[Stoves] SNV results in Camaroon including TLUD issues

[Willem J. Kuipers]

Dear Paul and Jeff

I have visited SNV in Arusha last year. They are aware of our plans  for
testing stoves in Kwa Ugoro Arusha.  I think we should  get them involved
during  the test.

I would be interested  to see the results  of the test  in Cameroon.

A very important part of our test will be to avoid the use of wood and
charcoal  and use pellets.  Initially we will buy the pellets but it is the
intention to have them produced in the village  using local , widely
available  biowaste from surrounding  agricultural businesses  ( a.o. Roses
)

Rgds


Willem


http://www.getitdone.org/projects/157




Op 06-03-14 03:22, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> schreef:

> Dear Jeff of SNV and to all Stovers,
> 
> Jeff, please send further information (or links to info) about the
> Cameroon study of 5 stoves that is briefly introduced at:
> 
> http://www.snvworld.org/en/sectors/renewable-energy/news/gaining-a-user-perspe
> ctive-on-improved-cookstoves-in-cameroon
> 
> In that brief intro, we find the following:
>> 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.
> 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.
> 
> 2.  We know from repeated testing that these gasifier stoves are also
> very favorably rated concerning low emissions of CO and PM.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I am  calling this to the attention of everyone.   At least in the
> context of Cameroon cooking (and the specific small sample (how many
> ??)), there are questions raised about the user acceptance of the
> stove.   And I am asking Jeff to provide very complete details.
> 
> 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.
> 
> And were there some users who did accept the stove?   And if so, what
> characteristics did they have?  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.
> 
> Question:   If a stove (any stove type) has the desirable features in
> lab testing and is superior for health or environment or efficiency or
> biochar, how much effort should (or could) be expended to have the best
> possible acceptance by the users?    This is a valid question regardless
> of the type of stove combustion.   And this question is especially
> important in the current case regarding TLUD stoves in Cameroon.
> 
> I am delighted that SNV included the Mwoto stove in its study.   NOW we
> can discuss some issues that relate to that study and the stove.   And
> we can see how similar or different results in other countries can
> further enlighten us.
> 
> Paul