[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT
Xavier Brandao
xvr.brandao at gmail.com
Tue Feb 21 15:58:07 CST 2017
Dear Adam, Tami,
/"What I learned from Jim Jetter is that the process for discussing the
standards is open, transparent, and is intense this year: a weekly
conference call, and new members are invited to join and bring their
perspectives to the table. //...there is a way to do so, and Jim
encourages people to.//"
"//You can have your voice heard in this endeavor by contacting your
national standards body and getting appointed to the technical committee
and working group that you are interested in.//"/
I wasn't able to join the TC 285 working groups.
I just asked Sally Seitz: France is not on the list of countries, so I
cannot join.
There are only 29 participating countries, 14 observing countries.
The TC 285 is great, but it should not be the only place for discussion
on the protocols.
Tami, it is fantastic if you are able to share even a small summary of
the discussions on this List. That would help a lot.
Dear Adam,
Thanks for your reaction, it is great that you and Ron shared what you
heard at ETHOS, it allows to continue the discussion.
/"What I learned was that the WBT was designed primarily as a way to
measure the impact of small design changes upon stove performance"/
The WBT 3.0 protocol says: "The test is not intended to replace other
forms of stove assessment; however, it is designed as a simple method
with which stoves made in different places and for different cooking
applications can be compared through a standardized and replicable test.”
Indeed, in the document, it is reminded several times that the WBT does
not replace a field test, where one might get different results. But
there is already this idea of comparing apples and oranges.
The WBT has been commonly and globally used to rate, certify and select
stoves for dissemination. Even to get carbon credits. The organizations
which promoted the WBT and taught it to others, knew, did it, kept doing
it and were very happy with that state of affairs. Did they know all
along that the WBT was only good for little tweaks? If then, why did
they keep recommending the WBT for large stove dissemination programmes?
And all of a sudden, what we hear is: "OK, but wait, in fact the WBT is
good to .... design stoves!"
The Aprovecho Research Center and the PCIA wrote: "The research staff at
Aprovecho decided that it would be valuable to test a variety of cooking
stoves from around the world. *The intention was to provide all
stakeholders with information about how to make the best stove choice.*"
Water Boiling Tests were performed.
I don't think any more needs to be said.
This was in "Test results of cook stove performance", a 128-page paper,
published in January 2012.
Link on the PCIA website here:
https://www.pciaonline.org/resources/test-results-cook-stove-performance
Many organizations around the world performed WBTs or had WBTs performed
in order to inform decision-making. Project leaders and businessmen want
to sell stoves, period. Tell me what stove is good and we'll distribute it.
In the GACC catalog, which is a, sic, "global guide to clean cooking
solutions", 418 tests out of 647 are Water Boiling tests.
http://catalog.cleancookstoves.org/test-results
How many stoves were "ISO" certified clean and improved by the Aprovecho
Research Center, with WBTs?
You can bet than once an organization gets such certificate, stove
development and tweaks are over, wide production and distribution starts.
/"its ideal use (to compare the impact of iterative design change on
stove performance)"/
Is the WBT even of any use for that? The questions asked by the studies
remain unanswered by the WBT proponents.
They have the burden of proof to show us how the WBT is helpful for
stove development.
/"throwing the baby out with the bathwater"/
Unless there's no baby in the bathwater.
"the methodology that many in the sector have developed"
This again, is sunk cost. The number of people having worked on the WBT
is irrelevant. Only the usefulness of the protocol, the tool, or its
unusefulness, is relevant. If the hammer cannot hammer, it's no use to
anyone.
Who are these many people who worked on improving the WBT by the way?
Can they speak on this List?
Best,
Xavier
On 2/20/17 23:04, adam at instove.org wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> The week after ETHOS, I had the chance to attend the Stove Upgrade
> Seminar at Aprovecho. Getting to spend a great deal of time personally
> with many stovers whom I respect who have been doing the work longer
> than I’ve been alive, was humbling and insightful.
>
> I worked firsthand alongside them using the WBT, and had a chance to
> ask what must have been the most pedestrian questions: perlocutionary
> criticisms about replicability of the user’s input (are 3 or 7 test
> cycles sufficient?), about how to measure the use of accelerants to
> start fire (“is fire-starting fluid's fuel-value measured?”), how air
> quality might affect the test (“how does the equipment/method account
> for ambient PM?”), and about the differences between the WBT and the
> other tests for measuring stove performance.
