[Stoves] A community of rocket scientists?
Xavier Brandao
xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Wed Aug 24 02:43:02 CDT 2016
Dear Nikhil, dear Sujoy,
Research and development is each time, a matter of choices. Eventually,
one has to make a choice, choose a priority. It is difficult not to be
subjective.
Possibly, given the variety of situations, the variety of fuels as you
say Nikhil, a variety of research initiatives should be undertaken. It
would be desirable that these initiatives are not too scattered, are
somehow coordinated, so efforts are not duplicated, and they can
communicate and share information with each other.
Well, there are such research initiatives, I am thinking especially
about the TLUD community which share so readily their learnings on this
list.
Then, there is also an other approach, which I think has its merits. It
is to define commonalities between the technologies and the projects,
and research something that could have implications in many areas, and
benefit a large number of stakeholders. It takes more time, but there
might be large benefits to reap. That's why I think fundamental research
is so interesting. When some truths about radio waves were understood, a
wide range of applications could be engineered, in very different domains.
For example, here the research could be focused only on lignin and
cellulose, and their combustion in an open environment (like the 3 stone
fire). Or, if too wide, lignin and cellulose in the proportions that can
be found in 3 very common varieties of wood found in tropical areas, and
commonly used as firewood.
Let's say the researchers would find a few interesting new facts about
combustion. Not necessarily groundbreaking discovery, but a few small
facts. These facts could generate ideas on a few different ways to
conduct this combustion. That could lead to new design ideas, to be
applied to cookstoves.
Here I am just exploring some possibilities. Fundamental research
findings can generate in turn a lot of applied research and various
engineering projects, and in the end, make more acceptable stoves for
the users.
Best,
Xavier
On 8/21/16 12:51 PM, Sujoy Chaudhury wrote:
> Dear Nikhil and others in the list.
>
> Although late in the discussion and most must have stopped following
> this chain, I would still like to put my "two paisa" worth of thinking
> down. The issue for me is why have improved cookstoves not been
> accepted by the average poor and is current stove research focussing
> on this issue
>
> What does the rural and urban poor cook want? The rural and urban poor
> wants primarily a reliable and cheap source of fuel to cook the
> family's meal and to cook it with the least amount of drudgery. Every
> woman that sits down to cook has aspirations of being able to cook
> with the least amount of fuss- enough fuel, enough heat and the
> proposed meals cooked in the least amount of time and without messing
> up the cooking space and these are obviously the criteria that
> designers use to design cookstoves. This could have been a simple
> problem to crack, however in the real world most poor cooks have to
> deal with a number of problems before they can finally produce their
> desired meals. The primary issue is the type of fuel and the quality
> of the fuel. In a project with urban poor women in Kolkata ( improving
> the health of mothers and children through reduced exposure to Indoor
> air pollution caused by inefficient cookstoves and aggravated by bad
> shelter architecture) , it was found that the cooks had to depend on
> a number of fuel types. Kerosene purchase had to be made in cash and
> was thus limited. A large part of the fuel used for cooking had to be
> scavenged ( mostly biomass, packing materials, construction wastes,
> discarded furniture etc.). While there was a pattern in the type of
> fuel being scavenged, the problem was with the quantity. Meals had to
> be planned on the type and quantity of the fuel collected. These cooks
> needed a stove that could use multiple fuels and be as clean as
> possible- a stove that rid them of the drudgery of cooking. Obviously
> none of the cookstoves then matched upto the need of cooks in the slums.
>
> I thought then and still think now that the problem with cookstoves
> were that inspite of decades of promotion, designers have missed the
> design functions around which cookstoves could be made desirable first
> and sufficiently efficient. The designers are focused on efficieny
> wheres they should have focussed on desirability, making the cookstove
> an object of aspiration and able to impact on the drudgery of cooking
> and then worked on increasing efficiency.
>
> What use is a stove that has the best possible performance ratings but
> nobody wants to buy it .
>
> Regards
> sujoy
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com
> <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Nikhil Desai again. Apologies in advance for ruffling feathers. I
> think of feathers as sacred biomass; emissions from their roasting
> propitiate the Gods.
> ---------
> (Thank you, Xavier, for introducing Manifesto Convivialiste. For
> English-speakers, look here
> <http://www.gcr21.org/publications/global-dialogues/2198-0403-gd-3/>
> and here
> <http://www.lesconvivialistes.org/abridged-version-of-the-convivialist-manifesto>.
> I am allergic to neo-Malthusians and "de-growth" advocates, but I
> do admire ecologists and planners.)
> ----------
> Xavier:
>
> You put forth questions it took me some time to think - can I
> combine my skepticism with optimism?
>
> I come up empty - you know, old dogs can't learn new tricks - but
> let me try to reformulate or advance new questions:
>
> You: "1. What are really the efforts done on fundamental research
> on biomass combustion for cookstoves? Who is seriously working
> full-time on combustion?
> 2. With what manpower?
> 3. Is this research organized?
> 4. Is it heavily financed as it should be?
> 5. Do we really think this research effort is up to the
> challenges we are facing?"
