[Stoves] Fwd: business sickness

[Anand Karve]

Dear Stovers,
a lot can be done if the government is behind you. Here in India, we have
in every village, a village level worker, who is paid by the Government and
who sees to it that the government schemes meant for the village get
implemented. Our Institute worked for almost 6 years on a Government
sponsored programme called National Programme on Improved Cookstoves.
Although this was just a demonstration programme, we used to install 150000
improved cookstoves every year just in our province alone. This was
achieved by conducting training programmes for village artisans, who then
went from village to village, installing the cookstoves. They got paid by
the Government for this work. Our Institute conducted the training
programmes and also supervised the work of the artisans to see that the
quality was maintained. These  stoves were made from mud, and they were
constructed in situ by using a mold. This assured that the dimensions
remained uniform. Since we had to work in collaboration with the village
level workers, I came to value the service that they provided to the
village. I don't know if such an infra structure exists in other countries.
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)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Bob L
>
>
>
> I think there is a choice or two that was not covered in your list of the
> options (or rather, Radha’s options if that was the source).
>
>
> "a billions women can't afford the stove they need. We have three choices.
> we can leave them out
> we can sell them a stove they can afford that they will abandon
> we can subsidize their purchase.
>
> we choose to subsidise their purchase."
>
> One of the things Cecil Cook keeps saying is that the designers have to
> realise that there is an upper limit to what people are willing to spend on
> a stove. That is true, and the amount can be ascertained, but there is more
> complication to it.
>
>
>
> A stove that only does a certain range of things (addressing Nikhil’s
> question about ‘performance’) has a certain perceived value. Another device
> that does pretty much the same thing will be assigned pretty much the same
> perceived value.
>
>
>
> Three options: change the perceived value (advertising), or bring more to
> the table (like adding electricity), or increase the performance without
> increasing the cost.
>
>
>
> There is always the possibility that an assumption is blocking the way. In
> this case, that a high performance stove (however defined) has to cost a
> lot more. This is common cause in the donor community, with some but not a
> heck of a lot of justification. Using the same materials and creating a new
> configuration can deliver more benefit without increasing the amount of
> material of the cost.  Some designs would benefit from being mass produced,
> some from mass parts production and local assembly. Some designs require a
> high local skill level and it is difficult to transfer such skills.
>
>
>
> My main point is that delivering far better stoves for the same cost is
> what engineers and in fact universities are good at doing. More function
> for less cost. I mention universities because while they are not major
> sources of invention, they are very good at optimising the application of
> new ideas. Engineers are supposed to optimise the use of materials and cost
> to deliver a given performance target with a required margin of safety as a
> matter of course.
>
>
>
> Practical Action made a major effort in Darfur to improve the performance
> of the local mud stoves that were in common use. They achieved a consistent
> 50% fuel saving across the board without an increase in cost. Such an
> achievement is usually accompanied by a reduction in emissions of smoke and
> CO because they have to be burned to get that magnitude of performance
> increase. Not always, but almost all the time. So we can demonstrate that
> the goal of improvement can be achieved without having to spend more.
>
>
>
> We can also spend more and get an improvement, no problem. Cecil’s
> question is which stove will find the greatest acceptance in the least
> time? Make and maintain it yourself forever, or wait for a subsidy? That is
> a rational choice. If someone gives you as stove and you sell it then make
> your own, you have benefitted from the stove programme.  I know where there
> are thousands of examples of that. Maybe tens of thousands. It depends on
> the offer.
>
>
>
> Bob, it sounds like you have a winner of an approach, and it is quite
> likely the government won’t kick in anything. Don’t give up, but unless
> there is some net beneficial offer it will lag behind in the decision
> tree.  Is it not possible for the communities to kick something in? I live
> in Mennonite country and they frequently do things like that. Local
> self-upliftment. If it is really valuable and appreciated, to what extent
> can a community organise things for its own benefit? I have seen amazing
> things happen.
>
>
>
> Kukaa vizuri
>
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
> bob lange      508 735 9176
> the Maasai Stoves and Solar Project.
> the ICSEE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> 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
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160704/18206460/attachment.html>