and number of pots. Solar Energy1996;57:409–13.

[166] Patil SR, Patil PS, Hussain M, Samdarshi SK. Parameter investigation onthermal performance of box-type solar cookers using existing models. In:Eighth world renewable energy congress, Denver, Colorado, USA; 28thAugust–3rd September 2004.

[167] Yadav YP, Tiwari GN. Transient analytical study of box-type solar cooker.Energy Convers Manage 1987;27(2):121–5.

[168] Medved S, Oman J, Novak P. Numerical model and parametric analyses of aninflatable solar heater. Solar Energy 1999;65(4):263–70.

[169] Kablan MM. Forecasting the demand on solar water heating systems andtheir energy savings potential during the period 2001–2005 in Jordan. EnergyConvers Manage 2003;44:2027–36.

[170] Diallo MS, Sarr J, Sow ML, Mbow C, Ba B, Thiam A, et al. Photothermalconversion in a solar collector with tilted walls. Int J Phys Sci2009;4(12):860–7.

[171] Fared C, Andres M, Diego E, Hector IV, Carlos L. Radiation model for predictingtemperature evolution in solar cooker. Dyna-Colombia 2011;78(166):68–74.

[172] El-Sebaii AA. Thermal performance of a box-type solar cooker with outer-inner reflectors. Energy 1997;22(10):969–78.

[173] Terres H, Ortega JA, Gordon M, Morales JR, Lizard A. Heating of bee honey,olive oil, milk and water in a solar box type with internal reflectors. In:Energy sustainability conference, Long Beach, California, USA; 27–30 June2007.

[174] Olwi I, Khalifa A. Numerical modelling and experimental testing of a solargrill. J Solar Energy Eng – Trans ASME 1993;115(1):5–10.

[175] Bidotnark AK, Turkmen N. Modelling of a hot box solar cooker. EnergyConvers Manage 1996;37(3):303–10.

[176] Jubran BA, Alsaad MA. Parametric study of a box-type solar cooker. EnergyConvers Manage 1991;32(3):223–34.

[177] Mawire A, McPherson M, van den Heetkamp RRJ. Discharging simulations ofa thermal energy storage (TES) system for an indirect solar cooker. SolarEnergy Mater Solar Cells 2010;94(6):1100–6.

[178] Mawire A, McPherson M. Experimental and simulated temperaturedistribution of an oil-pebble bed thermal energy storage system with avariable heat source. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:1086–95.

[179] Parishwad GV, Bhardwaj RK, Nema VK. Estimation of hourly solar radiationfor India. Renew Energy 1997;12:303–13.

[180] Meyer EL, Van Dyk EE. Development of energy model based on total dailyirradiation and maximum ambient temperature. Renew Energy2000;21(1):37–47.

[181] Sen Z, Tan E. Simple models of solar radiation data for northwestern part ofTurkey. Energy Convers Manage 2001;42(5):587–98.

[182] Wong LT, Chow WK. Solar radiation model. Appl Energy 2001;69:191–224.[183] Jebaraj S, Iniyan S. A review of energy models. Renew Sust Energy Rev

2006;10:281–311.[184] Purohit I. Testing of solar cookers and evaluation of instrumentation error.

Renew Energy 2010;35:2053–64.[185] Kumar S. Estimation of design parameters for thermal performance

evaluation of box-type solar cooker. Renew Energy 2005;30:1117–26.[186] Kumar S, Kandpal TC, Mullick SC. Heat losses from a paraboloid concentrator

solar cooker: experimental investigations on effect of reflector orientation.Renew Energy 1993;3(8):871–6.

[187] Kumar S, Kandpal TC, Mullick SC. Effect of wind on the thermal performanceof a parabolloid concentrator solar cooker. Renew Energy 1994;4(3):333–7.

[188] Yeh HM, Ho CD, Hou JZ. Collector efficiency of double-flow solar air heaterswith fins attached. Energy 2002;27:715–27.

[189] Rathore N, Shukla SK. Experimental investigations and comparison of energyand exergy efficiencies of the box type and parabolic solar cooker. In: Thirdinternational conference on energy sustainability, San Francisco, California,USA; 19–23 July 2009.

[190] Ibrahim SMA, Elreidy MK. The performance of a solar cooker in Egypt. RenewEnergy 1995;6(8):1041–50.

[191] Gayapershad R, Dladla ST, Brooks MJ. Performance evaluation of commercialsolar cookers under equal loading conditions. In: IASTED Internationalconference on power, energy and applications, Gaborone, Botswana; 11–13September 2006.

[192] Shukla SK, Gupta SK. Performance evaluation of concentrating solar cookerunder Indian climatic conditions. In: Second international conference onenergy sustainability, Jacksonville, Florida, USA; 10–14 August 2008.


[193] Barker JED. The ‘‘solar nest’’ – a very low cost solar cooker. Solar worldcongress of the international-solar-energy-society, Beijing, China; 18–21September 2007.

