[Stoves] Who paid for development of popular improved stoves. (was...Re: "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement")

Nikhil Desai pienergy2008 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 19 18:04:10 CST 2017


Paul:

I agree with Crispin as far as the history goes - from the 1960s to 1990s -
with a minor correction: India's improved or smokeless chulha program went
Up in Smoke (as the 2015 Caravan story showed). I know somewhat the history
of World Bank stove projects from the 1980s to the 1990s in Sub-Saharan
Africa.

When I volunteered my time to review evaluation studies of more recent
projects - by definition on the public dime - and entrepreneurial designs
and marketing, I had in mind a review of activities in the last 10 years
(including some private non-profit activities that have continued in South
Asia and Africa, two regions I am familiar with.) My sense is, there was
very little design innovation; they picked up on existing models.

BP and Philips did spend private money on biomass stove design and
promotion. And Shell Foundation also assisted some entities.

The $200 million question is, why didn't GACC finance technical R&D of the
type you have been working on, and expand the technical base on which new
students can gain insights for innovation?

I have three overlapping hypotheses: a) GACC did not have the technical
competence to guide such work (and proved this with the D-Lab report - a
rehash of platitudes in a narrow technical framework; b) GACC did not have
any contracts to do such support; c) EPA had neither the money nor
competence to sponsor, say, "user-centric iterative engineering" approach
for stoves and different varieties of fuels BUT it did have money to create
this smokescreen that is ISO TC-285.

Perhaps, if by now President Clinton had directed $500 m for the "clean
cooking" agenda, something could have been started, picking up what is
salvageable from the last five years of GACC and ISO work. But we know that
EPA and GACC could not even organize another round of bids for stove
testing (Todd's e-mails).

I will have more to write on this sorry tale of this Inside Job. But I only
draw inferences from public information and knowing how Washington works.
Some investigative journalist needs to examine this red herring called
PM2.5 emission rate.

Nikhil



On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Paul
>
>
>
> I was thinking of stoves that have been ‘widely adopted’ and 40,000 copies
> is not in that category. Chine has a biomass stove design that was adopted
> in the 20’s of millions. They have a coal stove design that is even more
> widespread. Both were designed with public funds.
>
>
>
> India’s improved chula was publicly funded and there are many millions of
> them.
>
>
>
> The Primus kerosene stove was privately developed, correct? That gained
> widespread use and was a huge improvement over the prevailing technologies.
>
>
>
> What else from the private sector?
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Anderson
> *Sent:* 20-Dec-17 02:09
> *To:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.
> org>
> *Subject:* [Stoves] Who paid for development of popular improved stoves.
> (was...Re: "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove
> improvement")
>
>
>
> Crispin and all,
>
> You wrote:
>
> Most of the popular improved stoves were developed on the public nickel,
> not by individuals with the possible exception of the Sarai Cooker which
> has several hundred producers. I think that was done privately.
>
> Please include most of the variety of TLUD stoves as being privately
> developed.  (reference is the "Origins and History...." document at
> www.drtlud.com
> <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef4204d6af7d49a9d67208d5471cb354%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493110947820085&sdata=NQm%2FNxApkAaPCy9LpB%2BNVfACCi92xcH1MIkRbD8tcQM%3D&reserved=0>
> )   Wendebo and Reed did efforts that were side issues of their
> employment.  My work as a retired professor only had some funds for 2 years
> in 2010-2012 from the BEIA project in Uganda.  P. Mukundan's company
> Servals did the production design work for the stainless steel Champion
> TLUD at its own expense.  The more-then-40,000 Champion TLUDs in West
> Bengal have had zero public funding, and we thank atmosfair (German private
> carbon credit entity) for its investment.  I am not sure how much public
> funding Prof. Nurhuda received (probably not much, if any), but his stoves
> now sold via Prime are not supported by public money.  Maybe there are
> other cases, but not known to me.
>
> What stoves are you considering as having been developed with considerable
> (total or %) public funds?   Let their stories be told, if relevant.
> KCJ
> Rocket
> Envirofit
> ??
>
> Paul
>
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
>
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
>
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072 <(309)%20452-7072>
>
> Website:  www.drtlud.com <https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef4204d6af7d49a9d67208d5471cb354%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493110947820085&sdata=NQm%2FNxApkAaPCy9LpB%2BNVfACCi92xcH1MIkRbD8tcQM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> On 12/17/2017 1:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:
>
> Dear Nikhil
>
>
>
> *>>…*we will continue to discover more because lab assessments are cheap
> and replicable and urgently needed. "
>
>
> >This is one example of promising R&D you could propose in the C4D
> discussion; I will start there too.
>
>
>
> Good idea. It is the right audience.
>
>
>
> >…But why hasn't this been done in the past? I think it is because of this
> obsession with fuel efficiency and extraneous goals in the standard-setting
> exercise.
>
>
>
> I don’t think so. The WBT was largely used by enthusiasts trying to invent
> the better mousetrap that would have the world beating a path to their
> door. After 30 years, that still hasn’t happened. Most of the popular
> improved stoves were developed on the public nickel, not by individuals
> with the possible exception of the Sarai Cooker which has several hundred
> producers. I think that was done privately.
>
>
>
> <snipped>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171219/d22d97db/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list