[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
Xavier Brandao
xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Sun Feb 19 07:00:32 CST 2017
Dear Nikhil,
1. I didn't want to spend time delving in the past to see who did what,
how much the GACC promoted the WBT. The GACC was among the parties
who was, I believe, pushing for an agreement at the IWA meeting. In
the agreement, the writers wrote the sentence: "the WBT is not the
only valid protocol". I don't know who said the WBT was valid in the
first place. It has never been reviewed, as far as I know. But we
were given this agreement to agree upon. I think the GACC has most
often communicated about the WBT than other protocols, but that
would be understandable, the WBT is quite convenient to use, and
quite easy to learn. It was one of the main protocols, with the CCT
and KPT, that was taught to the Regional Testing and Knowledge
Centers (RTKC), an initiative of the GACC. But testers usually don't
do so many CCTs, it is too costly, too many efforts to organize and
it takes too much time. I believe it was mostly the VITA WBT, but I
believe the GACC promoted also other protocols.
2. I think the GACC was supporting the updating of the WBT:
1. I don't know, but I don't believe so. I think the Aprovecho
equipment was often the only suggested option, I don't know of other
suppliers of testing equipment. Maybe the Setar?
Another
As I said, what is the past is the past.
On 2/18/17 19:06, Traveller 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 -
>
> 1. What is your evidence that GACC has "promoted" the WBT? Is it only
> the VITA WBT or also the Indian or Chinese?
> 2. 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?
>
> The IWA was entirely PCIA - that is, a US Government, as USAID and EPA
> - product and clearly reflecting the US practice of WBT by EPA
> contractors even though I have not yet found any EPA regulation for
> test protocols or testing laboratories for biomass cookstoves.
>
> DeFoort said on the Lima Consensus "to use the WBT 4.0 (emissions),
> Iowa State or Bolivia (safety) as _interim protocols" and that after
> IWA, "In the next few months: • Propose changes to protocols and
> additional protocols • Define quantitative tier values for those
> additional protocols"_
>
> What is the status?
>
> I also think the presentations at IWA need a relook. For instance, Jim
> Jetter proposed a measure of "mg/MJ delivered to the pot." This simply
> means that a poor household with a small kitchen area and eight people
> to feed can have higher emission loading than someone like me, cooking
> in a 120 sq ft kitchen with two windows and a door close to a balcony
> door, in a 1,000 sq ft apt on fourth floor of a tall building open on
> three sides.
>
> Where do these experts come up with Tiers, specific emission rate
> targets? Are they hide data on "three stone" fires of supposedly 300
> million cooks?
>
> This could be a scandal. Which is why US interests need the ISO - not
> just for standards but the testing protocols and equipment, and staff
> training.
>
> ***********
>
> Frank here has been talking of a radical (at least for WBT believers)
> idea - "where the fuel limits are determined for their stove."
>
> Imagine!! He says, "The onsite wild biomass is semi-prepared.."
>
> Imagine!! We are not in the realm of birch and oak or mango wood any
> more. (Hard wood has much better uses than direct fuel, even for
> making charcoal.)
>
> Get a fix on the fuel. Because operations of a cookstove aren't going
> to be amenable to regulations like what EPA has on residential wood
> heaters in the US: ""The rule continues to require the owner or
> operator of a wood heating appliance to operate the heater consistent
> with the owner's manual and _not burn improper fuel. Owners and
> operators must operate __pellet fuel appliances with the grades of
> pellet fuels that are __included in the owner's manual_. Manufacturers
> are required to void their warranties in cases of improper operation."
> (Federal Register 16 March 2015).
>
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:07:38 -0800
> From: Frank Shields <franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Cc: Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com
> <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>>, Ranyee Chiang
> <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org <mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting
> the WBT
> Message-ID: <344854B2-D626-4108-9354-7E767AEAB82F at cruzio.com
> <mailto:344854B2-D626-4108-9354-7E767AEAB82F at cruzio.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> Just a quick comment:
>
> you say:
>
> This is not to say that affordability knowledge will not come
> out of lab testing. In fact it is the only way to make comparisons
> and claims on meal, daily, weekly, monthly and annual costs. But
> costs should not be an output from a lab test. Sales people know that
> world well - and it will vary all over the place.