>
> What I learned was that the WBT was designed primarily as a way to
> measure the impact of small design changes upon stove performance: a
> tweak here, a change there… i.e. "how does the new stove with change
> compare to the old stove without it?" My scientific formation is in
> biology—neither engineering, nor design—so I can’t speak to the more
> technical questions about the accuracy of the approach, the
> “denominator equation," the implications of char-creation on
> efficiency, or the statistical methods that would create stronger
> confidence in the outcomes of a test like this.
>
> What I can say is that from my perspective, /comparing how two mostly
> similar stoves, in similar conditions, and with the same user, boil
> the same amount of water seems pretty sound as a basis for making
> certain decisions, /particularly with repetitions that reduce the
> uncertainty/variability. I also understand the logic that local
> variables (different cooks, fuel, pots, foods cooked, etc.) in the CCT
> and KPT make results from these tests not comparable. So the WBT
> limits variables, and as a front-end test before distribution, allows
> for international comparison of stoves. It also levels the playing
> field somewhat, since it's far cheaper (particularly for early-stage
> folks) to afford a lab test than a field one.
>
> I don’t think that performance against the WBT (as the farthest along
> of several ISO standards that are in the works) will determine how the
> stove may be adopted, nor how much fuel it will save, but that was not
> the intention behind the WBT.
>
> What I learned from Dean and Miguel at Apro is that really, the
> Controlled Cooking Test and the Kitchen Performance Test are the real
> tests of impact, localized to a given context. However, decisions
> right now about stove inclusion in programs (most notably the UNHCR,
> GIZ, GACC and others) are being made on the basis of the WBT. While
> this is not ideal in terms of matching a stove with optimal impact to
> a given fuel, food, behavior or cultural context, it does ensure that
> some valid lab testing has been done at all. I recently read a
> publication authored by the leadership of a nonprofit (that dabbles in
> cookstoves) with an annual budget in the millions claiming that the
> *_20% to 30%_* thermal efficiency typical of their *built-in-place
> brick and mortar* rocket stoves reduces fuel demand by up to 70%
> compared to a three-stone fire. This kind of oversimplification is
> certainly problematic when scientific looking terms and figures mask a
> lack of accountability. There is a great deal of ignorance out there,
> mine commingled with it…but I think that the WBT, for what it does, is
> not worth abandoning. It may be being applied outside of its ideal use
> (to compare the impact of iterative design change on stove
> performance), but for the moment, it seems to me that throwing the
> baby out with the bathwater—ditching the methodology that many in the
> sector have developed and come to tentative agreements on the use
> of—would be a mistake.
>
> What I learned from Jim Jetter is that the process for discussing the
> standards is open, transparent, and is intense this year: a weekly
> conference call, and new members are invited to join and bring their
> perspectives to the table. That seems pretty transparent, and pretty
> admirable, given how many stakeholders have diverse interests in the
> outcome of the discussion, and it’s quite a labor to take on. But for
> anyone who wants a say in the process, and who has something to
> contribute (I do not count myself among the latter category)...there
> is a way to do so, and Jim encourages people to.
>
> I think the development of the right test for the right approach is as
> ongoing as stove design itself, and as Tami has pointed out, it must
> be done in steps, and with the courage to bring into the discussion,
> those people with strong opinions and valid criticisms.
>
> My thanks to all who have helped me understand the paradigm a little
> better, and to know that we’re not at the end of a process. The
> discussion does remind me of an XKCD cartoon (below)
>
>
> Adam Creighton
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting
> the WBT
> From: "Philip Lloyd" <plloyd at mweb.co.za <mailto:plloyd at mweb.co.za>>
> Date: Mon, February 20, 2017 12:09 pm
> To: "'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves'"
> <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
>
> The paywall behind which this paper sits is a nuisance, but I
> commend
> https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/121554/3/2016_04_Lombardi.pdf
> as a useful substitute
> Prof Philip Lloyd
> Energy Institute, CPUT
> SARETEC, Sachs Circle
> Bellville
> Tel 021 959 4323
> Cell 083 441 5247
> PA Nadia 021 959 4330
> *From:*Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2017 6:02 PM
> *To:* Francesco Lombardi
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Subject:* Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop
> promoting the WBT
> Dear Francesco
>
>
> Congratulations on this testing opus. This must have taken your
> group a long time to produce. Most impressive.
