[Stoves] Designing for the affluent AND the poor.... this is NOT Re: ocean acidification

Sat Jul 6 23:29:47 CDT 2013

See comments below.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:

> Paul,****
>
> ** **
>
> There is no question that policy is important. You have given good
> examples.
>

This is but one example among many that I could cite.
Another example is making fuel out of swine waste:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Summaries/Alternative%20to%20Biodigestion.pdf

****
>
> ** **
>
> Regions also have different needs.
>
Yes, this is surely the case. There are many regions that do not have easy
and abundant fuels such as rice hulls and coffee husks. In such areas, much
more emphasis should be placed on fuel preparation: e.g. cutting, grinding,
chipping and pelletizing. I do not know of any funding agencies who put a
strong emphasis on setting up a fuel preparation infrastructure.

So often I have seen funding organizations coming into Vietnam (and
neighboring countries) and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
projects and ideas that make no sense. All so sad. Such an incredible waste
of money. They typically look at one small aspect of a problem (e.g. the
health of someone sitting around a pot), and they do not promote integrated
policies that could simultaneously solve multiple problems.

One funding organization comes in and promotes the biodigestion of pig
waste. Their focus is mainly on the biodigester and the burner situated in
the kitchen. Yes, a relatively clean gas is produced for cooking, but
little attention is paid on how to handle the solid and liquid waste
created by the biodigester. At the same time, another funding agency might
come in and focus on how to clean up biodigester effluent using biochar,
while all of the gas generated in making this biochar is wasted.

Does it makes sense to route pig urine and feces to biodigesters? I see pig
waste as Type 2 waste. This waste is far too valuable to bioconvert into
methane:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22013094/Paper/Summaries/Food%20Crisis.pdfFrom
pig waste we can grow larvae and red worms of an exceedingly high
value. If it's energy we need, we should turn to the far less valuable Type
4 waste.

Another funding agency comes into an area and promotes stoves that burn
fossil fuels, while at the same time, Type 4 waste lies everywhere. In
promoting the use of fossil fuels, they ignore important issues relating to
global warming, climate change and ocean acidification. Another funding
organization promotes stoves that burn biochar, while ignoring the heat
transfer inefficiency of doing so, while ignoring the benefits and high
value of biochar when incorporated into the soil, while ignoring the fact
that waste biomass might lie everywhere (totally obviating the need to burn
biochar). Another funding agency might pour massive amounts of money behind
charcoal stoves, while all of the gas produced in the making of this
charcoal is wasted.

Some of you might get "fed up" with such "peripheral" issues. But there is
a dire need out there for good policy. Without good policy, funding
agencies will continue to miss the mark and waste a lot of money. Without
good policy, we might design stoves that only address issues related to
what happens in a kitchen.