[194] Bell J. Glazing selection. Australian cooperative research centre for renewableenergy school of mechanical. Manufacturing and Medical EngineeringQueensland University of Technology.

[195] American Society of Heating. Refrigeration and air conditioning engineers.ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. Atlanta; 1991.

[196] Hussain M, Khan MSI. Fabrication of and performance studies on a low costsolar cooker having an inclined aperture plane. Renew Energy 1996;9:762–5.

[197] Ozkaymak M. Theoretical and experimental investigation of a hot box-typesolar cooker performance. Proc Inst Mech Eng A – J Power Energy2007;221:91–7.

[198] Mawire A, van den Heetkamp RRJ, McPherson M, Zhandire E. Data acquisitionand control of a thermal energy storage and cooking system. In: Internationalconference on computer as a tool, Belgrade, Serbia & Montenegro; 21–24November 2005.

[199] Joshi JB, Pandit AB, Patel SB, Singhal RS, Bhide GK, Mariwala KV, et al.Development of efficient designs of cooking systems. I – experimental. IndEng Chem Res 2012;51(4):1878–96.

[200] Joshi JB, Pandit AB, Patel SB, Singhal RS, Bhide GK, Mariwala KV, et al.Development of efficient designs of cooking systems. II – computational fluiddynamics and optimization. Ind Eng Chem Res 2012;51(4):1897–922.

[201] Franco J, Cadena C, Saravia L. Multiple use communal solar cookers. SolarEnergy 2004;77:217–23.

[202] Bushnell DL. Performance studies of solar energy storing heat exchanger.Solar Energy 1988;41(6):503–12.

[203] Bushnell DL, Sohi M. A modular phase change heat exchanger for a solar oven.Solar Energy 1992;49(4):235–44.

[204] Buddhi D, Sahoo LK. Solar cooker with latent heat storage: design andexperimental testing. Energy Convers Manage 1997;38(5):493–8.

[205] Vandana K. Designing fireless cooker of indigenous insulation material forbetter heat retention. J Human Ecol 2010;30(2):99–104.

[206] Nyahoro PK, Johnson RR, Edwards J. Simulated performance of thermalstorage in a solar cooker. ISES 1995: Solar world congress, Harare, Zimbabwe;09–16 September 1995.

[207] Bollin E. Transparent insulation in various solar applications. In: Secondworld renewable energy congress, reading, England; 13–18 September 1992.

[208] Kumar N, Vishwanath G, Gupta A. An exergy based test protocol for truncatedpyramid type solar box cooker. Energy 2011;36:5710–5.

[209] Jing L, Liu H, Zhao H, Lu Z, Wu H, Wang H, et al. Design of novel compoundFresnel lens for high-performance photovoltaic concentrator. Int JPhotoenergy 2012 [article ID 630692].

[210] Barlev D, Vidu R, Stroeve P. Innovation in concentrated solar power. SolarEnergy Mater Solar Cells 2011;95:2703–25.

[211] Xie WT, Dai YJ, Wang RZ, Sumathy K. Concentrated solar energy applicationsusing Fresnel lenses: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2011;15:2588–606.

[212] Huang H, Su Y, Gao Y, Riffat S. Design analysis of a Fresnel lens concentratingPV cell. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 2011;6(3):165–70.

[213] Valmiki MM, Li P, Heyer J, Morgan M, Albinali A, Alhamidi K, et al. A novelapplication of a Fresnel lens for a solar stove and solar heating. Renew Energy2011;36:1614–20.

[214] Chemisana D, Ibanez M. Linear Fresnel concentrators for building integratedapplications. Energy Convers Manage 2010;51:1476–80.

[215] Wu Y, Eames P, Mallick T, Sabry M. Experimental characterisation of a Fresnellens photovoltaic concentrating system. Solar Energy 2012;86:430–40.

[216] Nandwani SS. Solar cookers – cheap technology with high ecological benefits.Ecol Econ 1996;17:73–81.

[217] Escobar EM. Low budget solar cookers: an alternative to diminish the use ofwood as a source of fuel. Renew Energy 1996;9:754–7.

[218] Kralova I, Sjoblom J. Biofuels-renewable energy sources: a review. J Disper SciTechnol 2010;31(3):409–25.

[219] Lahkar PJ, Bhamu RK, Samdarshi SK. Enabling inter-cooker thermalperformance comparison based on cooker opto-thermal ratio (COR). ApplEnergy 2012;99:491–5.

[220] El-Sebaii AA, Al-Ghamdi AA, Al-Hazmi FS, Faidah AS. Thermal performance ofa single basin solar still with PCM as a storage medium. Appl Energy2009;86:1187–95.

a comprehensive review on solar cookersdocshare01.docshare.tips/files/22448/224483481.pdfa...

Documents