>
>
> I suggest that perhaps this can serve as an evaluation reference
> when considering the concepts and calculations that underlie any
> proposed methods.
>
>
> There is another work 'in the works' which is that Cecil Cook will
> shortly be travelling to Sudan to work on his social anthropology
> methodology that underlies the CSI testing sequences. He didn't
> say anything to the Stoves group but that is the plan. Once
> documented as a social science protocol it will help define the
> key performance indicators for product evaluation. It is an
> integral part of the CSI protocol - the development of the
> contextual test that will be conducted.
>
>
> An example of this is the duties that will be measured in the
> Kyrgyzstan stove pilot. During discussions this week we agreed to
> include water warming on the stoves using three specific
> containers: a kettle containing 3 litres, a tall thin container of
> ablution water, 1.5 litres, and a bucket with 20 litres of water.
> These will be monitored parallel to the space heating and cooking
> functions. The reason for inclusions is that it is a desired and
> expected stove function, and because if the stove performs poorly,
> it will not find traction in the general community.
>
>
> We conducted some site visits outside the city of Osh on the
> weekend gathering feedback and fuel consumption numbers. The test
> sequence, once agreed, will be communicated to the BST lab in
> Beijing where they will conduct the tests. This is an example of
> how a standard laboratory setup in a remote location can be used
> to evaluate a stove using site-specific performance targets.
>
>
> Once codified Cecil's work will add to the work of Francesco and
> other creating a new foundation for the stove sector.
>
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am pleased to inform you that we just published a new article
> that you may find extremely relevant to this discussion. The title
> is: "Laboratory protocols for testing of Improved Cooking Stoves
> (ICSs): A review of state-of-the-art and further developments".
> This is the link for the downlkoad:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096195341730065X
>
> The paper, published in Biomass and Bioenergy, performs an
> analysis of strengths and weaknesses for each protocol based on
> defined indicators. Real-life relevance, repeatability and data
> evaluation are set as indicators for comparison. Based on the
> analysis, aternative solutions for design rating and statistical
> analysis are proposed and moreover we provide an outlook for the
> definition of a novel standard.
>
> It is very important that the criticalities here identified are
> properly discussed and solved before the publication of any novel
> protocol/standard. Accordingly, we hope that you can contribute to
> share the results of this study as much as possible within the
> stove community.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francesco Lombardi
> /Francesco Lombardi, Eng.
> Researcher at Department of Energy
> UNESCO Chair in Energy for Sustainable Development
> www.unescochair-e4sd.polimi.it <http://www.unescochair-e4sd.polimi.it>
> Politecnico di Milano, via Lambruschini, 4 – 20156 – Milano
> Mobile: +39 338 2749066
> Office: +39 02 2399 3866/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Da:*pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
> <pienergy2008 at gmail.com <mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>> per conto
> di Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com <mailto:miata98 at gmail.com>>
> *Inviato:* giovedì 16 febbraio 2017 10.26
> *A:* Cecil Cook
> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves; Crispin
> Pembert-Pigott; Francesco Lombardi; Fabio Riva; Samer Abdelnour;
> Xavier Brandao; Harold Annegarn; Zhou Yuguang; Frank Shields
> *Oggetto:* Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop
> promoting the WBT
> [First a nod of gratitude to Frank - setting tasks is a beginning
> of "service standard". I don't believe a uniform service standard
> be pre-set or that such a standard can remain valid in practice.
> Foods change. Operating practices change. Setting fuel quality in
> the name of a wood is beyond ludicrous. The entire history of
> "stove catalog" is dubious, pardon me if I am the first one to say
> so. Emission tests for efficiency or emission rates have no
> consistency in terms of method, duration, input and output data.
> Just go read Kirk Smith's chapter on health in Global Energy
> Assessment circa 2012/3. Setting targets and Tiers in advance is
> putting a cart's front to the horse's head. The rot in wide and
> deep, much more than WBT.]