>
> A goal should be to make all stove developers able to present their
> stove into the market equal to everyones else. That would be to have
> them send their stove into a lab where the fuel limits are determined
> for their stove. That done once and paper carrying test results
> included with the stove. No other tests done on the stove in the lab.
> Cooking tests and acceptance and air quality tests done in the field
> (I am now thinking). We just need to know what type of fuel the stove
> is designed to use and the limits so to match stoves with the
> available wild biomass on site. And any preparation requirements on
> the wild biomass needed for each stove.
>
> I once saw a graph that i think would work but now cannot find it. It
> looked like a spider web. Each spoke was a condition (moisture,
> volatile fraction, ash, carbon density, length to width ratio, size
> distribution, etc.). The stove leaves the lab with one of these
> reports. The onsite wild biomass is semi-prepared and has its own
> sheet. Place one on top of the other and if the stove values fall
> within the wild biomass values the stove will work for that fuel.
>
> So this test package is done once on the stove and once on the wild
> biomass. That should be affordable. As to the added field work done to
> compare different stoves onsite for acceptance and cleanliness - well
> that could cost a lot of money. Who will pay for that? If left to the
> stove developer then it will end up being only the chosen privileged
> given the opportunity.
>
>
> Thanks Ron for all you do.
>
> Regards
>
> Frank
>
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:55:04 +0100
> From: Xavier Brandao <xvr.brandao at gmail.com
> <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Cc: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net
> <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>, Ranyee Chiang
> <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org
> <mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>>, yark <yark at illinois.edu
> <mailto:yark at illinois.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting
> the WBT
> Message-ID: <27b0fa40-f425-0c66-daf1-2a960f80d9a5 at gmail.com
> <mailto:27b0fa40-f425-0c66-daf1-2a960f80d9a5 at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Frank,
> /
> "Agree - if they are relevant."
> /Of course, the questions need to be relevant. Let's discuss then the
> relevance of these questions. I know first that the question raised by
> Fabio Riva, Francesco Lombardi and their colleagues, and that they have,
> fortunately for us, started to answer, is very relevant.
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> What you are doing is using an appeal to authority, also called
> "argument from prestige":
> http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html
> <http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html>
>
> "This person has a great CV, so probably he/she is right". Appeal to
> authority is something I don't like, because I think everyone's
> opinion matter, as long as they bring a reasonable argumentation.
> Everyone's voice counts the same, regardless of the nice CV. Of
> course, we will probably trust more the opinion of a doctor in
> psychology than the one of a carpenter on psychology questions, and
> vice-versa. But this is not the situation here.
>
> And you might not want to go down this road, because if you start to
> have a look at Crispin's CV, or Harold Annegarn's, or Philip Lloyd's,
> with his degrees in chemical engineering and nuclear physics, you might
> become very interested in the work they did on protocols. They did a
> lot of work, in their field of expertise.
>
> "there are a few in this dialog who _would_ completely throw five
> years of hard work by many out the window., with no intention to ever
> return."
>
> What you talk about is sunk cost:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost>
>
> This is very important, because I got this argument already from WBT
> supporters, and I am sure it was one of the main arguments in the
> discussions at ETHOS. Sunk cost is a very common bias in
> decision-making. It is a shame if 5 years of hard work are lost, but
> they are already lost. If it is a dead end, it is a dead end, no
> matter how many you bang your head on the wall.
>
> What we try to prevent now is other years of wasted efforts. Stop the
> bleeding.
>
> Excuse my French, but I'll use a not very elegant but powerful image
> to illustrate that: if you have been piling shit for 5 years, you
> might be frustrated to get rid of all that shit, because even if it is
> shit, it took a long time to make a pile that high. But even if you
> keep piling layers and layers of shit on top, it will never turn into
> a pile of gold.
