[Stoves] Chervals-India-atmosfair

[Ronal W. Larson]

Paul, cc List  (note change of thread name).

	1.  Thanks for the followup on this important, apparently quite successful, new TLUD marketing effort.    Because I have visited the Chervals facility in Chennai, and have seen you operate them, I haven’t had much to contribute to recent discussions.  But today I followed the “atmosfair” part of the story - and have some comments below.  I found two trip reports - and include them in full, to save others the task of translating.  I have bolded and underlined a few remarks from each.

	These trip reports are not particularly helpful compared to your own report - but they are third person and from the company I want to emphasize here.  First point - I think atmosfair would be of great help to biochar if they found a way to include the placement of char in the ground as permissible.  It appears they are now claiming nothing (in dollar/rupees/deutchmarks terms) relative to CDR (carbon dioxide removal) - only energy efficiency.  It is not yet clear to me how they figure the climate benefit - but if someone wanted to place their made-char in the ground - I believe that would be worth more to stove users in dollar/rupees/deutchmarks.  Mainly because there is a carbon multiplier:  more carbon negativity than from the char itself as there is increased above ground growth, more below ground fungi, more savings in nitrous oxide release, etc.

	The main message I get from your report and the following is that the stove is making (not just saving) money for the users.  Which other stove type can make that claim?


	2.   Next is the (somewhat out-of-date - 2014) Google translation of an atmosfair staffer’s trip report found at:  https://www.atmosfair.de/documents/10184/30784/Reisebericht+Indien_Sundarbans_Feb2014/c7701742-39b4-4be4-b27c-54fc6c045991 <https://www.atmosfair.de/documents/10184/30784/Reisebericht+Indien_Sundarbans_Feb2014/c7701742-39b4-4be4-b27c-54fc6c045991>
	(Apologies for so few words on a line and the un-needed capitalization - just the way Google sends it back.   Note the words biocarbon and coal - both mean charcoal - and, more loosely, biochar.   There are also two short videos - but those are related to employment. The fact that there is pickup of the produced char is an important part of the scheme.  I wish I knew more about the supplied fuel.)

"Travel report
Journey to the wood gas cooker project in India, February 2014
Until now I was lucky enough to have cooker projects in Nigeria (including verification), Rwanda and Lesotho
Place to visit, support, prepare for the verification or accompany. in the
February 2014 I went to India for the first time to visit our wood gas cooker project.
Before I left I was very excited and excited. Moulindu, our project partner on site, and
I planned to visit 15 cookers to visit, to interview and on each cooker an efficiency test
To be carried out. I also visited the stove factory in Chennai and befriended
Research institutes.
In summary, I can only say what I have said on the spot: I am
impressed! We found happy cookers
Before, as I know it otherwise only from the Save80 furnace.
We also have a great deal with Sapient
Organized project partners, in particular
In the construction of the infrastructure for the collection of the
Biocarbon is an important contribution to the success of the
Project. With the income from the
Coal sale and the savings
Wood consumption has become the stove for the user
After 2 months.
To the background: In our wood gas cooker project
In India up to now 3000 wood gas cookers have been subsidized by a contribution from climate protection
Price has been sold. The digesters are operated with wood waste. There are remnants of mango wood,
Which are otherwise used for the production of tooling. The wood waste have
The same price for the end customer as other wood, but are supplied tailored. Therefore
There is a lot of interest in waste wood, which also spares forests.
Photo 2: Use of residual wood
Photo 1: a street in the project area
What is special about the wood gas cookers is that they are not only compared to the traditional
Clay oven about 50% save wood, but that they only have to be filled once and no wood
Must be submitted.
Photo 3: User during cooking with traditional clay oven (left) as well as the efficient TLUD oven (right)
The new stove relieves the cookers very much. Aspects by the users especially
The following are estimated at the new cooker: There is no smoke that saves the cooker
Wood, the resulting biocoal is repurchased, the stove looks good and users have more
Time to do other things while the cooker is cooking
In addition, the biocool collects a close contact with the cooking users.
Stoves, which are not accepted in the first days, are taken back and attached
Other interested users. This results in a utilization ratio of almost 100%. In addition to the
Interviews, I could also gain many other impressions besides the cooks. The first
Cook user was Hausmann and one of his hobbies was Hahnenkampf. This he led us directly
in front.
Photo 4: Bengali cook user
After that, we carried out an efficiency test in a household where the cow was still in the kitchen
was standing. Many young women in their sisters were in the immediate distance and saw us giggling
And is interested in it.
Photo 5: Cookers
Very impressive was the team spirit. Together, the employees have a small fund
To help each other. From the sale of the coal is also a
Fund for scholarships for children from poor households. The
Teamgeist also, when we tried to operate the stove with rice stalk. After a few
The employees became increasingly motivated. Eventually came
Employees to the idea of ​​using a folded grater for the air supply. That's it
Actually worked and there was even a blue flame - like a gas cooker. At the
We are now developing this further. The use of alternative ones is also very exciting
Fuels, such as "cow-dung sticks". These also work surprisingly well
In the TLUD stove.
Photo 6: Use of alternative fuels in the TLUD stove
Report by atmosfair Employee Maren Kügler
contact
Maren Kügler
Project implementation & controlling
kuegler at atmosfair.de
atmosfair gGmbH
Zossener Straße 55-58
10961 Berlin, Germany
Tel: (030) 627 35 50-24”


