[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT (Xavier, Frank)

[Ronal W. Larson]

List, Nikhil and ccs:

	I will respond later to more in this message (preferring to continue working off-line on exactly this topic), but want to apologize if I have left the impression anywhere that Nikhil’s following (about 6 paragraphs down) is correct:

	"I am revisiting the IWA, and I find that the 90 experts resolved that "Resolution 1 The International Workshop on Cookstoves recognizes that the VITA WBT 4.1.2 protocol referenced in this document is not the only valid protocol for rating cookstove performance in the laboratory. "

Why is Ron disputing the very first resolution? "

	To emphasize:  I am in full accord with this “Resolution 1”.  I am no way disputing it  - and don’t believe I ever have.   In fact, my complaint is that the Tier credit given through what we have called the “Denominator Equation” (DE)  rather shortchanges those in the lower tiers who may have (or be able to produce more) char.    That is, these lower tier stoves could move higher in the Tier rankings with less char than is now allocated to them, using almost any allocation approach other than the DE.

	I am afraid that most of the concern on this list about the DE is based on thinking that the DE is incorrectly reporting test efficiencies.  It is NOT.  It is reporting what would have happened if no char had been produced.  I have stated that I couldn’t understand why the DE is stating an inefficiency (not efficiency) larger than is measured.  But this is because I too was thinking too much on the existing just-obtained lab results.  Stove inefficiencies will indeed grow with no char - as can be seen in the high rankings for char-making stoves - and few high rankings, if any, with stoves producing no/little char.

	I can now reproduce the Tiers without using the DE (but still using the same lab results) - but I can’t yet justify this or any (other than the DE) approach.  I may be getting closer.  Glad to include anyone interested in the topic (which obviously is neither trivial nor unimportant).  But I still need more time to compute different things.

	
Ron


> On Feb 18, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Xavier: 
> 
> As an economist, I agree with you sunk cost has no consideration. I wonder, though, how much or how little work has been done anyway.  Lima Consensus or IWA promises seem to have wilted.
> 
> I am sorry I am asking two serious questions rather late - 
> What is your evidence that GACC has "promoted" the WBT? Is it only the VITA WBT or also the Indian or Chinese? 
> Do you know if WBT been mandated or officially sanctioned by EPA in any testing by EPA for cookstoves in the US, and further if Approvecho or any such testing facilities for household cookstoves have been accredited by the EPA (and if so, on what basis) or have received ISO accreditation? Has GACC demanded Approvecho equipment or training for non-US stoves programs? 
> It may well be that there is no legal authority for an unregistered private group - a project of the UN Foundation - to promote WBT, approve WBT, or approve any testing facility in the US, unless there are secret agreements with authorities in respective countries (US and elsewhere). 
> 
> I am revisiting the IWA, and I find that the 90 experts resolved that "Resolution 1 The International Workshop on Cookstoves recognizes that the VITA WBT 4.1.2 protocol referenced in this document is not the only valid protocol for rating cookstove performance in the laboratory. "
> 
> Why is Ron disputing the very first resolution? 
> 
	<snip a lot, as not being pertinent to my above response>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170218/e85036b6/attachment.html>