[Stoves] Cost of Stoves

[Paul Anderson]

Dear Philip and David and all,

Two excellent comments came in via the "Stoves Digest" with a different 
Subject line, so I have pasted them below.

Yes, people have aspirations, and most (all?) would like to have 
something with the features that Philip mentioned.   And some would even 
pay 3 to 5 months wages, especially if credit can be obtained (from fuel 
sellers, etc).   But that is a sub-set of the stove purchasers.

It is like Americans with reasonable incomes purchasing a new or 
multi-featured automobile for US$20,000.   (or more!!, and with low 
mileage per gallon).  (That is low km per liter for those who like to 
see both measurement systems presented.  ;-)) ;-)   )    Some of them 
cannot really afford it, but it gives them more than just 
transportation.   Prestige, extra space, can be used to transport 
neighbors when the weather is bad, better music inside, attracts the 
young ladies, etc.   I have no problem with that.   But thank goodness 
for the used-car businesses and for the economical cars and for motor 
cycles and even bicycles and public transport.

The point is, some people aspire but realistically cannot attain.

And if those people expect that their country or fellow citizens or 
people from overseas are going to resolve the problems of finances and 
access to such vehicles (or such nice stoves), they will be 
disappointed.   Wealthy people and wealthy nations do not help poor 
people (in their own country or overseas) attain the top of the line 
products.   The affluent barely help them attain the mediocre or poor 
quality (but improved) vehicles or stoves or whatever else.    Please 
remember, the low-income people who need the benefits of the truly 
improved cookstoves often also face problems of water quality or access, 
health care, etc. etc. etc.

Therefore, the "ten dollar stove" ($10 stove) really is important.   And 
if the combustion device is that inexpensive and uses less fuel and 
lower cost fuel, and if it allows them to later move up to a $20 stove 
STRUCTURE (while using the same combustion device), the fringe benefits 
of better appearance and two pots at one time and other features can be 
attained by those who choose whichever features.

Meanwhile, the $10 stove can help reduce or reverse deforestation (which 
is of little interest to most of the very poor people who live from day 
to day or month to month and seldom think about decade to decade.)   
National leaders and concerned citizens do (and should) think about 
decade to decade, (and even for future centuries, but that is evidently 
not the case).

So, I am delighted when I see TLUD stoves that are beautiful, 
multi-burner, multi-purpose objects of high esteem.   But that is not 
how the main impact will occur.   I will work on $50 stoves also with a 
focus on the TLUD combustion capabilities and controls, but I do not 
work on costly stove structures associated with high priced stoves with 
baking ovens etc etc.  I will help those who do that work, because it 
does have value (and will probably earn more money than will come from 
the combustion devices).

Paul

> David LeVine wrote:
> I think this points out that there are really two classes of stoves:  
> One with a price of about an hour's labor, one at around $500.00.
>
> A lot of attention goes to the cheap stoves since they are affordable 
> to everyone.  Less is going to the expensive ones.
>
> It appears that an efficient, attractive stove made available with 
> microfinancing, it does well, and a cheap stove could be sold "using 
> the same technology."
>
> While the coal merchants will not be pleased with lower coal usage, 
> stove purchasers will be.  The expensive stove can also pay for 
> tooling to make cheaper stoves.
>
> Dave  8{)

