[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]

[franke at cruzio.com]

Dear Nikhil, Stovers,

Always great news when we start a new year talking WBT. That because it
means we are not still down some rabbit hole someone has sent us to wallow
around for a few years on some useless idea only to come to the surface
and find us where we started (NOWHERE). But now starting at NOWHERE we
must be careful we are not diverted down another rabbit hole. Make sure
all project proposals involve the 6-Box system or parts of it. That
involves both Field and Lab work. Because that is the only way we get
control over the variables and move forward. A lot of work needs be done.

Regards
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory


> Frank:
>
> Thank  you. You have shown the divergence between reality and some
> research
> these days - the kind that leads nowhere but propagation of theory without
> affirmation in reality.
>
> Yes, "Getting control over the studies will require labs like Aprovecho to
> test the fuels along with field studies as both are needed so the research
> can be replicated." When the EPA/GACC money dries up.
>
> On reality, I agree with you that "We can always go back to the 3-stone
> fire". That is precisely what practically everybody who has just moved
> from
> 3-stone fire does. Experts call it "stacking", poor ignorant cooks call it
> freedom to choose.
>
> And that is precisely what the self-proclaimed do-gooders and well-wishers
> want to do - ban "stacking" (if only they could get the Kitchen Kops to
> break every supplemental stove other than their preferred ones).
>
> So long as consumers choose to "stack", *why not promote any and every
> stove that is good enough f*or cooking one thing or the other? Because the
> experts want to prove to themselves that their choice stove/fuel combo
> saves forests, lives, climate, women's status?
>
> On research, I also agree with you "picking a task like PM2.5 *rather than
> a real task* for some research project someone got money for has wasted
> time and money". (Emphasis added)
>
> But be realistic - the money wasn't spent by any agency that has anything
> to do with cooking, here or anywhere in the world.
>
> In the regulatory world, money is spent on research that would bring the
> regulator something more to regulate or raise more research funds for.
>
> When the regulatory approach fails to do that - as it seemingly has done
> here, the only exception being Uganda as far as I can tell from the news -
> WHO and Gold Standard Foundation (GSF) are roped in. Because WHO can
> spread
> scare and raise money for at least itself and IHME. HEI and that cabal.
> And
> GSF can sell aDALYs
>
> When is this lunacy going to end?
>
> I don't see anybody has an interest in putting an end to this - at least,
> not unless they have a product in hand and some money to test market it,
> distribute it, hopefully under some warranties.
>
> That is, what I call the ABCD Complex - academic, bureaucratic,
> consultant,
> and donor - is caught in spurious theories of why public funds ought to be
> further wasted on research on stoves that delivered fictitious results.
>
> The poor's lot - being served cake a la mode(l) with creamy theories at
> the
> core and icing of aDALYs.
>
> I for one don't care about energy that is wasted if the fuel cost is low,
> so long as the gruel is the kind the cook wants.
>
> The most precious energy being wasted is brainpower. But research funders
> are caught in the trap - they are told that PM2.5 needs to be researched
> from all directions to confirm its role in causing diseases and
> conversely,
> that mere reduction in hourly emission rate is going to provide global
> benefits of health for the current and coming generations for decades.
>
> Citizens of the 22nd Century are already here. Sometimes I feel many
> mindsets are stuck in the 18th Century thermodynamics and environmental
> science.
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:33 PM, <franke at cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>> Todd and Stovers,
>>
>> <snip>
>
>>
>>
>> We can always go back to the 3-stone fire. Let’s see how far forward
>> we
>> can go. The next step for the TLUD is control over the Box-1 Fuel and
>> Box
>> 2 delivery or packing. And has been the next step for years! Using real
>> wild biomass to complete real tasks is needed for the research. Using
>> processed fuels that will never be found when the stoves are delivered
>> and
>> picking a task like PM2.5 rather than a real task for some research
>> project someone got money for has wasted time and money IMO..
>>
>> Getting control over the studies will require labs like Aprovecho to
>> test
>> the fuels along with field studies as both are needed so the research
>> can
>> be replicated. - Frank
>>
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>>
>