[Stoves] Follow-up about clean biomass fuels

[Nikhil Desai]

Paul:

On Ron's comments, I suggest avoiding "*multi-variable analysis*" except to
recognize that biomass systems are "linked" on the supply and demand side
to multiple sources and multiple markets, the links being context-specific.

There is no point reciting climate, health, women's empowerment, etc. etc.
to this crowd. GACC and Kirk Smith would do all of that, though perhaps for
LPG. It's not a game biomass advocates can win based on the evidence to
date.

Keeping the message simple -- that market opportunities are being lost, and
that even in India, LPG and electricity will not capture even 50% of the
total cooking and heating market any time soon - will be ideal. Let your
audience raise quibbles about all the red herrings like health. What
matters is that users find stoves usable, just that.

You want a "*a message to the world"*? Keep the world in mind, not
sideshows like ISO, ETHOS, GACC, or GBD.  Influencing academics is not
necessarily the best route, unless you can get Kirk Smith to backtrack on
his "truly health productive" and press on "when gas is not available". By
2030, the theoretical potential for solid fuels - for three billion today
and likely to remain at least half that, if LPG and electricity even take
care of population growth (considering gross new household formation rate
at some 50 million couples a year.)

WHO will keep on assigning risk factors to the roughly 600 million people
who would pass between 2015 and 2030. Not credible players.

Nikhil



On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlarson at comcast.net>
wrote:

> Paul and list
>
> Thank you for repeating your important message request below.  See inserts
> below.
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
> Stovers,
>
> Over a week ago I sent a message (attached as a Word document) with this
> title and first paragraph:
>
> *Recognize Clean Cooking with Renewable Solid Fuels 2017-09-29*
>
> We need to deliver *a message to the world* that any discussion of access
> to clean fuel sources for cooking MUST include recognition that renewable
> solid fuels (mainly wood / pellet / chips, but including some forms of
> agro-refuse) are also highly clean burning in modern advanced cookstoves.
> So, the topic is correctly stated as "clean cookstoves and fuels", but it
> is often reduced to be only "clean fuels," which is very misleading.
>
> Is this not one of the top five issues of this Stoves Listserv????
>
> *[RWL1:  yes - but what are your other four?  Maybe this is also
> the most important of your five.  I have a few other topics in [RWL13.*
>
> * I am ready to concede that there are cleaner fuels than solid biomass
> (electricity from solar is one example).  The issue is one you have
> mentioned many times - the economics of cleaner options must come into play
> for those with a very limited income.   TLUDs have properties that need to
> balanced against one type of health issue.  Climate change is bringing a
> huge array of heath issues that should be in the dialog.*
>
> Well, the response has been totally UNDERwelming.  TWO.   Yes, a total of
> 2 people sent comments directly to me (without wanting to become involved)
> and ZERO comments on the Stoves Listserv.
>
> *[RWL2:   Apologies for not saying more earlier.*
>
>
> Does that tell us something about ourselves?   Maybe:
> 1.  People  do not read the Stoves List messages.
>
> *[RWL3:  No- I know there are many more readers than responders.*
>
> 2.  My message content is not clear, or maybe too long, or maybe something
> else.
>
> *[RWL4.  No - you are doing an admirable job.*
>
> 3.  The topic is really not of interest to biomass Stovers.
>
> *[RWL5:  No - Most on this list are here to promote improved biomass-based
> cook stoves.  That is the stated purpose of the list (for more than 21
> years.]*
>
> 4.  Biomass Stovers have given up and now accept biomass being regarded as
> a “dirty fuel".
>
> *[RWL6:  No - not “Biomass Stovers”.  Certainly other types of “Stovers”.
> Those are not apt to have any interest in this or any biomass-oriented
> list.*
>
> 5.  Readers are in such total agreement with what I wrote that they feel
> no need to comment.
>
> *[RWL7:   Yes - a partial answer.*
>
> 6.  Something else:   ________ fill in the blank _________________
>
> *[RWL8:  We are all busy people - and it is sometimes downright unpleasant
> to respond (not to you).  Obviously not your 7th suggestion . *
>
> 7.  All of the above.
>
> So, I am writing again.   (Stupid Anderson, he will never learn.)
>
> I conclude with what is at the end of my document from last week:
>
> 7.  What next????
> a.  Discussion will be at the Stoves Listserv.  (If comments are sent
> directly to me at   psanders at ilstu.edu  , I might post them with your
> name attached.)
>
> *[RWL9:  I don’t see a better alternative than this list - but please
> keep summarizing at your website.*
>
> b.  Who will help carry this message forward?   Please speak up.  Some
> assistance is needed.
>
> *[RWL10:   I see a great deal of help coming from the ISO process - which
> is linked considerably to GACC.   I will keep trying to help - and can
> report I am nearing finishing something on the “denominator equation”
> - which is mislabeled.   This has been a major hinderance to TLUD
> acceptance - with zero logic behind the objection.*
>
> c.  To whom should this message be sent (as is or improved):   One person
> is Sophie Edwards <https://www.devex.com/news/authors/1253453>   the
> journalist who wrote the 18 September 2017 item about Rachel Kyte..
> And also send to Rachel Kyte.
>
> *[RWL11.   Ms Edwards seems an honest reporter - with a limited background
> (as for most reporters on almost any subject).  I am not worried about Ms
> Kyte - based on what she has recommended as a funding increase for stoves.*
> * I suggest the attendees soon in Delhi are your best target right now.*
>
> d.  Perhaps a "Declaration of Clean Cooking with Wood" could be prepared,
> and presented for endorsement / adoption by organizations and persons.
> (Suggest a better name??)
>
> *[RWL12:   Hmm.  Maybe.  I guess I see a need more for economic, social,
> and ethical analyses.  Kirk Smith well recognizes the (climate and
> economic) down sides of LPG*;* he values one type of health issue higher
> (and we can be supportive of that)  I guess we need multi-variable
> analysis more than declaration.   But I am willing to participate on the
> analytical side of your declaration.*
>
> e.  Whatever is next, we need to utilize the format and facilities of the
> GACC, including the Forum in Delhi.  This is what the GACC is all about:
> With emphasis on the word CLEAN, we are all seeking to have clean
> cookstoves reaching even those people who only have biomass fuels for daily
> cooking.  And this can be done with existing methods, etc., that will be
> further improved with the feedback from the woodgas stove users.
>
> *[RWL13:   Agreed with all.  But more than the word “CLEAN” needs to be
> involved.  If one can achieve a certain degree of cleanliness, then other
> parameters can/must come into play.   Specifically I am thinking climate
> change, soil improvement, and increased rural income and health (improved
> nutrition).  Stoves are not THE way to get these benefits from biochar.
> They could be the best early way - as cooks can make money rather than
> spend it.  TLUDs are an investment opportunity and everyone prefers
> investments over expenses.   And they suffer not at all on health,
> time-savings, costs, etc.*
>
> *Ron*
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171009/d2e5d421/attachment.html>