[Stoves] Subsidies for woodstoves (Dr. Karve, Paul Anderson)

[Traveller]

I changed the subject line.

Dr. Karve says, " As the fuel used by villagers is not subsidized, the
government should at least subsidize improved stoves. At least in India,
the administrative infrastructure exists for supervising such a programme."

I do agree there ought to be some means of supporting the poor who cannot
afford LPG and electricity just yet and may not have access to it. I don't
think the administrative infrastructure for supervising a biomass stove
program is adequate; I have the MNRE and state energy agencies in mind, and
they have failed miserably in producing stoves that people want.

I am always happy to be proven wrong.

The issue is not as much "biomass" - a  favorite "renewable energy" of
Amulya Reddy and the rest of the Gang of Four (Goldemberg, Williams,
Johannsen) - versus "fossil fuels" - Global Green's demon, as if every CO2
molecule is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Rather, the issue is the use of
women's time, and women's preferences. (Men's tastes and budgets adjust; I
am not willing to accept the gender crowd's whining at face value.)

1. Are there stoves worth subsidizing? If I were a finance minister - or a
prime minister (after all, my Chaiwalla PM might have known how to make tea
on charcoal; there are hawkers around the corner who use charcoal) - my
question is, "What is the guarantee that people will use these stoves?" My
thinking should be, "Who does the subsidy go to? Am I going to have to
subsidize Cooking Cops with their monitors and survey smartphones to
discover how many trees are saved and how many premature deaths are averted
in two, five or twenty years? No, I want to help the poor, and my metric of
success is that "clean enough" biomass stoves ought to be used at least
half the time by the BPL (Below Poverty Level) families. I don't care if
they sell the stoves to richer folks, so long as the stoves are being used,
and give me some comfort (without sending the Cooking Cops) that pollution
has decreased. (This covers the the first and fourth of my three - er, five
- reasons for solid fuel stoves not getting much attention except
technophiles and environmentalists.)

2. What are the opportunity costs of biomass? Even as a finance minister, I
might see that husk from rice mills is going to brick kilns and is too
expensive for making fuel pellets for households. Is there a way to
subsidize some other biomass fuel? Does that change the land and water use
patterns that I may have to bother about in terms of tax and subsidy plans?

3.  Who ought to get the subsidy, for what, and how? The old MNRE method -
used many parts of the world - was to allocate "per stove" grants (of
unpredictable amount and unpredictable disbursement schedule) to different
states in India with "qualified" stove manufacturers. (The famous Gandhi
Ashram shop is up a couple of miles; I might go check out how they are
doing with solar stoves that I first saw 50 years ago.) This has clear
potential for uncompetitive behavior and zero monetary incentive for
innovation. (My point iii earlier; might also apply to point v) except that
good programs do take high administrative costs and technical assistance,
no use skimping on brain power, which is the best "renewable biomass" we
have).

4. Finally my old point ii) -  "Difficult or irrational technical standards
that are unenforceable." I am not a stove designer, but I do take the point
in Up in Smoke that solid fuel combustion - small-scale, variable power,
with seasonal or daily variations in fuel quality and cooking practices -
is more difficult than rocket science. Put in highly educated and skilled
physicists and engineers without much experience in poor people's cooking
or living patterns - except from books and conference presentations - and
you guarantee failure. The poor are too smart to just hand over the
super-duper PhDs the satisfaction of being right. (Sure, those PhDs can
amply see what they want to see and then publish paper, like the MIT con
e-cons I mentioned before.)

I have no hope for experts who spend 40+ years on test standards - and for
what - instantaneous emission rates generalizable over all woodfuel
qualities and cooking practices, with the supposed health impacts
generalizable to all lungs of the past and future? USEPA is not going to
save mama earth or her children, my sibings.

Give the poor people a break! Drop the standards game except when repeat
field use confirms that they perform as expected - expected by the designer
and manufacturer, and more importantly, by the cook. Get a "clean enough
product" that is used 300 days a year and use 1 tpy. (Or any other metric.
Yes, some stove experts are very useful, even to a finance minister.)

Then consider this: A one-time $50 subsidy, paid to the user in the form of
a negotiable voucher to be cashed at any local shop that is qualified to
handle such transactions. (I think oil companies should start selling solar
lanterns and advanced biomass stoves; reduces their losses on kerosene and
LPG.) Stoves qualified should be of various sizes and designs; ideally, I
would also prefer that they have been used by the larger, richer households
and commercial/institutional cooks, which would make them an aspirational
product. Then let the manufacturers compete or get out of business
(hopefully selling to another manufacturer).

Even so, I suspect small-scale "clean cookstoves" with solid fuels are just
not the answer for the working poor. Anil Rajvanshi (cc'd here) once said
something like, "The working poor aren't rich enough to afford the luxury
of three meals a day." I see that in the Gujarat cities and towns - and
even some villages that I go to - every single day. It is time to get rid
of dungcakes altogether, to produce charcoal efficiently, and to introduce
clean kerosene stoves, plus commercial/industrial stoves and boilers,
possibly with processed biomass.

By the way, these "stoves vouchers" I suggested ought to be usable on
gelfuel stoves and gelfuel (or biogas, or any similar biofuel and stove),
or solar cookers.

And yes, if some NGOs like Lange's have been reliably working in some areas
where there are no "stove shops" (I have seen many in Gujarat; only once in
Africa), the subsidy can be delivered to the NGOs, against certificate by
the user that he has received and used the stove for a year. (Double the
subsidy to cover pico-PV products; this "improved homes" idea is a
phenomenal advance over the "improved woodstoves" relilgion.)

Again, any offense taken is the taker's fault.

Nikhil




Nikhil Desai
+91 909 995 2080

On Aug 1, 2016, at 7:58 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

A.D.,

Exactly so!!!!   What could be some plans of action to accomplish this??
Who are the advocates of such assistance?

Paul

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

On 8/1/2016 2:28 AM, Anand Karve wrote:

Indian villagers generally use fuel generated in their own farms
(e.g.stalks of cotton and pigeonpea, dung cakes). Government of India
subsidizes modern energy sources such as LPG and electricity, which are
used in the cities. As the fuel used by villagers is not subsidized, the
government should at least subsidize improved stoves. At least in India,
the administrative infrastructure exists for supervising such a programme.
Yours
A.D.Karve

***
Dr. A.D. Karve

Chairman, Samuchit Enviro Tech Pvt Ltd (www.samuchit.com)

Trustee & Founder President, Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160802/98a8ab61/attachment.html>