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

kgharris kgharris at sonic.net
Wed Jun 29 22:57:49 CDT 2016


All,

I wouldn't know how to answer all the vast quantity of thoughts this topic has generated.  There are some very long letters here, and wading through them, trying to follow the ebb and flow, can be difficult.  The negativity seems very strong, and I am not sure what the conclusions are.  The thought 'There is no success so far so stop already' seems to be a strong sympathy.  This is of course proven wrong by Paal Wendelbo, Paul Anderson, Muhammad Nurhuda, Rebecca Vermeer, Alexis Bolenio, and many others.  If the writings were not so long, and were more to the point, it would help. 

I snickered at the mention of a 'miracle stove'.  No stove is a miracle.  All stoves, whatever the fuel, operate on definite principles of nature, not on miracles.  I will be describing and demonstrating the natural principles operating in our latest research TLUD-ND at the Aprovecho stove camp this August.  It will be very clear that it is not a 'miracle stove', but rather a stove design based in sound natural principles.  These principles are free to everyone.

I am looking forward to seeing Controlled Cooking Tests (CCT) on our new design at stove camp.  Hopefully there will be participants attending from various countries who could do these tests using their traditional cooking techniques.  This would give a lot of very practical and useful user design knowledge.

I am also looking forward to seeing how well our new TLUD makes char.  Does it make a different percentage of char on high power verses on low power?  We can explorer this at the biochar camp following the stove camp.

By for now,
Keep it positive,

Kirk H.



---- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dr.-Ing. Dieter Seifert 
  To: miata98 at gmail.com ; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves 
  Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 12:08 AM
  Subject: Re: [Stoves] Why is it still so difficult to design cookstoves for 3 billion people?


  Dear Nikhil Desai,



  Thank you for mentioning my „Remarks on Stove Technologies“, which are intended for discussion (also the sections D to E). 


  Concerning deforestation and CO2-emission you may find information in my article “Traditional Charcoal in Africa and Need for African Institutes ARTIS”, published since yesterday at: http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Charcoal



  With kind regards,

  Dieter Seifert




  Am 27.06.2016 um 03:09 schrieb Traveller:

This is Nikhil Desai again. I am writing in response to Xavier Brandao's
original 14 June post. I have read Dieter Seifert's reply and agree with
all of his points in Sections A through C of his Some Remarks on Stove
Technologies
<http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/solarcooking/images/8/8f/Remarks_on_Stove_Technologies_-_Seifert_February_2016.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20160519171524>
.

I have no expertise in designing cookstoves, so I have no idea why it is
STILL so difficult to design cookstoves for 3 billion people. Some of
Xavier's observations are on-the-mark, except that they are all about
stoves, not fuels. Biomass is not a uniform fuel and the variability in
quality across regions and seasons, not to speak of the variability in
cooking preferences, make me uncomfortable with his sweeping
generalizations about "stoves". I may come back to that point in a later
post.

I think the main reason is that some fundamental questions have gone
unattended. Stoves or fuels in and of themselves are neither dirty nor
clean, and 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. "Cheap", "practical" and "very clean" are in the
eyes of the user; these perceptions can change and can be changed.

Let me pose some questions; they are addressed to the proponents of
"biomass stoves for rural poor households in developing countries".

a) Who are you designing the stove for?

b) What do you know about her and how do you know that is enough knowledge
to determine the stove marketability)? (Keep in mind that in the last 50
years, young women have become grandmothers or died, and that roughly 3
billion children have passed through the age group 10-25, where biomass
cooking has subjected them to the drudgery and smoke while keeping them
away from education, play, and taking care of children.)

c) Why are you designing the stove - in particular, to please the cook or
experts in donor organizations (God forbid, pass the RCTs of Remy Hanna,
Esther Duflo, and Michael Greenstone?)

d) When will you want these stoves to be used and how?

and, finally,

e) What has 50 years of failure taught you? (You are free to define failure
and success in terms of your answers to a) to d).

If the intent was to design a stove for only 50,000 cooks for a 10-year
period so they prepared better meals that their menfolk liked and beat them
less often - or any other desired result - that is fine by me. I would like
to see some evidence that this intent has been met ten times.

I am skeptical. I think proponents of biomass have forgotten the fuel(s)
and looked only at stoves, as an engineering design challenge, sometimes
not even from an industrial product designer's perspective. (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.) Implicitly or explicitly, the biomass stovers
were driven by "efficiency" and efficiency alone. To what end - for a
supposedly renewable and "freely available" fuel, I could never understand.
(With solar lanterns, the conversion technology became more reliable and
cheaper; with solid biomass, I have seen no evidence that fuel supplies or
stoves and paraphernelia of fuel management became more reliable and
cheaper.)