Many thanks.
Paul Olivier

> I think several Latin American stove folks have  organized their own group
> to address policy issues which they don’t feel are being addressed by other
> organizations. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Paul Olivier
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 06, 2013 4:35 PM
>
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Designing for the affluent AND the poor.... this
> is NOT Re: ocean acidification****
>
> ** **
>
> Tom,****
>
> Policy issues are important. Let me give an example.****
>
> Not long ago I was asked to make a presentation on my gasifier in a
> neighboring developing country. There were many funding organizations
> present that represented big money. One large funding agency was concerned
> about deforestation brought about by the charcoal industry. Unlike global
> warming and ocean acidification, deforestation is easy to spot and
> document. Every time someone cuts down trees to fuel a charcoal kiln, the
> environmental devastation is apparent.****
>
> This particular funding agency worked out a policy to prevent
> deforestation. It remained firmly committed to charcoal-burning stoves, but
> then advocated that trees be planted specifically for the charcoal industry
> and that these trees would be cut down in a controlled manner.****
>
> I then tried to engage this funding agency in a policy discussion. My
> first question, of course: are there rice hulls available in this area. The
> answer was yes. I then asked: how are these rice hulls disposed of. The
> answer: some were uselessly burned, some were dumped in rivers, some were
> left outdoors to decompose and so forth. I then asked: why don't you change
> the type of stove you are promoting? Why not design a stove that would make
> from rice hulls a beautiful blue flame? In this way, land would not have to
> be set aside for charcoal production, charcoal kilns would not be needed,
> the heat from charcoal kilns would not get wasted, pollutants would not be
> dumped into the atmosphere in the process of making charcoal, rice hulls in
> that area would get properly disposed of, and rice hull biochar could be
> incorporated into the soil to minimize fertilizer and water use.
>
> The answer I received here was totally baffling: they were committed to
> this particular policy and would not change. Note that from the point of
> view of immediate human health, the charcoal stove that this organization
> was promoting was excellent.****
>
> So I remain somewhat skeptical of the policy that shapes the decisions and
> choices of some funding agencies. Some funding agencies narrowly focus on
> only one thing: how human health is impacted while cooking. Everything
> outside of the cooking event gets ignored. Some funding agencies refuse to
> take into account broader issues relating to global warming, climate
> change, ocean acidification and deforestation. In the policy discussion
> with the funding agency I just referred to, at least these people were
> concerned about deforestation. ****
>
> Stove design does not take place in a vacuum. Implicit in every stove
> design are policy issues.****
>
> Thanks.****
>
> Paul Olivier****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:****
>
> Customer pull is called a "market" and the people closest to the market are
> the producers working in the field. The many producers on this list get a
> clear understanding of the qualities in demand as they work in the many
> different markets for stoves. We see this reflected in the needs that they
> articulate on the list.
>
> People interested in stoves policy follow the money. The money right now is
> in the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. GACC has forums for policy
> discussions. While we occasionally have policy discussions the focus has
> been primarily on technology. Policy topics generally don't last long
> enough
> here to justify a separate list. Sometimes technical discussions here get
> too intense for people who are primarily interested in policy and they
> leave.
>
> Tom****
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Paul Anderson
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:27 PM
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves****
>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Designing for the affluent AND the poor.... this is
> NOT Re: ocean acidification
>
> Kevin and all,
>
> >
> > Should it [Stoves List discussion] be driven by "Producer Push" or
> > "Customer Pull"?
> Considering that "customers" (local people in poverty, not NGOs) are so
> few on this Listserv, the very worthy attention to "Customer Pull" is
> likely to be viewed through the eyes of the "Producers".
>
> I think that Producer Push is not as bad as it is thought to be, at
> least not when by Producers who have substantial overseas experience and
> are not driven by the monetary reward.
>
> Example:  When the target Customers are quite unaware of some advances
> that could be beneficial to them, there is zero "pull". And any attempts
> to inform them of such advances would certainly be a form of Producer
> Push or Push from Outside of their societies.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
> On 7/6/2013 8:41 AM, Kevin wrote:
> > Dear Paul
> >
> > This is the STOVES list.
> >
> > Should it be driven by "Producer Push" or "Customer Pull"?
> >
> > I would suggest the Stoves List should be driven by "Customer Pull."
> >
> > The Boy Scout who helps the proverbial "Little Old Lady" across the
> > street does a good deed only when the Little Old Lady" wanted to go
> > across the street.
> >
> > In my opinion, the Stoves List should focus on providing Stove
> > Customers with what they want.
> >
> > Just what do "Stove Customers" want?
> >
> > There are many facets to "Stoves". There is no such thing as "THE
> > perfect stove", but there are as many "perfect stoves" as there are
> > stoves that perfectly meet the wants and needs of the Stove Customer.
> >
> > Some factors that may be of importance to Stove Customers are:
> > * Initial cost
> > * Portability
> > * Appearance
> > * Cooking capability
> > * Space heating capability
> > * Fuel efficiency
> > * Durability
> > * Visual access to flame
> > * Pride of ownership
> > * Cleanliness
> > * Safety