>
> Let me ask:
>
> 1. Whose cookstoves and whose biomass? Why are we hung up on
> biomass generally, despite the recognition that except at very
> high temperatures and in very controlled, steady-state situation,
> biomass of any type burns differently in different environments,
> different types of biomass burn differently, and the cooks have
> different requirements and habits? Poor customers with no time or
> money to mess with small, variable amounts of cooking are better
> off giving up cooking, and have indeed done so. Add to that all
> the variations in the sources of biomass and in their alternative
> uses. "Biomass cookstoves for the poor" is a racket of big
> promises and repeated failures; in the last 60 years, we have just
> blown smoke rings.
>
> I suggest dropping forever the pretense of "renewable biomass",
> "deforestation," and "premature mortality" or "deforestation".
> Rich country universities will keep churning out convenient truths
> for themselves that have no relevance to a poor household cook.
>
> Instead, we could define small research projects specific to
> selected types of biomass and/or in selected geographies for
> selected customer types, the poor or rich, household or
> commercial, and see the cook's constraints and desires from HER
> point of view. (This is not easy; sociological surveys haven't
> produced anything worthwhile yet on what cooks - women or men -
> want. I would rather put some psychologists to work on. "What do
> women want?" Rather, how do the family hierarchy and control,
> economics and nutrition, play into cooking choices?)
>
> It will get more difficult as the range of biomass "marketshed"
> gets narrower - some people have no land or trees of their own -
> and as we look at poorer households. The rich are far more alike
> in their tastes and behavior. The poor are every bit different
> from each other, until you come up with an aspirational product.
>
> But I have not yet seen a single effort to characterize biomass
> markets and supply chains, uses, customers. Forest economists do
> some of that for timber and biogas technologists make different
> types of digesters, so on; the stovers are rocket scientists who
> only know how to launch balloons.
>
> 2. Who should finance this research - whether as diversified as I
> suggest (after all, much research goes on for agriculture,
> forestry, livestock, food processing, and has gone on for a couple
> of centuries in Europe and North America) - and why haven't they
> done so? Some ten years ago, the Gang of Four on energy and
> development (Jose Goldemberg, Thomas Johansson, Amulya Reddy,
> Robert Williams) had proposed A global clean cooking fuel
> initiative
> <https://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/Goldemberg-Clean-Cooking-Initiative-ESD-2004.pdf> for
> "to bring about a worldwide shift to clean fluid fuels for cooking
> and heating in 10-15 years’ time". I thought the proposal was
> ridiculous - a "clean cooking fuel bureau" in the UN under their
> guidance?? - but they seemed to have the right direction - in the
> near term, "fitting stoves that burn solid fuels with flues" and
> then "fluid fuels".
>
> But 12 years later, what do we have? Generic solid biomass stoves
> again? "Clean cookstoves" performance testing for, heavens,
> boiling water
> <http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html> in,
> hell, labs
> <https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/399-1.pdf>??
>
>
> Cooking is more than combustion. Kitchen is more than cooking. A
> home is more than kitchen. A marriage or family are more than a
> home. Early 20th Century designers of gas and electrical home
> appliances knew this every bit; just go see women's magazines in
> UK or US of the 1930s on, and even Indian "family" magazines and
> newspapers from 1950s on. Seems to me some of us biomass stovers
> are stuck in our childhood fantasies of atomic energy - atomic
> toasters, atomic kettles. Just that now we call them biomass
> stoves and keep playing the fiddle to donors' tunes.
>
> Some aerospace engineers have other ideas - see DESIGN OF A
> THERMOELECTRIC EDU-KITCHENSYSTEM
> <https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/46910/akshaya_srivastava_201305_aerospace_engineering.pdf> or
> Conceptual design of a thermoelectric Edu-Kitchen system
> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241628341_Conceptual_design_of_a_thermoelectric_Edu-Kitchen_system>.
>
>
> The beauty of this approach - howsoever unrealistic and
> unmarketable - is that it attacks the problem of cooking and
> lighting, and home energy use generally. As distributed generation
> and storage might. There may also be biomass generation.
>
> What it doesn't do is dwell in manure and dead wood.
>
> Missionaries of dung, straw, flake and waste, unite! You have
> nothing to lose but your own delusions.
>
> On missionaries' positions, next time.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ---------
> (India +91) 909 995 2080
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 22:25:14 +0530
> From: Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com
> <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>>
> To: stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Two current articles on stoves and stove
> projects
> Message-ID: <81331990-33c1-af82-6476-7ee3926d901f at gmail.com
> <mailto:81331990-33c1-af82-6476-7ee3926d901f at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hello all,
>
> The Caravan article Crispin shared is a perfect illustration
> of the distrust for the improved biomass stove technology.
>
> The World Bank CSI is a pragmatic approach I believe, it is an
> example of how a far-from-ideal situation can be assessed
> fairly (the cookstove sector needs work on standards and
> protocol, it needs building on best practices), and how it can
> be the basis for a call for action. The WB asks not to lament,
> but to work on improving what can be improved.
