[Stoves] Why is it still so difficult to design cookstoves for 3 billion people?

[Xavier Brandao]

Hello Nikhil,

Thank you for your detailed answer!

That's true, I am indeed painting with a broad brush. It's difficult to 
generalize the "global stove sector": there are so many stoves, so many 
fuels, so many locations and cooking practices. The words "cheap" and 
"practical" encompass a lot of realities. Rather than "cheap", I could 
have said "considered affordable by the target populations".

But I think we need to try to understand some trends, some realities, 
across the stove sector, even if it means generalizing.

Because we often hear: "oh, but one size does not fit all, and there are 
so many realities and cooking habits".
As if what was meant was: "don't bother, don't think further", "don't 
try to find an answer", "all general reflection on that matter is doomed 
to fail". End of conversation.
No, such a reflection is not doomed to fail. There are differences from 
one situation to another, there are also very strong commonalities. 
Let's keep thinking.

Mr Aleinikoff generalizes greatly, but at the same time, he is right.

I can confidently say that, nowadays, in the case of cooking woodstoves 
for rural users: stoves that are deemed easy to use are stoves that have 
a large opening, a large combustion chamber, allow to put a lot of fuel 
and do little tending. The 3 stone fires among others. That's why they 
are in use now. In Asia, in Africa and elsewhere.

I can confidently say that most of the time, such designs are likely to 
make a lot of smoke. I think we have enough proof of that.

There are of course variations, there are exceptions one could find and 
bring up, but I believe that assessment to be mostly true. Now from this 
assessment, I can say that also too often (I don't have figures for 
that), lab stove designers will reduce usability to increase 
cleanliness, and hinder chances of adoption.

*/Stoves or fuels in and of themselves are neither dirty nor clean/*
It's true that fuels, are eventually, fuels: they are meant to burn, 
they can be burnt cleanly, with the right stove and conditions.

But I think we can admit that some stoves are consistently clean: the 
LPG stoves. Some stoves are consistently more dirty, the 3 stone fire, 
unless really well operated by a very talented cook. But most of the 
time, under normal conditions, we could admit that they emit a lot of 
smoke. Take a super clean multi-fuel heating stove: you put basically 
any fuel in it, coal, cow dung, even very wet, when you light up the 
stove, in no time, a strong fire will roar. It's a furnace, it can burn 
almost anything. Could we call that a "clean" stove?

Now, this clean stove is great, but it's likely very expensive for a 
rural household in a tropical state of India, who doesn't need the 
heating. The family will choose a "cheap" 50 INR ceramic stove. That is 
"dirty".

So broad brush painting and classification into "clean" and "dirty" is 
unfortunate, but if I need to launch a product in India, I need to 
understand large trends.*/

when the market for stoves and fuels is properly identified - 
in/**/terms of cooking habits and preferences, geographic factors, and 
fuel and/**/stove costs - some stove designers have indeed made some 
progress in/**/changing cooks' behaviors.
/*I think often, the stove markets are quite well identified. An NGO 
based in U.S. or in Europe, who makes a stove "to help the population 
living in this village of *** in this Sahelian country, because the 
deforestation rate is this much, and women need to walk that distance" 
etc. Or an humanitarian agency designing a stove for a specific ethnic 
group in a specific refugee camp. The market is defined, identified. 
Possibly there was a market study done. The problem is that the stove 
designer ignores certain parameters. Or chooses to ignore them. "They 
will need to chop wood to use our stove, but when they will see how 
clean and economic it is, they will like it." Hence the failure. Because 
some prerequisites haven't been taken in the original requirement list. */

"Cheap", "practical" and "very clean" are in the eyes of the user; these 
perceptions can change and can be changed./*
They can change and can be changed, but to a certain extent. A 100 USD 
stove will always seem expensive for most of Africans, regardless of the 
great marketing, or sensitization.
Again, I think it is easier to change the product than the user. It is 
our job to do so.*/

(By comparison, a large number of products for solar LED lanterns 
flooded the market very quickly, between 2009 and 2012, when I stopped 
marveling at the design/marketing pushes.)/*
I don't think solar LED were push marketed. I think there was a strong 
demand from the users, once they were introduced to the products. I know 
it for having marketed LED lanterns and stoves at the same time in 
Benin. The lanterns were 3 times cheaper, and of a higher perceived 
value: the customer would choose them over the stoves everytime. This is 
also what thinks Tom Adamson, who is the director of Micama Soley, in 
Haiti: he has sold more than 75 000 solar lanterns there (that was back 
in 2013). He didn't want to go in the stove business because he felt it 
was a much more difficult product to sell.

*/I/**/f you don't understand the cook, and don't deliver a product that 
matches her desires and aspirations for cooking experience, you can do 
as much "stove science" as you want./*
I think we can understand what the cook wants. We are just not able to 
design exactly what she wants, while still having a clean product. The 
failure is not in the understanding, but in the delivery. Hence the 
failure is in the stove science. And because we cannot deliver, we 
decide to understand only partly. Cognitive dissonance?
I think this point is an extremely important point. It needs further 
study. It is like the hairdresser who doesn't really know how to do the 
haircut you want, does something different, and then tries to convince 
you that it is what you wanted!

We will understand fully the cook If we forget about our nice little 
stove prototype that is sitting at the lab. Like you call it Nikhil, the 
"miracle stove". If we start thinking about the miracle stove, it is 
over, we will understand her partly. We will cherry pick her answers, 
hear what we want to hear, and be comforted in our super stove design.

We should go to the user with a clean slate: and ask frankly what she 
wants. We take all the requests, and we have the dream stove on paper. 
Now what would happen if we had a magic wand? We would make the stove 
appear: maybe it would be a fierce looking, big, silver, shiny stove, 
clean (means not soot or ash), easy to turn the power up or down, quick 
to cook, the user can put as much fuel as she wants then proceed with 
her chores. Ah, and also no smoke (the cook would put it on her list, it 
just wouldn't be on top).
There, you have your dream product.
Is it what you have prototyped at the lab? No, hum? Admit it. OK, so 
then back to the lab and do more R&D!

I think your 5 questions Nikhil are a great start! Stove developers need 
to ask themselves, very frankly, these questions.

Best,

Xavier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160628/b6b44693/attachment.html>