>
> Now Cecil:
>
> As the usual naysayer - not to say a vicious dog who lunges most
> at friends and ignores foes - let me doubt you:
> "I am pretty certain I can design a survey methodology that will
> predict demand for competing stoves with out concerning myself
> with efficiency and emission performance. And that my
> socio-cultural and user satisfaction tests of stove performance
> will predict customer response to competing improved stoves better
> than testing protocols which give efficiency and emission
> performance more weight than culture centered parameters of stove
> performance. Emission and efficiency performance do not "trump"
> user friendly operational variables and culturally mandated
> "negotiable" stove performance variables?
>
> The problem is one of trust.
>
> Not my trust in your ability to design such a survey methodology
> but whether GACC - the leader of us all, the champion of women and
> the planet (or UNF and EPA, WHO and our own Narendrabhai's oil
> companies) - will get 100 such surveys done, in 20 countries, in a
> year, after spending millions on Dahlberg, Accenture, and usual
> suspects. (ESMAP might, and should. WHO should, if it mounts a
> serious effort on air, water, and waste management for public
> health. What it has done on Household Fuels is enough of a shame
> to rank in the annals of UN misdeeds.)
>
> And even ESMAP may have doubts about whether the cooks will talk
> or whether national governments - the finance ministers - will
> listen. "Stovers" lost credibility a long time ago and recent
> attacks from GACC - pressing for exclusive, permanent transition
> to clean fuels and Tier 4 stoves, no "stacking" - or this curious,
> dubious adherence to WBTs have made it worse.
>
> I wonder how much trust and credibility have been eroded just in
> the past year. No problem. A new learning has started, as the GACC
> CEO impressed upon the audience at George Washington University
> last month. She seems to be trying hard. It's time to take stock
> and get our heads out of the fireboxes and peer-reviewed papers,
> write off DfID's grandiose dreams for its grants to Teri or UN
> Foundation, get serious rather than protect reputations and careers.
>
> Why should a busy woman bother to talk to an ethnographer or
> answer your survey questions? Haven't hoards of "stakeholders"
> been bored with meals at imperial hotels and video conferences
> about climate and sexual violence? Haven't tens of millions of
> girls known such violence first hand, and are they going to be
> persuaded that LPG stoves or Tier 4 will protect their girls from
> sexual violence in 2030? Haven't a billion "improved woodstoves"
> been trashed in the dustbin of history? Haven't MIT/Harvard
> (e)cons made a fool of us all? Hasn't India's search for Advanced
> Biomass Stoves gone "Up in Smoke"? Aren't Haitian, Nigerian,
> Kenyan, Ghanaian, Guatemalan, Congolese, Asian women and children
> dying prematurely at the rate of one a minute?
> I urge everybody to drop the pretense of science and models and
> stand intellectually naked in fresh air at the ocean of humanity.
> "We" know zilch. Recite - "What do I know? How do I know? What is
> the service standard? How are 50 billion meals, snacks, and
> beverages made and served every day, and how will the 2 trillion
> such servings of 2020 look different from the 1 trillion such of 1960?
>
> Do we know what questions to ask? Some the respondents too may not
> have thought of. We may need to observe the rhythms of cooking and
> foods, and the total time, labor, and money budgets in the cook's
> family over a generation. Because everything about cooking and
> eating has changed and keeps changing except stovers.
>
> Cooking is a language. Food is an identity. Biomass cost, quality,
> and availability is a complex ecosystem of humanity, botany,
> agronomics, forestry, climate, machinery.
>
> I will volunteer 1,000 hours for anybody who simplifies this mess
> of so-called science and comes up with good definitions,
> performance metrics, and testing methods for objective and
> subjective criteria.
>
> Whose meals are being cooked, I wish I knew. WHO, EPA, and NIH, to
> count a few.
>
> I agree with Xavier -- first halt the WBT use by GACC. There is
> zero legal basis for WBT in reference to cookstoves worldwide. I
> doubt it is a cornerstone for solid fuel cookstoves in the US, but
> will be happy to be corrected. EPA has no competence to set
> metrics and testing protocols for residential cookstoves in the
> US, just NSPS for woodstoves for residential heating, even which
> it cannot implement after 30 years. We should stir the pot at WHO;
> anybody game?
>
> N
>
> ---------
> (India +91) 909 995 2080
> //
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:14 AM, <cec1863 at gmail.com
> <mailto:cec1863 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear fellow pyromaniacs,
> It looks like scales are falling from the eyes of stove testers
> and learning is beginning to take place on the stove list.
