[Stoves] No subsidies in TLUD char peoduction (was Re: Testing versus stove acceptance

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott crispinpigott at outlook.com
Mon Dec 4 18:08:42 CST 2017


Dear Paul

My question related to the CDM project money, which I was calling a subsidy.

"Even when the carbon credit operations end, the commercial aspects of the TLUD charcoal production and sales should be self-sustaining‎"

Then there is a subsidy involved, just not on the purchase of the stoves, isn't that correct?

I am not protesting against subsidies, I am seeking a clear understanding of the economics. I am a strong supporter of the ‎use of 'weed species' material as a fuel.

It is unfortunate that each 'solution' is presented by its enthusiasts and supporters as the Final Solution. Each system that works takes place in a context and the details of it matter a lot. They may be reproducible, they may not.

As you point out, there are circumstances where some particular combination works. You and Ron and Gordon can choose the motivations you like. For guys like me who promote a range of technologies it is important to give me the macro and micro picture of how the system works.

At this time I am promoting perhaps a dozen stove types each of which has a broad or narrow niche. To be quite frank, I should not have to independently find out how the West Bengal project works financially. I am not afraid of finance. I am afraid of systems that do not add enough value to all three bottom lines, as Gordon notes. The business case should be accessible and clear and then let other implementers decide what  ‎suits their opportunities.

There is an initiative, a discussion, going on now in Mt circle about what brings or drives investment into research leading to highly improves stoves and fuels where the investment is public funding.

You and I have been advocates of investment in 'blue sky' new ideas for ages. The targets are, generally, set too low, historically speaking. Much higher performance is possible and the co-benefits are manifold.

You have pointed out that making char while cooking is possible in certain cases. Dr AD Karve has pointed out (and made a business case) creating charcoal fuel out of sugar cane leaves. He points out there is a resource of more than 500m tons of raw material presently wasted (burned in the field). I have pointed out that the problem is placing a value on the raw material sufficient for it to be collected.

There are agriculturalists who want all plant-sourced material to go back into the soil‎. That is a competing interest. They have influence and a point to make too.

Let's document the successes (as we interpret them) and place them on the table.

Best regards
Crispin




Crispin,

I need to clarify.   You wrote:
Would the stoves have received as much acceptance in the absence of the subsidized purchase of the char produced?
The char purchases are not subsidized.  Only at the start of a project in a new area and with less than 1000 stoves is there some need to help the char purchase and resale efforts to get a firm start.  After that, zero outside money to the char business.  This arrangement is going on for over four years now in Deganga, and already established in the Uluberia area after just a couple of months.

The char purchasers visit each house once per month a with a driver of a motorized 3-wheel cargo vehicle with a flat-bed about 6 ft across and 9 feet long (about 1.8 x 2.5 meters).  The char is damp, and is weighed and put into bags.  It is rather dirty work, and the only people (51 purchasers and 46 drivers) who will do it in the areas are at the bottom of the social ladder.

In Deganga I was met by about 25 of these men who treated me like a prince, the guy who designed the Champion TLUD that has resulted in their steady employment.  All were better off than before, when they were unemployed, occasionally employed day laborers, or with lower paying jobs.

I am collecting more data so that my figures are correct the first time I give the numbers.   I intend to spell out the economics of this char production process by the end of this month.  The data come from India.

The char in the initial plans and years was sold for use by restaurants and small industry.   Currently about 80% of the char is re-sold by the wholesaldto the makers of incense sticks who are quite content with damp, powdery char and .

Even when the carbon credit operations end, the commercial aspects of the TLUD charcoal production and sales should be self-sustaining.

************
Concerning the "subsidy" to obtain a TLUD stove, is it a subsidy or an investment when the full stove price (US$40) is eventually recovered from the carbon credit transactions?   That would be akin to micro-finance except that the handling of the carbon credits and the money are by the project, not the households.

There is no on-going subsidy to maintain the project activities.  The overall cash flows from the carbon credit funding covers the expenses for carbon credit verifications and project leadership.

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<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7Ccrispinpigott%40outlook.com%7Cccb2832c149940c7f58508d53b57e89d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636480171106095613&sdata=wIgB%2FIt3Z7h3PF4ilYHvJ3KCuZeo%2FwnDLDa2zXALp6M%3D&reserved=0>

On 12/3/2017 10:11 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
Dear Paul

“I was a co-author on the report (  www.drtlud.com/deganga2016<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com%2Fdeganga2016&data=02%7C01%7Ccrispinpigott%40outlook.com%7C0ac08bbfa2644f1aabad08d53ac1ff9e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636479527243887104&sdata=9Zg0caSRfgfyC9v6w%2Ftwl2W0W0%2BoQbqaGSaoC5bRTPo%3D&reserved=0> ) about that highly successful pilot study with 11,000 quite satisfied users of TLUD stoves.  If acceptance by users is an issue, I refer people to that report and to visit the project areas in West Bengal.”

Would the stoves have received as much acceptance in the absence of the subsidized purchase of the char produced?

Suppose they could only get the local commercial value for the char. Would they keep buying and using the stoves? I assume that at some point this case will come to pass.

The Tesla sold well (bookings) until the subsidies were withdrawn after which the orders dropped<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.technocracy.news%2Findex.php%2F2017%2F06%2F12%2Fconfirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ccrispinpigott%40outlook.com%7Cccb2832c149940c7f58508d53b57e89d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636480171106095613&sdata=4Oh5Pu7gDW7TYtcd2dQv6fo95AE2QVNqM61aq2LUVRk%3D&reserved=0> 60%. I do not doubt that the stove cooks and is clean burning and adequate as a cooking device. I helped Sujatha in the only tiny way I could (assessing the air supplied and testing the EA+combustion efficiency).

I have general concerns with batch loaded stoves that cannot be refueled. They work but have clear limitations on how they fit into expected patterns of use. Obviously people change some habits and they also use different appliances for the other tasks.

One of the places where I see TLUD’s finding broad acceptance is in Indonesia where they have large quantities of candle nut shells and no local use for it. Whether they will use these stoves without subsidy is not clear.

I like the implementation model whereby the stove is given free and through the sale of fuel, its cost is slowly recovered over time. Finance of a stove (by Stokvel, savings club or other imaginative cooperative) is often needed for capital purchases. The cost of a stove is not nearly as important as the cost of making payments. In order to create a viable market for LPG stoves, the Indonesian government gave away 40m stove free. Thereafter the fuel was subsidised. That doesn’t prove ‘LPG is viable’, it just proves it is acceptable at a certain cost to a certain population cohort. Remove the fuel subsidy, free stoves or not, and the number of people using it will plummet.

Bottom line: if you want compete with wood or bulk-produced charcoal, you have to be sure the energy passed along as char is not increasing the need for raw fuel where that raw fuel is in limited supply. I previously outlined the necessary heat transfer efficiency to achieve fuel parity.

Nikhil has pointed out that fuel efficiency is not necessarily a condition for acceptance, I have pointed out in my reply today to Yabei Zhang’s question<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcollaboration.worldbank.org%2Fthread%2F6691%3Fsr%3Dstream&data=02%7C01%7Ccrispinpigott%40outlook.com%7Cccb2832c149940c7f58508d53b57e89d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636480171106095613&sdata=mjkIELkUxRBzl2JIRQP0BS%2FpmbrggHzjw7DgFwZAKSA%3D&reserved=0> on accessing public funds for product development that legacy metrics from early stove programs are hard to drop.

[To comment on that site you have to create an account then log in. If you wish, you can remove and edit old posts and it is also possible to upload documents.]

Regards
Crispin



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171205/43c2fb96/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list