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

Sat Dec 9 15:35:16 CST 2017

Xavier:

Yours is not a broken record. Some record needs to be played again and
again in the hope that somebody would listen.

After all, parroting the virtues of WBT is no different. Another song,
another record.

I still don't know why this List matters to anything to do with WBT.

I have asked you to cite evidence of who has been damaged by whom in
forcing the use of WBT.

I don't see anybody cares. Yes, CDM may be misled by WBT results, but Gold
Standard has no concern in "voluntary carbon". They are prepared to be
fooled by anything, so long as they earn their fees. WBT is handy.

Neither CDM nor Gold Standard are accountable to anybody (but some
hoity-toity experts ready to fume). Their earnings don't depend on stove
test protocols or stove designs, only on making up CO2 reduction claims
based on fNRB  (fraction non-renewable biomass), which in t urn is a game
of story-telling.

Some designer and marketer of stoves may have a peeve -- as you and Crispin
seem to have -- if their markets are distorted or disrupted by wrong test
protocols.

But that case hasn't been made yet. I remember some tales about WBT being
forced by GACC - making its financial support conditional on WBT and
particular type of testing equipment - upon some innocent governments. But
not only do I find any demonstration of a "harm" - which becomes a basis
for a claim, legal or in the marketplace for ideas or stoves - I realize
that this is all a voluntary carnival, an orgy.

Which is why Frank finds it every new year - time to toast a champagne for
another year of wasting time and money on doing very little that may help
poor cooks

Nobody has any authority to establish the WBT or any other test protocol as
a "standard". EPA doesn't. GACC doesn't. They - and their contractors - can
do anything they want with impunity.

I do not mind recreational use of drugs - er, models, theories - by
youngsters. But they are not good for adults, and frequent, long-term use
leads to addiction, with uncertain consequences.

How and why did WBT come about? From the theory in 1970s that inefficient
fuel use led to"forest" resource degeneration and loss.

In some places and at certain times this was true. However, land has many
uses and deforestation has many causes and growth/decline/loss patterns.
Abstracting from some areas and generating an image of national and global
resource loss due primary to fuel inefficiency was a theory with no facts.
The converse argument - that more efficient stoves would prevent such
resource loss or reverse it - was even less tenable.

But some people - including you and Crispin here, one youngster, one
middle-aged it seems - still enjoy the smoke. You seem to think that WBT
predictions of "fuel savings" are a big deal. I don't. What does saving the
fuel do and for whom?

All I can say is that instead of my earlier question "Who is harmed by the
use of WBT?" it's time now to ask "Who benefits from the use of WBT?"

That would tell you all you need to know about why WBT has become an
addiction. Pretend-science is built around manifestly falsifiable theories.

Nikhil

------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Frank,
>
>
>
> Ahah, there is indeed a pattern, you might have noticed it is usually the
> following:
>
> 1.  Someone, usually Ron or a member of the GACC, EPA, Aprovecho, D-Lab
> or Winrock, innocently drops « WBT is a great protocol to make stove
> improvements » or « you know, there are many supporters of the WBT »,
> somewhere in a post, a handbook or a toolkit
>
> 2.  Then, some of us howls in indignation, especially me. I start to rant
> and sound like a broken record. Then I hand over, once again, the pile of
> evidence, and ask some very simple straightforward questions.
>
> 3.  Suddenly the one in 1. very kindly tells me, in a
> « ho-it-would-be-so-great-to-have-you-there » fashion, to:
>
> a.  Join the ISO-TC 285 discussions
>
> b.  Join a certain conference in the United States
>
> c.  Or becomes suddenly completely mute
>
> Often it is a., b. then c.
>
> 4.  Then a few months pass by, and one beautiful day, we are back to step
> 1.
>
>
>
> At this point it’s not a rabbit hole, it’s more like a rabbit loop, a
> rabbit loophole.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Xavier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] De la part de franke at cruzio.com
> Envoyé : jeudi 7 décembre 2017 21:56
> À : ndesai at alum.mit.edu
> Cc : Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and
> cookstoves]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Garanti
> sans virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-3021670524595202001_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171209/1dd53822/attachment.html>