>
> I am also more of the optimistic kind, and the optimism, we
> need to share it: why do we think biomass cookstoves are still
> worth working on? Why are we still doing what we do despite
> the previous setbacks?
>
> I feel we should make ourselves ready to answer important, and
> valid, questions such as the ones from The Guardian or the
> Caravan articles. This is advocacy.
>
> I am not sure we are completely prepared to do so.
>
> At Prakti we have interacted with a lot of other stakeholders,
> other social businesses, distributors and NGOs, investors. And
> sometimes also journalists. And sometimes we hear: "oh,
> another cookstove company" "oh, cookstoves have been around
> for a long time, but haven't really taken off". We sometimes
> face scepticism, worse, defeatism. With almost the idea the
> cookstoves are not necessary. If we believe they are, we
> need to hear and consider their arguments, then to have
> thought about our arguments as well.
>
> First, I feel we might need to think ourselves more as a
> community or sector, with common goals and interests.
> Healthily competing or rather working together on a common issue.
>
> Nikhil said:
>
> "There is no "stove community" but a slum of labs and
> computers, each hut producing its own meal and emissions."
>
> Research efforts are indeed scattered and lack coordination.
> But I believe there is a stove community, and quite an active
> one. Participants and readers of this list have a lot in
> common. Communities are nothing but the sum of all
> individualities after all. We are scattered, but it doesn't
> mean we cannot work better together. I see a lot of exchange
> and collaboration here. And everyone is trying hard.
>
> And as a community, I feel we have to explain what we do,
> advocate why our cause is important and why our action is
> still relevant. And if it is still relevant. I believe it is.
> So before being able to answer, we must make our own in-depth
> self-assessment.
>
> This is what the GACC is doing by representing us and lobbying
> for us, there is also the CLEAN network in India, and some
> other organizations. But additionally, we might want to agree
> on certain things. And this stovelist is still the most lively
> space for exchange.
>
> There is an initiative of French intellectuals called
> "Manifeste convivialiste". They are advocating that, in order
> to make the world a better place, rather than focusing on what
> they disagree on, they should ocus on what they agree on.
>
> That could be something like:
>
> "We as a sector are facing challenges: biomass combustion is
> extremely complex, our target markets are challenging. Our
> efforts are scattered. But our mission remains extremely
> important, and the improved biomass cookstoves remain a
> relevant solution to the global problem of unclean cooking."
>
> For example, that is a start. From there, what is the first of
> these challenges, and how to tackle it?
>
> Let say the first and main challenge is the complexity of
> biomass combustion (problem) -> we need more R&D to understand
> and find ways to improve it while making stoves cheaper
> (solution).
>
> A few persons mentioned in the article seem to agree:
>
> * ?My sense,? Saran said, ?was that the problem needed
> top-level technology.?
> * ?We started out with the dream of a global innovation
> competition,?
> Rajendra Prasad, a professor at the Centre for Rural
> Development and
> Technology at IIT Delhi, one of the official stove-testing
> labs,
> said. ?And now we?re back to mud stoves.?
> * Scientists who spoke to me on cookstove design frequently
> compared
> their challenges to rocket science. The technical problem is
> surprisingly difficult. Combustion of solid fuels such as
> wood,
> dung, coal and agricultural waste is far more complex than
> that of
> gases or liquids such as LPG or diesel. Lighting a wood
> stove can
> set off many more chemical reactions than burning gas, and the
> emissions process can?t be modelled easily?understanding
> depends on
> trial and error. Scientists also know less about solid-fuel
> combustion than they do about rocket propulsion. Stoves
> are not a
> glamorous technology, and have attracted relatively little
> research.
> A scientist at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi
> told me
> that students are so embarrassed to be working on a stove
> project
> that they ask to call it by another name.
>
> So, there is a need for a lot of work, and there is a need for
> top engineering and scientific talents. How to attract top
> talents?
>
> * with R&D budget and attractive wages
> * with good communication about our sector
> * by simply ... going and talking to them. Telling them
> about our
> work. And trying very hard to build partnerships.
>
> But first we need to assess that we need them, and that R&D is
> the problem. And I have the feeling we believe a bit too much
> that we are gonna sort all these issues by working in our
> garages on our spare time and by organizing stove camps. Don't
> get me wrong, stove camps are great and lead to a lot of
> information being exchanged. But this is far from being
> enough, we need to be much more ambitious. We need renewed
> efforts and smart ways to attract, develop, and retain
> talents. At Prakti we have put an increased emphasis on that,
> for example we have an ongoing partnership with Engineers
> Without Borders U.K.
>
> Because today, frankly:
>
> 1. What are really the efforts done on fundamental research
> on biomass
> combustion for cookstoves? Who is seriously working
> full-time on
> combustion?
> 2. With what manpower?
> 3. Is this research organized?
> 4. Is it heavily financed as it should be?
> 5. Do we really think this research effort is up to the
> challenges we
> are facing?
>
> If we answer "No" to the question 2 to 5, then we have a
> start, and we
> know where next to put our efforts.
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
> *************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto: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
> <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160824/a2733467/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list