[Stoves] Off-topic news: Uni of Iowa hosts conference to save millions of lives globally

Sun Apr 9 07:44:27 CDT 2017

Ron:

Since you asked me specifically, October is when a new US government budget
takes effect. DJT has submitted a blueprint of MAGA budget. Foundations
will need to make up for money and hire the fired, if any.

I wrote "off-topic" because the news release headline was a put-off. All
conferences "to save millions of lives globally
<https://now.uiowa.edu/2017/04/ui-hosts-conference-save-millions-lives-globally>"
are worth no more than smoke (some smoke can be pleasant, intoxicating,
medicinal).

You are correct, I did mean to disparage the "smoke" theme. A university
press release claiming WHO estimates *CO2* is among the pollutants
 "released while burning biomass lead to 4 million deaths annually" shows
the bankruptcy of academia.

You and I may be in agreement about the substantive significance of
Udaykumar's work.

I know something of his past
<https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/how-a-simple-inexpensive-device-makes-a-three-stone-hearth-as-efficient-as-an-improved-cookstove/>
work.
Then too the UI press release had hyper-ridiculous headline - Insert for
traditional cookstoves found to decrease global warming, prevent premature
deaths."
<https://now.uiowa.edu/2015/12/small-metal-grate-makes-big-impact-environment-health>

Yeah, right. Premature deaths CANNOT BE PREVENTED. They are not specific,
individual deaths. By definition, there will always be premature deaths;
only the risk factors and YLL (Years of lives lost) will change.

And any claims of "found to decrease global warming" are beyond ridicule.

Just ask Kirk Smith and Tami Bond.

*************

Udaykumar and team had a nice paper then, exposing the well-worn
mis-statements of the "improved woodstoves" advocates on India. The
sub-head  was rather annoying - "Simple, Inexpensive Device Makes a
Three-Stone Hearth as Efficient as an Improved Cookstove
<https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/how-a-simple-inexpensive-device-makes-a-three-stone-hearth-as-efficient-as-an-improved-cookstove/>
-
because the term "improved cookstove" is inane. (Kirk Smith asked in ~2011
that the term be retired.)

I hope you like the paper. The villages mentioned are in the region I spent
childhood in - on the other side of the forest - .

Udaykumar's team did what Cecil asks -- they OBSERVED the process of
cooking. Those who care for cooks must be liberated from the WHO dogma and
fantasies, and police silly claims in press releases.

*****************
Now the new paper you mention, which I will try to download.

The abstract is pleasant. These conclusions could have been reached decades
ago, if only stove experts had done their homework in understanding the
cooks.

The question is, what do these authors base their conclusions on and how do
they propose pulling the faithful away from the dogma?

After 40 years, I still don't see light at the end of the tunnel. You may
call me what you like but I am not an "antagonistic pessimist".

I just spent 26 days in a remote rural part of India. The nearest village -
Suryamaal - was smaller than Karech and the nearest town Wada comparable to
Gogunda. (I was 300 km south from my home while Udaykumar's study area
about 300 km north; mountainous, forested, etc.)

I agree with their abstract,
*"targeting this device for obsolescence has profound implications that
cannot be reduced to energy consumption or environmental hazards." *
My view for at least 25 years; I don't know why you think you and I have
opposite views.

So much for the TC 285 exercise in pursuit of 90% emission reductions and
your quarrels about fuel efficiency calculations in WBT. Not dispositive of
the basic question -- what would make a stove usable? By which cooks and
where, when?

*"Searching for a middle ground requires stepping back from the dogma of
efforts to improve biomass cook-stoves."*Amen. I hear Cecil's echo.

I wrote a suggestion about what could be done in the next four months but
rather than attacking my idea, my post was censored. Perhaps you, Crispin
and I could do that offline. Middle ground of minds, not monies.

Nikhil

Nikhil Desai
+91 909 995 2080 <+91%2090999%2052080>
Skype: nikhildesai888

On Apr 8, 2017, at 10:56 AM, "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

List,  cc Nikhil (and Crispin because it seems this was intended for him
primarily)

1.  This conference seems one I am now likely to attend.   I especially
want to hear Kirk Smith.  This is a non-fee conference.  I see no
justification for this thread being labeled “off-topic”.

