[Stoves] Testing versus stove acceptance (was bue no longer abour Re: China and cookstoves [

Tue Dec 5 17:02:57 CST 2017

Crispin:

Don't mix Tesla and charcoal. Not just the scale but basic cost and
financing structures.

You say "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."

The only relevant measures of the term "limited supply" for the so-called
"renewable fuel" are the marginal cost of supply or the netback value from
another use where it is valued higher. If the marginal cost of primary
fuel/feedstock rises to a level where a substitute - say, LPG or
electricity - is viable, you lose that market. Alternatively, if another
user pays more for the fuel, the price will go up and you lose the market.

This happened with BP/Castrol stoves in India (and in power generation, it
seems, with Husk Power). Feedstock price went up, so pellet price went up.
Poor households stopped using the Oorja stove. Feedstock price may have
gone up because of higher cost of production or because brick kilns and
other industries were willing to pay a higher price. (In turn because coal
prices had been hiked up. Carbon tax zealots balance the earth on the backs
of the poor.)

Considering that biomass can be interchangeable depending on the type -
waste wood, tree branches, crop wastes - the marginal cost of primary
supply will vary by location and over time. Then there's the issue of
distances between production and transformation (kiln) and then the
end-user. Storage and transportation costs can also ruin your market. Which
is why even with "rudimentary stoves", people often "stack" -- a woodstove
in the yard, a charcoal stove inside the home, and a whole in the ground
for using a mix of crop wastes or dung.

Bottom line: For all the religious faith about "biomass" as "renewable
energy", few generalizations can be sustained.

You say "Remove the fuel subsidy, free stoves or not, and the number of
people using it will plummet."

How much and where is the question. If people have found ways of earning
extra money from time saved, they might continue using LPG. Or they might
switch to making and selling char as extra income.

I find that the question you refer to begs the question - what it the
problem? Why is it that instead of characterizing energy poverty, user
needs and desires, defining economic geography, value chains currently
existing, the first question is "For the stove/fuel research and
development, what will be the best mechanisms for the public funding
support? <https://collaboration.worldbank.org/message/16115#16115> Gee,
what is the R&D required and by whom?

The World Bank is greatly limited in funding R&D. What mechanisms for
public funding support are under consideration for what kind of research
where and by whom? THEN one may debate what the "best mechanisms" are. No
point asking "What is the best route for pony ride from Mar-a-Lago to
Disney World" if you don't know how you would get the pony for how long and
whether ponies are allowed on available roads.

Nikhil

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> 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://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/06/12/confirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode/>
> 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://collaboration.worldbank.org/thread/6691?sr=stream> 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/20171205/11b291c4/attachment.html>