[Stoves] "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement"

Wed Dec 6 16:41:00 CST 2017

Xavier:

Private agents may do anything that is not prohibited. The trouble with WBT
is that its use is not sanctioned (in both meanings of the term; isn't
English wonderful?)

Perhaps WBT is critical for some kind of "stove improvement" the way some
people like it. The alternative is to designate a protocol that a
government or an independent standard-setting agency can stand by.

That is the real danger here - the self-proclaimed, self-styled "standards
body" that is Gold Standard Foundation. They have no competence or interest
in stove improvement of any kind; they just want to make merry as middlemen
- first in the trendsetters of "voluntary carbon" and then for marketing
snake oil called aDALYs.

In fact, the only country I could locate that accepted - or plans to
accept, I forget - the current WBT as its "standard" is Rwanda.

There is some lethargy in continuing to use WBT for efficiency. Some vested
interests maybe. Efficiency and PM2.5 hourly average emission rates do not
achieve anything quantifiable when used as cardinal measures. Perhaps as
ordinal measures during field testing.

It is lethargy - combined with the dishonesty in offering ISO Tier
Certificates - that you are up against. Real stove designers know that
ratings can be gamed.

And the powers-that-be behind the WHO PM2.5 ERTs were well aware that
setting a PM2.5 Tier 4 emission target at such a level that ordinary solid
fuel stoves cannot meet anytime soon was key to getting rid of solid fuels,
those that poor people depend on.

I don't know what PM2.5 measurements are available for the same fuel and
stove by different protocols, especially ones used for field testing. Can
you tell me whether WBT produces biased estimates for average hourly PM2.5
emission rate as *compared to other protocols when used in the field*?

That may be a clue to the EPA/GACC support for WBT - an ideology of "truly
health protective" stoves based on PM2.5 emission rates. We know from the
January 2017 paper on "implementation science" where Sumi Mehta and Kirk
Smith were co-authors that "Tier 4 stoves"  - meaning LPG and electricity -
is their holy grail. Since "solid fuels use" was the proxy for pollutant
exposure in WHO methodology for GBD, the logical conclusion is that solid
fuels must be regulated out of existence.

I submit that is the practical effect of WHO HFC Guidelines, no matter what
supporters of WBT admit to.

EPA had no authority to officially approve WBT or any other protocol for
that matter. So it started the secretive route of IWA - which you too
signed off on, I suppose; Mohsin had signed off on the Lima Consensus, I
think - and TC-285.

Just who had any official authority to sign off on the Lima Consensus or
the IWA? Just because they claimed to  have a stake doesn't mean their
claims are valid. Authority goes together with responsibility; all I see is
that the power was concentrated in the US delegation, while USG had no
legal authority to do anything for standards it would not adopt in the US.

So it all boils down to John Mitchell. Michael Johnson and Dean Still are
EPA contractors and have an understandable affinity to WBT; they are
entitled to their views and interests, if only in protecting the historical
legacy of WBT results.

Just what authority John Mitchell had or has in sanctioning the use of WBT
escapes me. He apparently did have an authority to contract, and needed
some default protocol which WBT  has been for a lot of helpless or lazy
authorities.

Why, CDM, Gold Standard, even ISO TC-285 (whose first DIS I bought and
commented on this List; I can give you or others the details) are all going
with the flow, the path of least resistance.

I don't fault private persons and private adventures like Gold Standard for
their interests and incentives. I see more of the same here -
http://www.thestoveauction.org/catalogue-of-products.html

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Ron,
>
>
>
> *« I see no reason to slam those of us who believe that the WBT is
> critical to stove improvement. »*
>
> Some conversations are seasonal. They appear, vanish, and reappear after
> some time.
>
> We are here because we want to discuss some important questions, explore
> them thoroughly, and try to shed light rather than cast shadow. I think we
> need to be clear and specific about what we claim.
>
>
>
> Ron, how about we continue the conversation where we left it? Because a
> few things remain unclear to me.
>
> Last time we were discussing, I was asking you some questions in my email
> of the 02/09, and you were not answering.
>
>
>
> Back in August, you were saying :
>
> *« « The WBT IS valuable »*
>
> And I was asking you:
>
> « Can you explain what is valuable about the WBT? »
>
> And if I understood well your answers, you said that the WBT is valuable
> because:
>
> 1.      the TLUDs shine at it
>
> 2.      it has tier rankings, who are the right way to proceed with stove
> improvement
>
>
>
> What if tier rankings are not scientifically valid?
>
> Lombardi and al. say in their paper of February 2017: *« An important
> consequence of these considerations is that the Tier of Performance of a
> given stove, assigned based on the results from WBT or similar protocols,
> may result in a not reliable performance indicator for technology
> selection. »*
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X
>
>
>
> You listed the experts that were, according to you, currently, still
> advocating continued use of the WBT:
>
> ·         Jim Jetter
>
> ·         Ranyee Chiang
>
> ·         John Mitchell
>
> ·         Tami Bond
>
> ·         Michael Johnson
>
> ·         Kirk Smith
>
> ·         Tom Miles
>
> ·         Andrew Heggie
>
> ·         Dean Still
>
>
>
> I told you Ranyee Chiang said we were beyond the WBT.
>
> I talked to Jim Jetter and he did not come accross to me as, currently, a
> strong supporter of the WBT anymore.
>
> I talked to Tami Bond, and she said that the WBT had things to be
> criticized, and that we needed to move forward, and not look backward (the
> WBT). I don’t think she strongly supports the WBT.
>
> I talked to Kirk Smith in Delhi, and he didn’t seem to have an opinion,
> neither for nor against the WBT.
>
> Dean Still is strongly supporting the WBT and its use.
>
>
>
> Then Andrew reacted on the list and said he neither approved nor
> disapproved the WBT.
>
>
>
> Which would leave as WBT supporters, according to you:
>
> ·         John Mitchell
>
> ·         Michael Johnson
>
> ·         Tom Miles
>
> ·         Dean Still
>
>
>
> Not even you are a supporter of the WBT, because you said you were no
> expert and had no opinion about it.
>
>
>
> I sent you this link with alternative protocols
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?
> usp=sharing
>
> and asked you what was so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the
> CSI nor HTP.
>
>
>
> You didn’t even deign to read them, and brushed them off altogether,
> pretending they were basically WBTs.
>
> Boiling water in a protocol doesn’t mean the protocol is a Water Boiling
> Test.
>
>
>
> So, could you please answer or try to answer my questions, recapitulated
> below:
>
> 1.      Is the WBT valuable to you because the TLUD shine at it and it
> has tier rankings, who are the right way to proceed with stove improvement?
>
> 2.      What do you think of Lombardi and al. analysis that tier rankings
> may not be reliable?
>
> 3.      Who are the ”experts” advocating continued use of the WBT?
>
> 4.      Who are the ”experts” who believe that the WBT is critical to
> stove improvement?
>
> 5.      What is so unique about the WBT that cannot be done by the CSI
> nor HTP?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171206/4d253ac5/attachment.html>