Now there is a drive for miracle biomass stoves - the test being in labs
for boiling waters. The test wouldn't offer any metrics other than
efficiency and emission rates and under lab conditions.

There is a presumption here that ultra-efficient and/or ultra-clean miracle
stoves used exclusively will save the trees and/or lives. Not only are
definitions and metrics of efficiency and cleanliness unknown or arguable,
it is unknown or arguable that even 10% of the current households will use
such miracle stoves exclusively, and it is also unknown or arguable that
such use will save trees or lives.

Some ten years ago I had argued on the Hedon discussion group something
like "Maggis noodles has saved more trees than all the improved cookstove
programs combined." I know nobody in stove design business ever seeks to
deliver on his promises, so I doubt I would be challenged on this.
"Anything goes" is the experts' prerogative when messing with poor people,
no?

"Avoided woodfuel use" does not translate into actual "avoided
deforestation". I hear a lot of deforestation is for purposes other than
meeting the fuel demands - though once cut, trees can be used for fuel or
making charcoal - and that when people own land and trees, they grow trees.
Evidence is spotty, but surely the question is not why people cut trees but
why they do not grow trees back. In any case, biomass combustion is most
definitely not "GHG-neutral", and "GHG-neutrality" of a village, a
district, a state, or even a whole country matters not a hoot.

Similarly, "avoided woodfuel emissions" - whether or not proportionate to
avoided woodfuel use - do not translate into "avoided pre-mature mortality"
and certainly not into "avoided deaths". If emission reductions lead to
lower pollutant exposures - a big if, for no reason other than that there
are no measurements of pollution exposures of these 3 billion (or all 7+
billion) people, nor  - and further if such lower exposures lead to lower
incidence of corresponding diseases - another big if, since the avoided HAP
pollutants could be negated by same or similar pollutants from other
sources, including natural - we might see some health improvements. Whether
that raises life expectancies, or quality of health, and increases or
reduces pre-mature mortality, is anybody's guess. We have no evidence that
clean fuels/stoves for some 3 billion cooks (at home or in food preparation
for them outside the home) has reduced pre-mature mortality in any
quantified manner. (I would be glad to be proven wrong.)

Xavier asks a very pointed question - "why don't we know why it is proving
so difficult?" I suspect many people know, but do not want to admit it. It
is not just that "stove science is so complex", the cook is a complex
mammal with different ideas, preferences, habits. If 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. Maybe that is indeed what biomass stovers have wanted to do for
some 50 years I have seen the experiments with stoves, er, people's lives.
Failures to deliver what the cook wants means some 500 million children
pass through the age group 5-15 (i.e., about 50 million a year) caught in
the same old rut; over 50 years, this means some 2.5 billion people (or
1.25 billion new cooks, if exclusively female), while nearly as many have
passed on to the next world, having suffered the "wrong" fuel/stove
syndrome. (I am assuming that something is wrong, otherwise stovers
wouldn't be hammering away at this problem for 50 years.)

Nikhil Desai
(US) +1 202 568 5831




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:58:45 +0200
From: "Dr.-Ing. Dieter Seifert" <doseifert at googlemail.com>
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
        <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Why is it still so difficult to design
        cookstoves for 3 billion people?
Message-ID: <cbbd28ce-63e0-88da-98d5-26c90585cf12 at googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Dear Xavier Brandao,

Thank you for your informative posting. I agree with your proposals and I
would like to draw your attention to documents about open source cooking
technologies (OSAT) which you find on the website of SCI (
http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Dieter_Seifert)

a) some remarks on stove-technologies:

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/solarcooking/images/8/8f/Remarks_on_Stove_Technologies_-_Seifert_February_2016.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20160519171524

b) about Ben firewood stoves:
http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Ben_2_and_Ben_3_Firewood_Stoves

* The whole documentation is dedicated to poor households*. Only
standard material is needed. The documentation (including Annexes A ? E)
contains also the devices for production in simple workshops,
*so that the cost of a stove will be below 10 USD.*
c) about cooking with retained heat (a totally underestimated technology)

http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Heat-retention_cooker

I hope this open source technologies may be so helpful, as you described
it.

Kind regards

Dieter Seifert


Am 14.06.2016 um 08:16 schrieb *Xavier Brandao*:
Hello Stovers!

I haven't posted for a long time, but reading the Stovelist is still a
real pleasure to me: lively debates, breakthrough stove science, many
people working on many initiatives, with a lot of energy, that's great
to see, that's emulating!
Sorry for the long email, but there are here a few ideas I wanted to
develop.

