[Stoves] Biomass briquetting tangents

[Nikhil Desai]

That went out too fast. I have had trouble with three keyboards in recent
days. Now complete:

Tom:

Before you call me out as reaching a conclusion that is "flat wrong,"
please read my statement:

"*If* their stoves are* not tested* *or don't score well in lab tests*, *but
sell well because they are adapted to their markets, there is something
unhelpful about the "lab tests" metrics and protocols;"*

The statement was conditional, with the first part referring to your own
statement "Their products sometime have not been tested, or they score in
the middle of the field in lab tests, but they sell locally and are adapted
to their markets. "

I submit those stoves would have scored higher on some other "lab tests"
metrics and some other protocols. That is plain logic. I never asserted lab
techniques are not helpful, just that some metrics and some protocols give
distracting data. (I for one don't care about boiling water as a proxy for
cooking, and thermal efficiency as a proxy for cost saving, but that can be
debated separately if it is not patently self-evident.)

As for what lab techniques have helped whom, and how, we need to ferret
skeletons out of closets. And have a complete financial and technical audit
of global proclamations on cookstove science, economics, regulations, and
politics. This forum doesn't seem receptive to self-examination.

I fully agree with the abuse of and by consultants and the mismatch between
project cycles of donor. And of course I agree that people matter
throughout the delivery chain. It's just that the competitors to biomass
stoves and fuels seem to be better organized and even better skilled; hence
Kirk Smith's challenge, which I have not yet seen anybody on this List to
respond to.

Please let's not have misunderstandings and misquotes create unnecessary
discord; disagreements are unavoidable.

Nikhil (maybe warped wrong but not flat wrong yet)

>
> -----------------------
>
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>
>> Nikhil,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your conclusion that lab techniques are not helpful is flat wrong. The
>> stoves I refer to were developed with a variety of tools including the WBT
>> and other common metrics before being tested in the field and adapted to
>> local acceptance. You can find projects of this kind listed in the GACC
>> database.
>>
>>
>>
>> The organizations who develop and promote these stoves make use of
>> consultants for special purposes. More importantly they provide the
>> continuity and oversight of the enterprises to train and assist the
>> entrepreneurs to ensure that they are successful. It takes years, longer
>> than most grants. I know of at least one case in which the sponsoring
>> organization shut down a factory when they couldn’t trust the manager.
>> Any organization has successes and failures. It is as much about people as
>> it is technology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Nikhil Desai
>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2017 1:13 PM
>>
>> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.o
>> rg>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Biomass briquetting tangents
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom:
>>
>> Re: your comment, "Successful producers are often supported by
>> independent non-profits that have organized supply chains, and continuity
>> in personnel and support. Their products sometime have not been tested, or
>> they score in the middle of the field in lab tests, but they sell locally
>> and are adapted to their markets. These products don’t need to be blessed
>> or funded by international organizations. If they don’t sell, they fail."
>>
>> a) If their stoves are not tested or don't score well in lab tests, but
>> sell well because they are adapted to their markets, there is something
>> unhelpful about the "lab tests" metrics and protocols;
>>
>> b) Pressures to sell can lead to short-term inventory and working capital
>> problems, and deter market intelligence and innovation. It may be helpful
>> to make "good:" entrepreneurs bankable so they can avert liquidity crises
>> and put surplus to RD&D. The donors - international or otherwise - are
>> similarly better off diverting their overheads to pure grants to the
>> entrepreneurs - competitively, if at all possible - than to consultants who
>> do "Monitoring and Evaluation" for some vaporous "results" without theories
>> of change ever validated in actual experience.
>>
>> This may explain why I have been looking for proper avenues for
>> "subsidies". What to subsidize, whom to subsidize, where and how?
>>
>> The advantage of LPG/electricity options is not just that, as Kirk
>> Smith's second epiphany shows, they have the institutional and manpower
>> capacity to deliver products and services but that they have bankable
>> delivery chains to push subsidies through.
>>
>> When governments are involved, it does not matter that the LPG and
>> electric companies are bankrupt in the commercial sense. Donors keep
>> salvaging electric utilities all the time, and national governments love to
>> both tax and subsidize their LPG companies.
>>
>> What would take stoves and biomass fuels to that hallowed land of
>> delivering benefits of grants to the poor and not to ,,, well, let me ask
>> DfID.
>>
>> Nikhil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com> wrote:
>>
>> When the solar energy laboratory in Mali was developing a metal jiko in
>> the mid-late 1980s it became apparent that production would be limited
>> by the availability of scrap steel and the logistics of sheet steel,
>> especially to remote areas.
>>
>>
>>
>> We should accept a multi-tiered strategy of production at small, medium,
>> and large scales.
>>
>>
>>
>> If your target is small scale there are examples of stove works that
>> produce tens, hundreds, and thousands of stoves that are suited to local
>> fuels, tastes, and demand. Successful producers are often supported by
>> independent non-profits that have organized supply chains, and continuity
>> in personnel and support. Their products sometime have not been tested, or
>> they score in the middle of the field in lab tests, but they sell locally
>> and are adapted to their markets. These products don’t need to be blessed
>> or funded by international organizations. If they don’t sell, they fail.
>> You may not get to millions with this strategy but these stoves have
>> improved countless lives by improving health and providing a means for
>> cooks to earn income. Many thanks to the generous and dedicated people who
>> are supporting this market.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170813/031253b4/attachment.html>