[Stoves] SNV results in Camaroon including TLUD issues

Crispin Pembert-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Wed Mar 5 21:21:08 CST 2014


Dear Paul and participating Conversants

 

This is a really valuable discussion and it will bring into sharp relief
some issues that have to be urgently addressed by the stove community even
if it takes several years.

 

 
<http://www.snvworld.org/en/sectors/renewable-energy/news/gaining-a-user-per
spective-on-improved-cookstoves-in-cameroon>
http://www.snvworld.org/en/sectors/renewable-energy/news/gaining-a-user-pers
pective-on-improved-cookstoves-in-cameroon 

 

> Earlier lab results, which designated the Mwoto gasification stove as 

> the highest performing one of the five based on its fuel consumption 

> and heating capacity, were not mirrored at the household level, the 

> women being overall quite reluctant to utilize a stove whose 

> modalities of use differed so widely from that of models traditionally 

> being employed.

 

While it is not clear what the exact meanings of 'highest performing' and
'heating capacity' are, I can already guess that the test applied, and the
calculation method used to provide the values for those metrics may have
differed substantially from the ones used in the field.

 

This is quite separate from the obvious differences in operating modes. I am
referring to the 'ratings' stoves achieve.

 

As everyone by now knows, I have been harping on this for several years
because it really makes a difference and I hate to see people wasting time
and money promoting stoves that won't be accepted or don't work 'as tested'.

 

>Observations for all readers:

>1.  Mwoto is the TLUD gasifier developed for and used in the BEIA study by
CREEC in >Uganda in 2011 - 2012, and is related to the Quad TLUD and Troika
Bingwa TLUD in >Uganda by Awamu, and to the Champion TLUD by Servals in
India.

 

I would like to confirm that the test applied was some version of either the
UCB-WBT or the GACC-WBT 4.x.x. It may be that ratings provided by these
testse are not very close to what would be expected in the field 'by direct
observation'. Let me explain that I mean by that.

 

If you test a stove using some burn cycle and apply a calculation method to
the measurements taken during the test, you get a result.

 

If you watch people in the field and measure the ''input data' (for example
how much fuel is needed each day) you are making a direct measurement, not
calculating some sort of rating based on formulas.

 

The comparison between the mass of fuel used in the lab and the mass of fuel
used in the field might not vary much at all if the fuels are similar and
have similar moisture contents. Obvious there is little point in testing a
stove with a fuel the people in the field don't have because the emissions
and burn rate etc will otherwise be quite different. Let's assume you have
that variable under control: you tested them using similar fuels.

 

If you are using some 'emission per x' method of reporting performance and
the calculation of that number is in any wat defective, you will get a
skewed result. This cam explain a lot of differences between lab and field.
Further, if there are conceptual errors in the calculations whereby you are
performing a calculation that is not really valid, you will get all sorts of
results that vary strangely and have little relation to actual performance.

 

Again suppose you have that under control (assume nothing in this regard,
however).

 

If the 'cooking power' is the thing being rated, that is really easy - put
on a pot and compare the time to heat a certain mass of water, for example.
That tells you the relative cooking power. 

 

>2.  We know from repeated testing that these gasifier stoves are also very
favorably rated concerning low emissions of CO and PM.

 

The same questions arise: very favourably according to what method?  Have
the emissions been reported per MegaJoule of heat reaching the pot? Maybe a
stove is very clean-burning per kg of fuel but has a poor heat transfer
efficiency. It needs to be clean burning per unit of work done in a pot.

 

>3.  Therefore, to have such good results about a stove in the lab and to
have such a poor response for use by the local women in Cameroon is a cause
of serious concern.

 

Acceptance of the stove for non-technical reasons is the major course of
programme failure. We should not beat around the bush. Social acceptability
can be assessed using Cecil Cook's 9 dimensions, which he likes to put in a
spider chart with 5 (best/acceptable) in the centre and 1 at the outside
edge.  The dots are connected producing a 'web'.  Highly acceptable stoves
have the points (scores) clustered in the centre with perhaps some outlying
arms here and there. Poorly accepted stoves have a large diameter web mostly
traced around the periphery. This can kind of social acceptance can be
conducted best in focus groups where the influence of the observer is least
exerted and the responses to questions most likely to be factual.

 

>There can be numerous issues that related to the stove itself and other
issues that relate to social and cultural aspects of the study as conducted
with the sample of users.    Number of users, length of time using the
stove, instruction on the stove usage (ignition, changing after batches of
fuel, etc), and fuel issues (type and preparation etc) are all possible
sources of accumulating difficulties.

 

Agreed. Local cooking practices were examined in Central Java first, for the
programme being implemented this month. We have a pretty good idea what
people do, when, with what pots, for how long and at what heat level. This
allows the stove selection process, which is ongoing at the moment, to
address what will late be pretty obvious problems if there is a mismatch
between what a candidate stoves does and what people want.

 

>.If only 10% of the households (not just the sample) in Cameroon found that
the TLUD stove was acceptable, that would be 300,000 stoves.   (population
20 million >>> about 3 to 4 million households).    And if improvements in
the pot supports or training or fuel supply or other issues could increase
the acceptance levels, the numbers could be even higher.

 

It is likely that more than 10% of the people have two or three stoves used
for different tasks. Unless this sort of information is known, it is
difficult to assess which test to apply to the stoves to give them a rating,
social of technical. The testing has to reflect reality or the comparative
results are rarely helpful. 

 

>.I am delighted that SNV included the Mwoto stove in its study.   

 

Fully agreed and thanks for the candid report. Let's all try to work out how
to help the programme and provide stoves people want, appreciate and use.

 

Regards
Crispin

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20140305/25529383/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list