Philip Lloyd wrote:
> Dear Paul, Dave and others who have contributed to this interesting
> discussion
>
> I found extremely poor people in South Africa, <$100 per household per month
> (mainly State assistance), keen to pay $500 and upwards for a coal-burning
> stove (well, actually, originally designed as a wood-burning stove but
> dragged into use for coal).  Cast iron, fireclay lined, with a chimney and
> dampers to control air flow, three or four spaces for pots closed with cast
> iron circles when not in use, and an oven for baking. Many had recently come
> from rural farms to town, and were living in temporary homes built of sheet
> iron and found materials. The stove was their first major investment, and
> there was a local microfinance system via the coal merchants enabling them
> to purchase it.
>
> They were not interested in cheap cookstoves!  The $500+ stove had come to
> represent social status, as well as meeting a wide variety of household
> needs, cooking, water heating, garbage disposal, space heating, and a social
> focus to the home that even neighbours could come and share.  There was a
> flourishing trade in second-hand stoves and in spare parts, particularly
> grates and chimney pieces. Some people had small businesses baking bread for
> stoveless neighbours, or making jam, or even running play schools on really
> cold winter days when other homes were really too cold for infants.
>
> I think the lesson is clear - if you just focus on cooking, you may be
> missing something. The first criterion must be to meet people's needs, and
> it may be much more than cooking. Some stove designs even miss the essential
> demand for simmering, so they fail the very first test of acceptability -
> you can't even use them for cooking. Yes, cost is a factor, but not
> necessarily a driver.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Best regards to all
>
> Philip Lloyd



Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 11/11/2012 1:16 AM, Philip Lloyd wrote:
>>   On 11/09/2012 08:52 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Dear David and Crispin,
>>
>> And where the wages are less than $100 per month (and some of that
>> money is for a reasonable meal during the work day), the labor
>> component is almost negligible compared to the costs of new (not scrap)
> sheet metal.
>> When the stove is ceramic/fired clay, the clay can be cheap but there are
>> the costs of firing it and then transporting it.   So the labor still adds
>> only a relatively low amount to the stove.
>>
>> Can these low-income workers (yes, they have a job and they are better off
>> than those without any work) afford a $25 stove?   That would be a week of
>> wages.
>>
>> Would any of us who live in the affluent societies pay one week of wages
>> for a stove?   That might depend on your income!!!    And we have
>> discretionary money far above the money needed for food and lodging.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> In the USA, many stoves cost between $400 and $2,000 (US dollars), and
>> the mean seems to be about $1,000.  That implies $1,500 in income
>> before taxes.  Which implies an average income of $78,000 annually or
>> $6,500 per month if a stove is one week's income.  While I feel this
>> is high, it is pretty close, 1 week's income for a stove is not
> unbelievable.
>> Yes, those of us who live in an affluent society DO pay 1 week's
>> income for a stove, and then pay a fraction of that every month for
>> fuel or energy to run it.
>>
>> Dave
> Dear Paul, Dave and others who have contributed to this interesting
> discussion
>
> I found extremely poor people in South Africa, <$100 per household per month
> (mainly State assistance), keen to pay $500 and upwards for a coal-burning
> stove (well, actually, originally designed as a wood-burning stove but
> dragged into use for coal).  Cast iron, fireclay lined, with a chimney and
> dampers to control air flow, three or four spaces for pots closed with cast
> iron circles when not in use, and an oven for baking. Many had recently come
> from rural farms to town, and were living in temporary homes built of sheet
> iron and found materials. The stove was their first major investment, and
> there was a local microfinance system via the coal merchants enabling them
> to purchase it.
>
> They were not interested in cheap cookstoves!  The $500+ stove had come to
> represent social status, as well as meeting a wide variety of household
> needs, cooking, water heating, garbage disposal, space heating, and a social
> focus to the home that even neighbours could come and share.  There was a
> flourishing trade in second-hand stoves and in spare parts, particularly
> grates and chimney pieces. Some people had small businesses baking bread for
> stoveless neighbours, or making jam, or even running play schools on really
> cold winter days when other homes were really too cold for infants.
>
> I think the lesson is clear - if you just focus on cooking, you may be
> missing something. The first criterion must be to meet people's needs, and
> it may be much more than cooking. Some stove designs even miss the essential
> demand for simmering, so they fail the very first test of acceptability -
> you can't even use them for cooking. Yes, cost is a factor, but not
> necessarily a driver.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Best regards to all
>
> Philip Lloyd
>
>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://www.bioenergylists.org/
>