It's been some time since I wanted to share this article from the
Guardian, it was sent to me by Minh, a previous colleague of mine, who
also worked on the GERES project in Cambodia. I don't think it has
been shared on this list, but I think it talks about just the most
fundamental of our problems:


http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/cookstoves-design-poor-communities-refugees-unhcr-ikea

"*With all the knowledge and technology we have at our disposal, why
is it proving so difficult to design and create simple and efficient
cookstoves for the three billion people who use them in the developing
world?*" is the question asked by T. Alexander Aleinikoff, the United
Nations
deputy high commissioner for refugees.

The question I would have is more the following: "why don't we know why
it is proving so difficult?"
I mean, after decades of stove development and dissemination, there's
at least one thing we should know, it's where our difficulties come from!


*But here's a tentative answer to Mr Aleinikoff question: the > principles
behind biomass combustion make it extremely difficult to do > stoves that
are both cheap and practical, and very clean.* But, like
anything, I believe this is not impossible, and this is a problem we
are working on tackling.
And for now, when a stove developer decides to make a stove, he/she
chooses almost systematically the latter aspect: clean combustion. You
know the rest of the story: the stove is expensive and impractical to
use, barely good enough to boil water for tea, and users don't buy it
or use it.
I'm being caricatural but this is what happens too often.

/*Stove science is lagging behind, not stove marketing*/

I have done a great deal of reading since I've started working on
stoves, years ago. Reports are piling in our digital library at
Prakti. We will keep reading and piling them, for sure. At the same
time I have been trying to extract the very nectar of these reports,
and try to get an understanding of what really matters.

In my opinion the stove sector knows what works in terms of
dissemination, distribution and marketing. Most of the reports are
about marketing and business models. Marketing to the BOP is very well
documented. It seems to me that every new edition of Boiling Point
from HEDON talks about this or that project: involve women vendors,
demonstrate the stoves, pay attention to early adopters and opinion
leaders, use mobile phone technologies, listen to the feedback, find
financing solutions, etc. I think we know all that. And some projects
are working great. You do good marketing, you make a lot of efforts,
you reap the rewards.
But all agree it starts with one thing, it starts with a great product.

This is where the stove sector is lagging behind. No offense meant to
all the great researchers working on stoves.
Stove marketing is currently waiting for stove science. Stove science
is lagging behind, because as I mentioned stove science is so complex.
Many challenges come with clean combustion. Marketers wait for
scientists to sort a few things out: scientifically correct, and
scientifically relevant protocols first. Then A LOT of testing will be
necessary, a lot of data, to understand combustion, to understand
variables, to understand stoves. Then, good design, good engineering,
great products. Once the great products are there, salers and
marketers and project implementers are reading to pick them up, and to
sell them to the BOP.
A side note: I'd love to see HEDON and similar publications focus more
on the hard science, and how to help it, to accelerate it. These are
questions worth writing about.

So what I call a great stove is not a Tier-4 stove that works
perfectly in controlled testing settings. I am gonna be again very
caricatural: Tier-4 is accessory, it is bonus.
A great product is simply product a customer loves, buys and uses. A
great stove is a stove that is used.

Some of you certainly experienced that: you give one day your new
prototype to a woman user. Skeptical at first, she agrees to leave her
traditional stove for a week, and start using your new stove. You come
back one week later. She is using it every day, for lunch and dinner.
She loves it. She put her ceramic stove on the side, actually, it is
nowhere to be seen. Your new stove has become the kitchen stove.
It's only for experiencing this kind of feeling that I work so hard.
This is when this happen to you that you know you have a great stove.
Adoption.


/*Cookstoves: super practical vs super clean */

I picture the stove sector as a large mountain, with 2 camps on its
two feet. The 2 camps are separated by the mountain in the middle.
?    In one camp the infamous smoky traditional stoves, and very next
to them, the vast majority of users, using them every day
?    In the other camp, stove developers and manufacturers, reaching
Tier-4 in their expensive labs, with complex technologies and
expensive stoves. And their very limited dissemination numbers.

The 2 camps don't communicate much with each other. What happens is
that often a new recruit joins the stove developer camp. He/she
chooses the techno-push approach. The new comer comes up with a slick
design, cool materials, excellent lab results. But many restrictions
are imposed to the product use, it should take this fuel, not this
fuel, be lit this way, be tended this way, etc. And as Crispin was
mentioning in one of his last posts, so many important things are left
during the development process.
Great disappointment is the reward of so much of work when the users
don't accept the new product.