> Let our consulting continue from a new posture of learning until
> we get to what CPP called for long ago: a suite of stove testing
> metrics which are selected from a tool box to discover the most
> culturally appropriate metrics and methods for testing stove
> performance in situ.
> Come to think of it....why not ask ethnographers to talk to
> representative samples of targeted stove users in a region, city
> or country for long enough to identify the "natural" groups of
> stove users....and then ask representatives of these different
> groups to identify their stove performance preferences which
> together describe their collective idea of an ideal household
> cooking stove or an ideal work/ food processing/party stove or an
> agricultural or rural stove or an ideal multi-use stove.
> The fuel use characteristics will be one the main dimensions of
> assessment. How much fuel to perform known tasks??
> With these abstract ideal characterizations in hand and mind, what
> can the stove designers and fabricators come up with?? We then
> assess the performance of candidate stoves against those functions
> which stove users/buyers/
> makers/sellers/funders agree are ideal! The user's preferences
> will not be exact but it will predict stove purchase and use behavior!
> All the efficiency and emission concerns which carry the
> bureaucratic interests of WB, USAID, WHO, EPA, and GACC -
> targeting macro climate, human health, and environmental impacts
> (saving tree cover) - are added into the evaluation matrix as nice
> to have beneficial impacts .....but I can assure you the end users
> of cook stoves will put emissions and efficiency toward the bottom
> of their list of highly desired dimensions of stove performance.
> It will be the economics of purchased fuels in urban areas and the
> hard work of gathering fuel wood in rural communities for biomass
> stoves that will strengthen demand for improved biomass stoves
> that substantially reduce fuel wood or charcoal use.......but
> there are many other far more important stove performance
> variables that have more impact upon costomer demand and use
> rates than the emissions and efficiency performance of competing
> stoves.
>
>
> I am pretty certain I can design a survey methodology that will
> predict demand for competing stoves with out concerning myself
> with efficiency and emission performance. And that my
> socio-cultural and user satisfaction tests of stove performance
> will predict customer response to competing improved stoves better
> than testing protocols which give efficiency and emission
> performance more weight than culture centered parameters of stove
> performance. Emission and efficiency performance do not "trump"
> user friendly operational variables and culturally mandated
> "negotiable" stove performance variables?
>
>
> In search,
>
>
> Cecil "the anthropologist" Cook
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
> *From: *Frank Shields
> *Sent: *Monday, February 13, 2017 1:45 PM
> *To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Reply To: *Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
> *Cc: *Francesco Lombardi; Fabio Riva
> *Subject: *Re: [Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop
> promoting the WBT
>
> Dear Fabio and Stovers
> I have criticized the WBT in the past but after looking at the new
> directions that is being taken the WBT looks better and better. It
> does need some changes.
> The problems with the WBT:
> 1) The fuel needs be characterized by its chemical and physical
> properties - NOT as identification as to Name of the type of wood.
> 2) We need to remove any calculations regarding to moisture and
> attempt to normalize the energy value back to dry weight basis.
> Before that can be done there need be proof that it is a linear
> fit - very unlikely with this type of system. We can only report
> ‘with a moisture of 10% this happens” or "with a moisture of 20%
> this happens”.
> 2b) There are many energy waste like sides of the combustion
> chamber, gaps too wide, pot bottom placed to high or low etc.
> These are considered the same as moisture - something to be
> optimized and understood.
> 3) It needs be understood that the WBT is only an outline for
> tests that need be done. That is the Task here is boiling water.
> Using this outline we need to establish different Tasks. Could be;
> Char making, cooking beans, grill cooking, heating a house,
> creating light - all types of Tasks. For all we need the same layout.
> Regards
> Frank
>
>
> "Dear Xavier,
>
> Thank you very much for having cited our paper in the discussion.
> Please, consider this recommendation for the next citations: we do
> not actually critic the WBT per se, but the way through which the
> practitioners and the literature perform the WBT and report the
> results. Indeed, we are perfectly aware that the WBT has many
> drawbacks and unresolved issues, but we are still trying to
> support this in a scientific way.
> With our article “Fuzzy interval propagation of uncertainties in
> experimental analysis for improved and traditional three–stone
> fire cookstoves" we demonstrated a different problem: so far, the
> literature reports mainly data coming from an average of few
> replicates that can lead to misinterpreted evaluations of ICSs’
> performance if the uncertainties are not considered. The final
> goal of the article is therefore making people aware of the
> possible errors and misinterpretations when they do not perform
> accurate statistical data processing.