	3.    I couldn’t find a date for the second trip report.  The word “digester” must be a problem in translation.

"Travel report India
Journey to the wood gas cooker project in the Sundarbans, India
First evaluation
It is a sultry Sunday morning, 6:30. The small wooden boat with the passengers and chuckles through the dense Mangrove landscape. We
are on the way to a house in the village Saga Iceland, one of the many small ones Islands about 80 km south of Calcutta. The region
The Ganges Delta
Sundarbans, Bengali for
"Beautiful forest", forms the natural habitat of the Bengal tiger.
The first internal evaluation (monitoring campaign) of the atmosfair project "Efficient
Holzgaskocher Sundarbans "has begun. Since summer 2012 has atmosfair partner
Moulindu Banerjee from the small agency Sapient from Calcutta with its employees
1000 cookers distributed to users and
numerous information events
Are held.
The results of this evaluation are particular
Therefore interesting because it is
To a new technology so far
Has not yet been tested on a larger scale
has been. The first of us visited
Housekeeping this morning has the stove
The area of ​​the Sundarbans in the state of West Bengal
Boats are the most common means of transport
Our visit to a user household,
On the stove is just Dal cooked.
The inhabited areas of Sundarbans.
Last December for 1,000 rupees (about 14 €) bought. "I still remember"
Says Moulindu, "they absolutely wanted the stove after a public show
Take it with you! But that was not possible, because the digesters are stored centrally.
One employee took him to the house a week later. "
The distribution of the digesters is made personally by the respective employees on site,
To train the families in proper handling and to show how to
Efficiently save wood and can boil with energy.
Public demonstrations are announced by handouts and banners a few days previously
And are a common way to introduce the digester in the places and the
To educate people about the important aspects of saving wood. In the Sundarbans
Regularly drives a small vehicle with loudspeakers around and sends one
Small advertising contribution to Bengali explaining the advantages of the wood gas cooker
- including efficient, non-smoking cooking and production of charcoal
As a by-product.
In the next 3 weeks, we will be 32 households, according to a random principle
Of the database,
visit. We would like to consider,
Whether the digester is actually under
The dated addresses
Whether the users with the new
Cookers, what
They like it and what
There are suggestions for improvement.
Rice is the main food
In the Sundarbans and
Is done three times a day
Eaten.
By the pyrolysis process in the
Wood is converted into charcoal
The wood gas cooker is special
Energy efficiency.
In addition, we perform some efficiency tests, which provide information about energy efficiency
And charcoal production, and which allow calculations of CO2 savings.