> > * Smoke free living space
> > * Particulate free living space
> > * Etc.
> >
> > There are MANY more factors of importance to the Stove Customer. There
> > are MANY, MANY combinations of factors that are of importance to Stove
> > Customers.
> >
> > Stove Producers produce stoves for many different motivations. Some
> > motivations or "drivers" include:
> > * To make money
> > * To feel good
> > * To do good
> > * To create a market for a particular fuel or technology
> > * To create an economic base for community development
> > * To address a health concern
> > * To address an Environmental Concern
> > * To further another Agenda
> > * Etc.
> >
> > To the extent that the interests of the Customer and the Producer
> > overlap, their mutual interests will be served.
> >
> > Perhaps there should also be a "Stoves Policy List", where the
> > interests and agendas of Stove Promoters and Producers were discussed,
> > and perhaps the "Stoves List" should focus more on the interests of
> > the Stove Customers?
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Anderson" <psanders at ilstu.edu>
> > To: "Discussion of biomass cooking stoves"
> > <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:54 AM
> > Subject: [Stoves] Designing for the affluent AND the poor.... this is
> > NOT Re: ocean acidification
> >
> >
> > Thank you Richard and Andrew,
> >
> > I agree with your comments below EXCEPT that you did not change the
> > Subject line.   And therefore List readers who are fed up with the
> > oceanic acidity discussion are unlikely to have read your comments.  By
> > the way, I did NOT read those messages.   But I do read whatever Andrew
> > and Richard contribute to the Listserv.
> >
> > Now, about designs for the affluent AND the poor.   This relates to
> > "trickle down technology" that believes that by helping the rich, the
> > poor will benefit.....  EVENTUALLY benefit.   Sure.   a few years or
> > decades or lifetimes later.
> >
> > I am glad that affluent societies financially supported cell/mobile
> > phone development.  A great example of trickle down technology coming
> > rather quickly.   But it reached the poor societies because business
> > found that it could make money off of the needs of poor people to also
> > communicate.   And microchips etc are really inexpensive.   We are
> > unlikely to see similar benefits relating to cookstoves.
> >
> > Even as it is today, MUCH of stove work/efforts are targeted to the more
> > affluent of the poor, those who are in the upper parts of the BASE of
> > the pyramid (BOP).   That makes more sense than trying to get biomass
> > fuel stoves into typical American and European households.   But that
> > approach (well established and supported by the GACC and the World Bank
> > ACESS programs) still leaves a massive lack of attention to the needs of
> > the true base of the BOP.   But at least the distance to trickle down
> > from the upper BOP to the lower BOP is less (and should be faster) than
> > trickle down from the Top of the Pyramid to be base of the BOP.
> >
> > If you decide to reply to this Thread of messages, please stick to this
> > topic.   (Or change the Subject line to reflect what you are actually
> > talking about.   After all, the Subject line has at least two
> > purposes:   One is to continue the Thread, and the other is to inform
> > the reader what is the actual subject being discussed.)
> >
> > Paul      with 4 more days in Uganda, then I bring home over 300 pounds
> > of stove progress (available baggage allowance for 3 people) to show at
> > Stove Camps and biochar meetings in late July, early Sept and mid
> > October in Oregon, Tennessee, and Massachusetts, respectively.   I hope
> > to see many of you as I cross the USA by car from my home base in
> > Illinois.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul S. Anderson, PhD  aka "Dr TLUD"
> > Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu   Skype: paultlud  Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> > Website:  www.drtlud.com
> >
> > On 7/5/2013 7:01 PM, Richard Stanley wrote:
> >> Hi Andrew.
> >>
> >> Climate "discussions" aside,   I wanted to elaborate on the
> >> implications of your observation about where" designing" is easier:
> >>   I agree with you that it is easier to design anything "for someone"
> >> ( especially those less equipped to express their opinions and****
>
> >> experiences, needs and resources).... than to do it with them in
> >> their context.****
>
> >>
> >> My own experience tells me that the latter is the sticky part that
> >> few really want to get into and it's a huge part of determining
> >> whether or
> >> not ones best intentions stick or not. That sticky part makes really
> >> designing from within a good bit more challenging that simply****
>
> >> designing a technical object and selling it here..****
>
> >>
> >> Richard Stanley
> >> NW part of the Americas
> >> ==================
> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 12:14 AM, ajheggie at gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> [Default] On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 05:41:33 +0700,Paul Olivier
> >> <paul.olivier at esrla.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It is easy to design stoves for poor people in Third World
> >>> countries. It is
> >>> a much bigger challenge to design them for use each day in our own
> >>> kitchens.
> >> Stove design and use is on topic for [stoves] but there are other
> >> forums on which it is better to discuss world changing effects,
> >> important as they might be.
> >>
> >> AJH
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/****
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul A. Olivier PhD
> 26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
> Dalat
> Vietnam
>
> Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
> Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
> Skype address: Xpolivier
> http://www.esrla.com/ ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>

-- 
Paul A. Olivier PhD
26/5 Phu Dong Thien Vuong
Dalat
Vietnam

Louisiana telephone: 1-337-447-4124 (rings Vietnam)
Mobile: 090-694-1573 (in Vietnam)
Skype address: Xpolivier
http://www.esrla.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20130707/c629cb16/attachment.html>