> Therefore, the sentence that you have highlighted in the forwarded
> email should not be interpreted as “the WBT itself has epistemic
> uncertainties that may lead to incorrect ICS’s performance
> evaluation”, because it is not actually the result of the work.
> Rather, the main outcome and result is this:
> “IF you do not consider the WBTs uncertainties (viz. the
> uncertainties related to lab replicates performed with the WBT)
> when you report and analyse data àTHEN you might misinterpret the
> real ICSs’ performance”. So, we are not criticizing the “WBT
> uncertainties” per se, because it is normal to have uncertainties
> when you perform a lab measures (they are too many in the WBT,
> true, and they must be urgently limited! but it is not the point
> of the article).
> This conclusion can be applied to all the protocols that have
> intrinsic uncertainties. The reason why we have considered only
> the WBT-based tests is because it is the most adopted protocol in
> the literature and there are many data available.
> I hope it could be clearer now. _I would be grateful if you could
> forward this message also to Ron and the bioenergy list_.
> Thanks again for the passion and the effort you put for the
> testing community.
> Best regards,
> Fabio"
>
> It is really great to have some insight from them. As I was
> replying to Fabio, I don't know if it is at all possible to "fix"
> the WBT. And doing this fixing, if it is at all possible, will
> take a lot of time. Researchers and testers are very busy with
> other things, and funders/the GACC/project implementers want to
> act now.
>
> Let's be a bit realistic for one second. If nothing is done,
> testers will keep using the WBT, and project implementers being
> project implementers, they WILL poorly interpret the results. We
> all know how it works in international development projects. Some
> projects are planned very well and run very smoothly, but let's
> admit that more often than not, nothing really goes according to
> the plan.
>
> Testers and project leaders will hastily test the stoves
> with a limited number of iterations because they are
> already late on the project planning, or they have limited
> human resources or funds, not the right equipment, or the
> testing consultant is in the country for a short amount of
> time. They will think it is good enough. They will take
> hasty decisions, and start projects based on very thin
> evidence. This is unfortunately how it happens all the
> time. It's like saying the the project implementers: here
> is a car but the brakes are not working well, don't drive
> too fast with it. Misinterpretations and misuse of the
> results will be done, because the WBT is so easy to
> misuse. A very solid protocol is what we need. We need a
> great tool, a fool-proof tool, a tool we can rely on.
>
> Another point is that more than a few people have been
> trying to fix the WBT for long time, maybe 10 years or
> more. Maybe since it was invented, in 1987? Can it be
> fixed at all? Even "improved", even with a large number of
> test iterations, can the WBT give any satisfactory results
> leading to good decisions?
>
> But more importantly, even with statistical data
> processing, 3 big issues remain with the WBT. Can they be
> solved at all? Fabio Riva and Francesco Lombardi admit
> these 3 issues still remain.
>
> They are not criticizing the WBT per se, in their paper.
> But I, and many others, are. Based on their findings, we
> are criticizing the WBT, because the WBT allows for easy
> misinterpretation, the WBT allows large mistakes to be
> made. Because in international development projects, and
> especially in stove projects, it is so easy to make bad
> decisions.
>
> Often, researchers and scientists don't take position,
> because it is, they think, not their job. Then others in
> the stove sector have the responsibility to take a
> position, and make a choice. I believe their researches
> allow us to take that position, and to ask for the
> promotion of the WBT to be stopped.
>
> The wisest step, in my opinion, remains to stop using this
> protocol, until it is fixed or we definitely move to a
> better one.
>
> I remind you that you can support the initiative here:
> xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xvr.brandao at gmail.com>
> And see other protocols, the HTP and CSI, here:
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Xavier
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
> our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
> Thanks
> Frank
> Frank Shields
> Gabilan Laboratory
> Keith Day Company, Inc.
> 1091 Madison Lane
> Salinas, CA 93907
> (831) 246-0417 <tel:%28831%29%20246-0417> cell
> (831) 771-0126 <tel:%28831%29%20771-0126> office
> fShields at keithdaycompany.com <mailto:fShields at keithdaycompany.com>
> franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web
> site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170221/7bbacc99/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list