After the boat has been laid, we have to go a whole way to the village.
Meanwhile it has become very hot, the thermometer shows almost 38 ° C. We will
Welcomed with sweet tea and to our delight we see the digester actually
Is in use: a large pot of rice stands on the gas flame.
We conduct the interview using a standardized
Questionnaire, followed by a precise evaluation
allows. This does not mean that we do
Only three hooks, on the contrary, in the
Usually takes such an interview 30-40 minutes and
Is not infrequent in discussions about climate change and climate change
Precipitation changes and other challenges,
With which the inhabitants of this region,
Which is regularly flooded, daily
Have to deal with.
The visits revealed that the stove in 96% of the
Households are used daily and in many households
The old stove completely
Replaced. Why the old stove still partially in use
Let us know.
"On weekends we often get family visits, there
The size of the cooker is not sufficient to cook all the guests. "
What do you like about the stove? "It allows flexibility,
Once, he burns by himself. During the rice
I can cut the vegetables. With the traditional
Clay oven does not go, because you have to sit next to it and
Take care that the fire does not go out. This is very
Deforestation is a big issue in the Sundarbans.
Few trees means less protection at extreme
Weather conditions, increased soil erosion
And a massive restriction of soil fertility.
Table and an enormous work facilitation. By the way, he halved the fuel consumption. "
We heard an answer in all of the 32 households: the TLUD is especially appreciated
Because of its minimal smoke development, which makes it possible also in closed
To use spaces - an enormous advantage for the monsoon season, which in this part of the
Earth for two months.
The good acceptance of the cook is no accident, but the result of long planning,
Including failed attempts in regions with other cooking habits.
Atmosfair partner Moulindu Banerjee lives
Though in Calcutta, but he is during the
First phase of the project in the Sundarbans
Drawn and has culture and traditions
On the spot.
This is reflected in the very good organization
Of the project: the people
Trust him, and he is very close with
Its local employees,
Which regularly serve the users on site.
The wood gas cooker could be so in
The test phases to local conditions
And has the users by its good handling and its
Wood saving, flexibility and low smoke development.
The old moodstove (left picture) was used by many households almost entirely through the use
The new, more energy-efficient, wood-saving and smoke-free wood gas cooker
(Right picture).
During our visits, we often find human grains
Boat or in the village and thus the curiosity was aroused. Mouth to mouth
Propaganda is perhaps the most important strategy known to the wood gas cooker
To make; On our visit Moulindu gets many inquiries and orders.
Our investigations show that the wood gas cooker enables a household,
To save up to 1.25 tonnes of timber annually. This is particularly the case in this area
Is threatened by massive deforestation and at the same time the habitat of many rare animals
Is a key factor. A comparable CO2 saving is achieved through the use
Of charcoal, which is produced in the digester by the pyrolysis process. The households
Sell ​​these charcoals usually at restaurants or goldsmiths, which allows
A refinance of the cooker within 6 months. Thus, conventional
Charcoal, whose production is otherwise very inefficient - from 6 kg
Wood is only 1 kg of charcoal. This results in a total CO2 saving of approx. 2.5
Tonnes per year.
The balance of the internal evaluation is therefore all-round positive. That is why atmosfair is now
In the next steps each 1,000 to 4,000 additional wood gas cookers in the Sundarbans
And by the gold standard, 10,000 tons of CO2 savings per year
certified

Bericht von atmosfair‐Mitarbeiterin Marieke Tobiasen"


4.  I urge that your next version of your paper make more clear two things.  First, that this arrangement is suboptimal from a biochar perspective.  OK from a charcoal perspective - but I believe that this part of India would be better off with putting char in the ground - at least there should be some experiments supported by atmosfair. It looks like they could soon (maybe already?) have filled their existing local market for charcoal.  Restaurants using charcoal should be making their own.  Possibly also blacksmiths.  The market is much larger than the present one.
	Second,  there is some room for better explaining the economics.  There is a 6 month payback, which should appeal to almost every stove user. And you/they/the_team have an installment plan which probably makes the payback even quicker.  The cost of the stove should not be a big issue;  Rather - what is the IRR (Internal Rate of Return)?

	5.  No disagreement with anything you have written below.  I leave on a ten-day trip in a few hours, but will try to add more later.

Again,  Paul - nice work.