>
> By the way, do you know how much money was spent improving the WBT?
>
> The sunk cost concept is to start doing the right thing _now_. It is
> never too late to do the right thing.
>
> Along those lines, I would like to ask you other questions:
>
> * How many years of efforts were lost, because of the uncertainty of
> results obtained from the WBT testing?
> * How much money and efforts did stove companies, project leaders
> wasted, because their stove went from one testing center to another,
> with conflicting results?
> * How hindered were they in their mission, which is to solve poverty
> and save lives? Talking about social impact.
>
> I let you ponder on that.
>
> So in fact I'll try to be true, maybe yes, maybe I want to "kill" the
> WBT. If it is not fixable, and as I say I doubt it is, and if it does
> more harm then good, then yes, it should be "killed".
>
> But now I am just asking to put it aside.
>
> "It seems the WBT is not able to inform us on performance.*[RWL2:
> Please explain further."*
>
> The 10 studies and Crispin explain it well: we are not sure the WBT
> test tells us how the stove performs.
>
>
> /*"a) affordability (the second item in Dr. Chiang?s list)? Do you
> really wish this in an ISO test?"*/
> Not really no, affordability is relative, it should be left to project
> leaders, companies, and the end customers to decide what is an
> affordable stove. I don't believe there are standards for affordability.
> I am not sure I understood your first remark, but what I understood is
> that you said: "Dr. Chiang is committed to affordable stoves, so her
> work on the WBT, and the WBT as it is now, reflect that". She certainly
> is, but so are business and project leaders like Vahid, Camilla,
> Mouhsine or Sujatha, and they certainly each have spent much more time
> working on these issues.
>
> *"I see _NO_ other way to inform on performance."
>
> *HTP and CSI, and a few other protocols.*
>
> ***"There is an ongoing (even today) WG3 discussion on field testing*"
>
> *Field testing with the right protocols, sure, because it is
> contextual and provides a much more accurate picture.
>
> "*Are you fundamentally opposed to any test placing stoves into 9
> [more or less] tiers?*"
> No. It is practical to have tiers, a bit like energy ratings for
> refrigerators or light bulbs.
> I am opposed to that if it is scientifically invalid, like it seems to be.
> **
> *"And where are you on including charcoal output in the reporting of
> performance?"*
>
> I have no strong opinion on that. Tami and Crispin present convincing
> arguments. I agree with you it should be reported, for sure, but in a
> scientifically correct way.
>
> "*b) context? This is the purview of WG3 - field testing."*
>
> Sure, but it is not the purview of the WBT, that's one of the problems
> with it.*
> *
>
> "*shipping? I doubt you can find any ISO test procedure that
> includes shipping as an issue."
>
> *I am not talking about shipping, I am talking about developing a
> stove by using the WBT for months, and one day having this stove being
> used for real, by real local cooks, in a completely different
> geographical and cultural context. Surprise, surprise.**This is where
> you get the first interesting**results.Contextual testing, even when
> performed in a different location, limits the surprise.
>
> *Don?t you agree that all the above are best left to the companies and
> individuals selling stoves, not those involved in lab (or field) testing?
>
> *Ideally, but in reality the companies and individuals, to whom I will
> add the large international development and humanitarian
> organizations, are very short on time and staff, and under a lot of
> pressure. And they are not scientists (they've been told that well
> enough). And they don't have the equipment. So they delegate the
> testing to organizations they trust.**The organizations they**trust
> must provide them testing results that can give a fair (it is never
> perfect) idea of how their stove will perform for their context. The
> WBT does not allow that.
>
> /*"3) usability, and */
> /*4) access to a broad range of technology */
> /*and fuel opportunities.?*/
> //
> *I contend, mostly from several stays at Aprovecho, that lab testing
> using the WBT, can give great insight on these as well."
> ---------
> (India +91) 909 995 2080 <tel:+91%2090999%2052080>
> /
> /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170219/af86081d/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list