[Stoves] No subsidies in TLUD char peoduction

[Paul Anderson]

Crispin,

There is no subsidy for the char collection business.  The operations of 
the carbon credits are separate from the char collection.  But (as I 
wrote) there is an initial period needed to get the stove numbers high 
enough so that the char collection can be sustainable.   But not subsidized.

I repeat:  NOT subsidized.

There is a linkage that I will clarify:  Because of the carbon credit 
(CC) program for the stoves, there is some organizational structure that 
is beneficial to the char collection efforts.  The char collectors are 
at the bottom of the social scale, and have very little education, and 
are not strong in leadership for being organized (my belief, not based 
on careful study.)   The CC program leaders provide the list of names 
and addresses of the stove purchasers and give some oversight to assist 
being organized.   I do not call that a subsidy; it is assistance.

When the (CC) program ends, will the char collection system continue to 
function smoothly?   We do not know yet because it has not happened 
yet.   But there is some money in the char collection business that does 
go to some locally-resident middle-level people in the stove CC program, 
and I suspect that they would be able to keep things functional for 
quite some time.

You wrote:
> To be quite frank, I should not have to independently find out how the 
> West Bengal project works financially. 
To also be frank, I will say that there is a lot of operational and 
financial detail in the Deganga Case Study.  And there are some things 
that are not for publication because there are contracts between 
different parties that 1) I do not know in detail, and that 2) are 
appropriately private.  And also, nobody has ever asked me for more 
details, nor seemed to care about such matters.

I do now have additional information because I spent 9 days in West 
Bengal a month ago after the GACC Forum.  I am still writing the up-date 
about the Deganga project and its expansion into Uluberia. But the 
financial side has not much new information because things have not 
changed much since the Sept 2016 release of the Deganga Case Study.

Also, to be quite frank, some people should independently look at this 
(and all other) projects.   I want them to do that because no matter 
what ___i___ write, I am seen as biased.   But I assure your that the 
important financial information is not hidden.

*******
(Pause)
******* now that I have cooled off a little, I will add:
What more information would be useful?    I especially would like to 
know what information could favorabley catch the attention of someone or 
some entity that could seriously consider putting some money into the 
TLUD stove project in West Bengal.  The situation is this:  expansion to 
serve more households is directly linked to having funds to acquire the 
stoves ($40 each) from the factories. Period.   All other financial 
aspects are under control and operational.   The project can accept 
gifts or grants at a 501.c.3 organization that is let by me, and any 
eventual surplus funds go back into the project to help more families.   
We are just getting started and the website needs to be fleshed out more.

( I cannot advertize the donation process on the Stoves Listserv. But we 
can discuss here how to make it better.   Help will be appreciated in 
all forms, not just financial.   Off-list, I can be reached at   
psanders at ilstu.edu  if you are willing to help, including to help test 
the website regarding donations or the purchase GS CER fully certified 
carbon credits.  )

Paul

Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website:  www.drtlud.com

On 12/4/2017 6:08 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
> 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
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:www.drtlud.com
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171204/89a0d679/attachment.html>