[Stoves] Biomass briquetting tangents

Sun Aug 13 23:15:05 CDT 2017

Crispin:

I hope you didn't misunderstand me.

"Produced locally" is a meaningless concept; begs what is "local" and in
what sense. Sometimes perfect, sometimes not.

The term "households" is also meaningless. There is a lot to a household
than a kitchen or a stove or a human oxidation unit (cook and people
around), and the whole idea of two SDGs - reduction in the % of households
claiming solid fuel use in surveys at the national level - is ridiculous to
anybody but the United Nuts. Go see Queen of Katwe and reflect on how many
US "households" cook fresh meals from scratch. It is only with some
mythical cook and mythical meal over a mythical fuel that mythical global
cakes are cooked.

I am not going to debate "affordability", which too is a meaningless
concept. "Purchase proposition" or "Value proposition" can be indirectly
measured simply as sales. Whoever thought spring mattresses and mobile
phones - or fancy perms - will become booming businesses in urban Africa?

Finally, "access" too is a meaningless concept when measured in terms of
"households". If the problem is loss of trees or emission loads, only the
aggregate consumption volumes and emission loads matter (nobody has
measured them). Individual customers will access stoves like they have
accessed kerosene lanterns and stoves for a hundred years; just walk around
and watch.

I haven't seen a Vesto except in pictures
<http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/taxonomy/term/1642>on the web. And I am
not surprised that D-Lab paid little attention to stoves unknown to
Aprovecho and not subjected to water boiling.

I am afraid donor projects have under-appreciated the capacity for local
innovation and spread beyond "projects". In my experience, charcoal stove
innovation was rampant in my city in the 1950s, and charcoal/stove trade is
still fairly active in all Indian cities I am familiar with. Apart from
Sujatha's Servais efforts, I have also seen or heard of other "local"
innovations, away from the gaze of the "globalists" of a particular
variety. Ethiopian charcoal stoves and Mirte mtads are such an example;
missed the review "What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves
<http://www.kirkrsmith.org/publications/1994/05/23/what-makes-people-cook-with-improved-biomass-stoves-a-comparative-international-review-of-stove-programs>"
by our friends.

I know I will be accused of "negativity". Someone needs to separate the
wheat from the chaff - facts from the deceits - of the last 40 years.

Let me check the D-Lab report; it seems to have escaped notice by
technologists here.

I didn't understand your reference to NIH. These health folks know nary a
thing about combustion, leave alone cookstoves or cooking.

Nikhil

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

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> 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)?
>
> ------
> Thanks, both. A breath of fresh air.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170814/b0882437/attachment.html>