[Stoves] Biomass briquetting tangents

Sun Aug 13 09:24:19 CDT 2017

Hello colleagues,
I want to do a research work towards getting a PhD on biomass stove, in any aspect, can I get a suggestion on the topic to work on.

Thanks
Abubakar Suleiman.
Sokoto Energy Research Centre,
Sokoto, Nigeria.

-----Original Message-----
From: "icecool" <icecool at qanet.gm>
Sent: ‎13/‎08/‎2017 03:11 PM
To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'" <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Biomass briquetting tangents

Dear Crispin, Nikhil and list,

I am working off ONE solar battery with heavy rains so not much computer time or juice. Please apologise my shortness.

At the time we, on a local level with Crispin’s and Cecil’s input, made the choice to try to bring a better stove to market and tackle the 75% unemployment another time. The pilot was small and we did a lot for little money – but we learned a lot.

Local – I agree with Crispin. We wanted a GOOD stove and we did it. It was able to burg charcoal, wood and briquettes or other biomass big enough to not fall through the holes. The tech institute here is struggling with tooling – they have a few guillotines but use mainly tin snips – breaks your heart to watch them TRYING. In the end the fund holder (CU) did NOT advance finance the production of the 500 stoves – the sale was supposed to generate the return – any profit was supposed to start the slow rollout batch by batch.

Savings – we did some extensive monitoring with the 24 trial stoves imported from SA (23 left now – 1 uncaring householder). Fuel cost savings achieved around 60% to 3stone or local stoves. Time saving around 30%. WB sent a pollution monitoring team – never shared their findings J GREAT for the guys on the ground and in the workshops!!! People who use the 23 stoves are our best friends and think it’s the best thing since…

SE4ALL – official facts for The Gambia here https://www.se4all-africa.org/se4all-in-africa/country-data/gambia/  and here http://www.se4all.ecreee.org/content/gambia . Our concept note was classified under renewable I think. But yes, emphasis was on electrics. 

Where is SE4ALL? I used to have real good contacts just about everywhere. After the population de-elected the old dictator and ECOWAS troops made sure he left at the beginning of this year, many officials are not where they used to be. Much shuffling has taken place, huge disruption to ongoing projects as a big internal scrutiny exercise is still trying to find the people who have been eating much of the money. At the time of the validation workshop I think the idea was to put a reasonable prospectus for investment together (including our initiatives), then start looking for funding?

On a personal level, I have not been in a position to network much for quite some time now – economics have been real tough, hence the daily tin of sardines. But by the end of this month things will improve so I will be hitting the road again – and the offices. Be sure of this!

Onwards

George in his personal compound jungle J

From: Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Sent: 13 August 2017 13:20
To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Biomass briquetting tangents

Dear Nikhil the persistent

My analysis and actions are rooted in some fundamental concepts that underlie the approach to project design. 

It is often a desire to 'make a stove locally'. As Mark Bryden's students have shown, there isn't enough scrap metal in Chad to replace all the traditional stoves with much better ones. Even if it were all making it to the bazaar and not being exported ‎to China, it is not nearly enough. Generally the better stoves all have more material in them. 

So what does 'produced locally' mean? They produce their own steel sheets? ‎Nope. Rivets? Sort of, made from chopped off nails. Screws? No. Welding rods? No. Bolts? No. 

The point is that nearly no stove made from metal is entirely produce in-country. So, who decided that ‎cutting up an imported sheet is 'local'? Why not import the blanked parts, accurately made and mass produced? Why ship scrap to Chad and start cutting with a hammer and cold chisel? Makes no sense, as soon as one admits that the material is going to be imported if the 'problem' is to be addressed 'at scale'. 

The idea we explored with George was to try to get a finished combustion chamber, material and processing, to Gambia for the same cost as buying the raw material locally. Given the rapacious nature of the local importers, invariably expats from the Middle East and South Asia, this was not such a challenge. 