Priya Karve rightly emphasizes the importance of delivering a cooking
service, not a cooking stove. At Prakti we work on the "cookstove
system" (stove + fuel + cooking vessel + operator + burn cycle).
Traditional stoves give an excellent cooking service! They are great
cooking tools! They are just awfully dangerous for health.


/*Next actions: a few ideas*/

I believe both camps can meet together, on top of this mountain.
There'll be extremely clean and usable stoves, hopefully soon. There
is some good progress happening already.

But to be sure to succeed, I would start my climb at the basecamp
where all users already are.

What I think stove developers should do:

?    Change your perspective: consider that traditional stoves are
great. That they are fantastic. Because people have been using them
for thousand of years. They must have something special, right? Start
by not judging them.

?    Spend a lot of time with the users. See them cooking. Cook
yourself, cook on the traditional stove. See how easy it is with the
traditional stove.

?    Then build your own stove based on the traditional stove. Big
stove, easy to use, sturdy, large opening, easy to tend, large
combustion chamber, lot of power, fast to cook.?Give it to users. Have
them use it, have them like it.

?Your stove is being used everyday, it is being adopted.
Congratulations! Additionally, you might have seen by now, and your
future customers remarked it too, that the new stove, even if it's far
from being Tier 4, is actually much less smoky than the traditional
stove..
?    You've reached your usability baseline, that's your prerequisite,
the bar has been set. Don't cross it now. Always keep the stove as
usable.
?    Set a bar also for price. Keep the stove cheap. Its production
must be affordable. This is a prerequisite too.
?    From there: work on improving performance: emissions and wood
savings. It will be difficult. But you can improve it, by a lot.
?    If you are working on a breakthrough technology, see how you can
introduce it to your usable cheap stove, without lowering the bar you
set.
?    Work on the breakthrough technology in isolation, if necessary.
If the technology is not ready to be engineered into a good stove, so
be it.

At Prakti, this is what we are currently doing, working both on
incremental progress, and breakthrough technologies. Both are
difficult, but both hold promises.??I was saying previously that stove
marketing was waiting for stove science. In fact, it's not. It cannot
wait. Stove are being sold, marketed, for better of for worse.
Funders, programme managers, private companies, want to see stoves in
the field, they want to see numbers.

Now, in my picture, I didn't mention that great projects, not only
in humanitarian context, are on the other side of the mountain, they
have chosen to improve traditional cookstoves, with simple design
changes.GERES, GIZ, SNV among others have worked on such projects.
Materials must be found locally, price must be cheap. Local artisans must
be the manufacturers of the stove. They have had great success, large
numbers disseminated.
This is a proven approach, but what I advocate is to go even further, and
businesses and manufacturers are part of that It is not to improve a
traditional stove, but to develop a new stove that has the same qualities
as this traditional stove. This is a small nuance. And work on making this
stove clean.


The approach is to use much more science, much more engineering. To think
in business terms. Make a product which can be mass-manufactured, which can
be scalable. Our customers love the portability of our stoves, this is for
example something we want to keep.


**
It is said there is not one-size-fits all. That's debatable. Have you seen
how similar mud stoves in Africa, in Asia look like? Close to the ground,
big front opening. Why is the Jiko such a hit, all over Africa? Isn't the 3
stone fire the world's most successful one-size-fits all model?

We need funding to go to R&D. This is something I advocated at the Clean
Cooking Forum in Delhi last October 2015, and is still very actual to me.
At Prakti we've been very lucky to have funding from the GACC and other
funders for our R&D work. It helped a lot. This needs to continue, and on a
much larger scale.


Radha Muthiah rightly says in the article that, these are the
article words, "the market is fragmented, with a lot of small and
medium-sized entrepreneurs who may not have the appropriate design
and manufacturing skills". I fully agree with that. A possible way
to address this issue is to fund work that can benefit to the whole sector,
especially R&D work. Besides testing and protocols, works on materials,
work on design, work on combustion. Crispin said in the volume 69, issue 8,
that the long term future of stove materials is glass and ceramic, and more
investment should go in the research on those. There are several areas that
research can explore.


Companies sell shampoo to the BOP, they sell soft drinks. Here in India,
cheap smartphones are everywhere. A lot of R&D money has been spent so
these products could be made, and now successful technologies and
successful marketing go hand-in-hand. There is no reason that we cannot
achieve that soon as well with cookstoves.
Xavier Brandao

     

_______________________________________________
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/





       Virenfrei. www.avast.com  



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2016.0.7640 / Virus Database: 4613/12503 - Release Date: 06/27/16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20160629/db290ec5/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list