[Stoves] Purpose of testing and value given to char left.

[Crispin Pembert-Pigott]

Dear Ron

 

>>In this case it is with a new protocol that is strongly informed by local
patterns of use. That should give us more predictable results in the field.
Because the social science (social impact potential) has been assessed
beforehand, we can make a pretty good estimate of whether or not a stove
will be acceptable. One metric is cooking power, another is controllability.
A third is lighting speed. Another is cost and durability.

 

>Q1.  What are our chances of seeing the social science side of this?

            I am particularly interested in how the questions were asked
about making money while cooking and saving time.

 

This is a good question. I believe there will be a report generated from two
groups of works: the investigation by the team headed by Helen Carlsson (WB)
and the results of a very large (in my view) survey conducted after that. It
is normal for these reports to be put on the WBank website.

 

Q2.  Why in the list of the stated metrics do we not see these earnings and
time saving metrics (plus emission control, which I presume was a social
science question) that are favorable to char-making stoves?

 

The question about earnings relates to home industries conducted on the
family cooking stove. This practise is very common, though this was not
known before the social science team made their investigations. In many
cases the mass of fuel consumed per day is larger for commercial activities
than domestic cooking, though the stove is ostensibly a domestic cooking
stove. In areas where there are palm trees, sugar making dominates stove use
by a factor of 2:1. Sometimes 3:1. 

 

The stove promotion programme initially intended to supply or promote
cooking stoves only and industrial uses were not part of the programme,
However after profiling the communities it became clear that it simply was
not possible to separate cooking from income generating. The stoves are not
rated for their income generating ability because there are many potential
uses for the stoves. People choosing a cooking product do so for reasons
that encompass a range of possible activities. Most rural homes want a 3-pot
stove (in a line).  They can make sugar on the first, hottest cooking
station and cook food on the other two at a lower power level.

 

The CSI-WBT test protocol has no difficulty accommodating multipot stoves
and complex burn cycles. The performance targets are subject to review as
the system efficiency is quite high for the baseline products (relative to
single pot stoves).

 

Regards

Crispin

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140224/fa50fad4/attachment.html>