As to its being 'affordable' that is a question of the value proposition, not only the cost. As the stove lasts five years, it has additional value as a purchase proposition. As a fuel saver, it is also more valuable. For lighting speed it is probably unrivaled. Big plus. Less smoke? More benefit. Fuel flexible? Yup. So it is a 'good value' because the value proposition exceeds the cost. 

Accessibility is a separate issue. If the amount is too big to pay all at once, it needs a finance mechanism and there are lots to invoke. 

So I agree that the definition of 'local' is a political decision. ‎If you are going to send anything to a developing country, don't include any embedded low skilled labour. Do that on site. 

We had a discussion here some years ago on how to create the most stoves with the best performance at the least cost at the greatest speed.  ‎One proposal was to send Vesto combustion chambers with an additional  ring to hold it, and ti build a mud enclosure that created the preheating chambers and cooking platform. 

This is what happened with George except instead of mud he used locally available plain steel sheets which are common enough. 

GIZ was not involved in the project, it was a WB pilot with Concern International. Cecil did the stove anthropology, as usual. 

Local production was done with the mech tech teaching institute which had the necessary metal working tools. It was not artisanal. ‎It was the first time we tried to make Vestos outside the SA region. Sujatha at Servals in Chennai has made some from scratch and confirmed the high-end performance. It still hasn't appeared in any stove performance report from Aprovecho or EPA through they have each had one for years. Obviously it didn't get a mention by D-Lab either. 

NIH??

Regards 
Crispin 

Crispin: (to George below)

What you describe of Gadgil's - and your - work is yesteryear's. And probably for very unorthodox situations (Darfur) or small markets (Vesto in the Gambia). 

Conditions change. Electricity, skills, manufacturing capacity, restriction on imports (or preference for domestic production), availability of tools, Mrs. Clinton's enthusiasm and ISO globalism. As do the demographics (urbanization), resource availability (waste biomass)

My point is that "appropriate technology" of yesteryears need not be the same today. The key idea you and Gadgil had was that "the ‘industrial’ production was done as close to the bulk material source where the tooling could be produced and maintained." 

This remains valid, and is a very useful parameter for defining "context", the term I am obsessed with (at least in reaction to service standard and objective). Your recommendation also remain valid for such contexts: 
" *   Designed outside the region
  *   Introduced after local testing
  *   Main components needing high precision produced outside the country
  *   All metal construction
  *   Performance much better than local baseline products in common use
  *   Production process adjusted/evolved as local capacity improved
  *   Field performance evaluations confirm acceptance and long term use (displacement)

It would be good if the project can be picked up again and expanded to include all the city neighbourhoods."

In other contexts, "Design outside the region" and "all metal construction" need not apply, and "country" is simply a political term. 

These are the "data shortages" in the facts-free universe of "clean cookstoves" - data are contextual and there is not a single database I can find about the local, real facts of alleged global problems - deforestation, climate change, women's power, or health damage. (Conversely, not a single "stove rollout" has been done on the basis of actual local data on "before and after" efficiency, emissions, women's power, or long-term health.) 

The question is, why did GIZ effort limited in time and geography? How much damage has been done by the madness of pushing WBT and ISO Tiers? (Maybe not much; GACC increasingly looks like a sideshow.) 

I will now read the D-Lab report in light of your observations. 

George: 

Some questions: 

1. Who is leading the external charge on SE4All when it comes to cooking energy? Is the emphasis only on households? This is important because if SE4All is aligned with UN SDGs, the goal is to reduce the "% of households using solid fuels for cooking". 

In other words, SDGs are as pernicious to use of biomass for cooking as WHO/ISO Tier 4 Emission Reduction Targets for PM2.5 (hourly average). I do not understand why this List has not reacted to this blatant betrayal of the "better biomass stoves" agenda. 

2. Is there an evaluation of the Gambia stoves work in the past? And to the SE4All Investment Prospectus (likely to be heavily weighed to electricity)? 

------
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin

[The entire original message is not included.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170813/9005f5af/attachment.html>