Ron


> On Oct 16, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dear Stovers,
> 
> Unfortunately, far too much of what Crispin and Nikhil have written recently is true.  
> 
> Crispin wrote:
>> It has proven very difficult to get support for product development. One of the reasons is that innovators have shouted ‘improved’ so many times, that it is widely assumed that the improved stoves needed to address (all) development goals already exist. This is a common perception among those working outside this sector.
> And that is especially true for recent and less well known stove types, such as the TLUDs.  The older of the "improved" stoves get the attention and the funding.  Look at the support for rocket stoves and charcoal burners.  And how important they are for the "stove count" trying to reach 100 million households.  Why?  At least partly because those stove types are backed by the older companies, and they have vested interests in sticking with small-change revisions of those older stove types.
> 
> Only in the last few years have TLUD stoves been included in a few of the comparative studies of stoves.  And there has been no significant funder-support for TLUD stoves since the BEIA Project in Uganda (pre-GACC and ended in mid-2012).  Interesting that very low emissions from TLUDs were not sufficient to get those stoves into the mainstream projects.   
> 
> However, considering the "used and useful" criteria (that I like) mentoned by Nikhil, we do have another very successful project worthy of discussion.   I have attached the recently released report of the TLUD project in the Deganga area of the Ganges Delta in India.  (also available at drt.ud.com <http://drt.ud.com/> ).  11,000 households in a compact area, etc. etc. that you can read about.  What is relevant to the current discussion is that NO funding support for that project came from any of the major providers of funds.  Instead it was a  private not-for-profit carcon credit organization (atmosfair) the made the initial high-risk effort.  It financed the first 1000 stoves and set up record-keeping for carbon credits.   This is major money for some but really is "peanuts" funding for the major players who could have supported this project.   And NOW that the project has a very successful track record for 3 years, it would be nice it the "big money" entities could sponsor an expansion and replication of this success.  
> 
> But not a glimmer of interest shown thus far.  Nor do the major players have many avenues for assisting such efforts.  This is now mainly outside of the pilot and early implementation phases.  My opinion is that "crowd-funding" can have more impact on getting good stoves to needy people than all the millions of dollars spent by many of the big players who control the purse strings. 
> 
> Of course, there big entities hold out the "business model" as their favored way to support projects.  Major issues include ROI (return on investment) and interest rates and "exit strategies".   And keen stove developers need to find the business management teams to undertake such efforts.  There is very little "heart" in such efforts to bring people out of poverty.  Certainly SUSTANABILITY is highly important.   But look at the attached file of the Deganga project.  Long term projections look very very good.  But prospects for growth to reach other communities and even more people in Deganga are dependent on finding $15 per additional household.  Otherwise, if additional households can only be added using funds generated from the ongoing project, that is essentially saying the the impoverished people must generate "profit" before others can be assisted.
> 
> Time for some changes, or we are stuck with very little progress and with dangers of overall failure again of a major effort for better stoves for peoples and societies and environments.  
> 
> Paul
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu <mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com <http://www.drtlud.com/>
> On 10/15/2016 9:28 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>> Dear Nikhil
>>  
>> >I wonder if there were any usability tests. In US regulatory practice, there is a term I like - declaring an investment "used and useful" before allowing the investor to earn a regulated return on it. There are so many "improved biomass stoves"; I wonder if anybody has tried to estimate which designs are "used and useful". 
>>  
>> This is a very good question. There is usually a pretty significant gap between what stove project staff consider ‘improved’ and what users consider ‘improved’.  This was highlighted during the Ulaanbaatar Clear Air Project UBCAP. The goal of the users (fuel efficiency) was not aligned with the primary goal of UBCAP which was (and still is) a reduction in the emission of PM2.5.
>>  
>> We discussed it frankly in 2008-2009. In order to succeed the stoves promoted had to address both constituencies. It is clear from observations and interviews that everyone in the city is concerned with ambient air quality, but there is a much lesser response when an individual’s own behaviour is involved. Generally people were not willing to be PM-martyrs with regard to their own emissions.
>>  
>> So the selection of supported stoves was done on the basis of a combination of two improvements and one ‘do no harm’ rule. PM had to be down 80%, then 90% over the baseline, the fuel efficiency had to be improved to the point that it met common regional standards, which are 70% in most cases, and finally, the CO produced per delivered MJ should not be higher. In practise, the CO was reduced because taking care of the combustion quality generally improves CO as well so it became a non-issue.
>>  
>> It is a reasonable example of attracting adoption over a performance metric that was low on the concern list of the individual home owner, but high on the list of the funder.
>> 
>> >Xavier Brandao had sent a very powerful post on 4th August 2016, asking for a focused R&D effort.
>> 
>> And he hit that point well. It has proven very difficult to get support for product development. One of the reasons is that innovators have shouted ‘improved’ so many times, that it is widely assumed that the improved stoves needed to address (all) development goals already exist. This is a common perception among those working outside this sector.
>> 
>> Stove / air quality / fuel saving projects are frequently based on the following plan:
>> 
>> 1.       Raise funds with various promises of deliverables such as access to modern energy, fuel saving (tree saving), air quality improvement (based on some of the wonkiest science in the sector), reduction of drudgery and once again, against the grain of evidence, a reduction in ‘sexual violence against women’. All these things save the last are common elements of stove projects.
>> 
>> 2.       Survey the market for improved stoves, which clearly they consider to already exist.
>> 
>> 3.       Test them and pick ‘the best one(s)’.
>> 
>> 4.       Promote the best one(s) by reducing the costs associated with promoting and adopting them.
>> 
>> So, where in the list do you see the development of appropriate products? Very few organisations have done that – far fewer than those fitting the above over-generalisation. Practical Action should be praised for their work in Darfur during which they worked assiduously to make a usable stove from local materials that consistently saved 50% of the fuel in that cooking context. You can read about the Stove Wars of Darfur in the works of Samer Abdelnour who documented what happened during a time when people were given as many as 10 different stoves all said to be ‘improved’.
>> 
>> Next I can point to a stove that was developed from the ubiquitous Keren Stove in Indonesia. It is called the Keren Super. Its main feature is that it doesn’t appear to have any features at all – it looks almost exactly like the traditional Keren. The big reason people like it so much is that it saves a lot of fuel, particularly when it is cooking for a long time. It burns the same fuels, has the same controllability and has the same long term cost and comes from the same traditional artisans.  It can, like the traditional version, be made in different qualities, sizes, casings and so on, to suit market price segments.
>> 
>> The development of the product was done within the CSI-Indonesia Pilot Project, though not specifically as a named activity. In a sense it was tolerated because it happened and had promise. It may turn out to be the most popular product promoted. If so, it really is worth studying why.
>> 
>> Next is the stove programme of CARITAS Switzerland which is in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, mostly the former. This has a specific mandate to develop better products and has had for several years – at least four. Through that effort new ideas have been introduced that seem to be acceptable to the families they hoped to assist. Once there are some proofs of acceptance, they can be supported over the whole region. Yesterday I saw some great photos (which I will try to share) from the project Fresh Air in Kyrgyzstan. They show the conditions in which people are living, and the fuels available. For a designer it is very disciplining to be required to meet the needs of the families using only the materials and fuels available. 
>> 
>> The solutions they have now are by no means loved – even if they are effective enough. There are all sorts of problems with traditional stoves and we should be keenly aware of their shortcomings if we want to have new ‘better’ products adopted easily. I observe that improved performance is immediately appreciated. Major issues are:
>> 
>> Time and attention needed to run the stove (frequently having to go to the stove and do something)
>> Fuel preparation (all fuels need to be prepared by someone, even LPG)
>> Leaks of smoke from the stove body/top
>> Smoke leaks from the heating wall or brick chimney
>> Poor cooking performance
>> Condensation issues (extracting too much heat from the gas stream – through this is not an adequate explanation of the problem)
>> A ‘flash in the pan’ heating cycle: big heat followed by a lingering fire
>> A need to burn two or three fuels together to get the cheapest ones to burn well (cotton stalks, dung, sawdust, coal dust, crop wastes)
>>  
>> If the problems are addressed ‘in the bargain’ then the performance attributes that are appreciated by the donor/project can be ‘smuggled’ into the plan, as Cecil would say.
>> 
>> So what then is the problem? Basically, the belief that the solutions already exist. That is the big impediment. So many people claim to have solved the problems, before they have even been delineated, there has been generated an aura of finality about the product development cycle. Others have declared that the problem is not solvable with ‘solid fuels’ and everyone has to move to electricity and gas. I like electricity and gas and use both myself, but we have to be realistic – not in the sense that we will tolerate solid fuels for a while, the GACC approach, but that we should use the Mongolian approach: admit that the fuel will remain the same for the foreseeable future and learn to get drastically better performance from it, perhaps even better than electricity and gas, all things considered.
>> 
>> This has raised a strange bifurcation in the stove community – those who declare that solid fuels cannot be burned cleanly (or at low enough cost) or at all, and those who are carrying on to do so in spite of numerous historical failures. Guess who is winning the battle against poor performance?
>> 
>> The infamous claim in the document known as the Stove Comparison Chart (in the introduction) that ultra-clean Mongolian stoves ‘only appear to be clean’ has generated a joke about Ulaanbaatar PM2.5 where the air quality was improved by 65% in 4 years (because of the stove exchange programme) in spite of no change in the fuel and an increasing population. The joke is that the air ‘only appears to be clean’ because they continue to burn lignite. It can only ‘really be clean’ if they change fuels to something far more expensive like semi-coke briquettes or LPG.
>> 
>> As you can imagine, Mongolians are happy with their air that ‘appears to be clean’, a consequence of their stoves that ‘only appear to be clean’.
>> 
>> There are stoves all over the place being promoted that ‘only appear to cook’. In reply the cooks are voting with their wallets and/or their feet.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Crispin
>> 
>> PS Did you know it is possible to make an ‘improved mitad’?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/>
>> 
> 
> <TLUD-Case-Study-Deganga-2016-09-30.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20161016/bd156f82/attachment.html>