2.  The reason is not because of the conference notice that Nikhil sent on
the 5th.  Rather it is the statement on the Conference page (
https://now.uiowa.edu/2017/04/ui-hosts-conference-save-mill
ions-lives-globally) mentioning a recent paper by the same UI staff putting
on this conference - to be found at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X15309566

Elsevier,  World Development,  Volume 92
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0305750X/92/supp/C>, April
2017, Pages 13–27

Why Have Improved Cook-Stove Initiatives in India Failed?

MEENA KHANDELWAL a, MATTHEW E. HILL JR. a, PAUL GREENOUGH a, JERRY ANTHONY a
, MISHA QUILL b, MARC LINDERMAN a and H.S. UDAYKUMAR a,*

a University of Iowa, USA,  b Cornell College, USA

Summary. — An estimated 2.7 billion people cook meals on biomass-fueled
brick, stone, and clay stoves. Scarcity of wood and negative impacts on
health and environment have motivated efforts to design and distribute
‘‘improved” cook-stoves in developing countries. In India, adoption is
limited despite massive promotion over many decades. Existing research
suggests that many rural women in India do not want improved stoves, and
those who do face obstacles to adoption. We step back from the many good
case studies to examine the broader story of improved cook-stoves (ICs) in
India. We do so by bringing together technical research of applied science
and narrative critique of social science. Rather than assuming a priori
that traditional stoves require replacement, we ask why Indian cook-stoves
been a magnet for so much attention, why adoptions rates have remained low,
and what lessons might be learned from a broad, multi- disciplinary
perspective. Our approach is critical and reflexive, given our own
involvement in IC efforts, and puts gender at the center. Our ‘‘big picture”
review shows that the Indian chulha, for all its problems, is a remarkably
successful technology which also satisfies several important household
needs. Hence, targeting this device for obsolescence has profound
implications that cannot be reduced to energy consumption or environmental
hazards. Rural women do not prioritize ICs, but addressing their priorities
requires either capital- intensive investment or challenging powerful
institutions. In contrast, IC interventions are relatively cheap,
decentralized, mechanical and seemingly apolitical, hence their popularity
in development programs. Our review of chulha research leads us to reject
both the opti- mism of development planners who frame such problems as
technical and the antagonistic pessimism of their critics. Searching for a
middle ground requires stepping back from the dogma of efforts to improve
biomass cook-stoves.
<page2image20552.png>

www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
<page2image21168.png>

3.  Fortunately this paper (with-fee, released this month) is available
free for some of us through Research Gate.   So no need to go to a library
and I was able to finish it today.  It is one of the best stove papers I
have ever read (and I have probably read over a hundred).  This is the
reason I will try to make the Conference - next week.  This Iowa group has
done their stove homework.

4.  Although an outstanding paper,  I think (not being sure being my reason
to attend) the Iowa authors are (or were) unaware of charcoal-making
stoves.  I will expand on this after I read the paper again, and more so if
I attend.  Anyone else read the paper and have comments?

5.  I ask Nikhil to explain his “Come October” comment immediately below.
The rest of the three part exchange between Nikhil and Crispin seems
intended to disparage the conference “smoke” theme, and the paper behind
the conference.  I’d appreciate their thoughts on the paper.

Ron

On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:04 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com> wrote:

Crispin:

Conferences are for Going Up in Smoke.

With the right fuel and fire.

Come October.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(India +91) 909 995 2080 <+91%2090999%2052080>
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
> That is going to be a pretty strange conference. ‎If CO2 is now
> 'pollution' and not the result of perfect biomass combustion what
> performance targets will we now seek?
>
> If they don't know the difference between an attribution of a contribution
> to a premature death and what is written on a death certificate, they are
> in for a shock.
>
> I have been made aware of a new tense in the English language. The idea
> that CO2 is thought by the WHO to be a cause of death of thousands of
> children ‎is stated in the 'future hopeful' tense.
>
> The 'future hopeful' tense
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170409/f11d5bdf/attachment.html>