[Stoves] News: National Geographic on promotion of gas stoves over improved woodstoves - in Guatemala

Tue Sep 5 21:35:32 CDT 2017

Crispin:

I am humble, not a humbler. Of course I won't have heard of "Guidance Unto
the Ignorant". I learnt some 25+ years ago, "You don't know more, you just
know different things." (From a 4-year old. I celebrate her as my teacher.)

Of course "pride of ownership" matters and factors into "price of
ownership" users are willing to pay. That was the point of my "Modern
Cooking" piece five years ago - moving away from purely "scientific"
metrics and placing the cook in the center.

I don't know how much coal is used in cookstoves; in India, limited to one
or two states, more in rural China. I don't know about Indonesia, Colombia,
Korea, Mongolia any longer. But I agree there is more potential in coal
than general biomass (dung, straw, wood waste) simply because coals are
regionally specific and can be made consistent quality by price premia for
quality. Same can be applied to wood. All depends on how much fuel is
self-generated (farm waste, dung) and collected.

All the "cookstoves and health" literature has failed to collect any data
on stove type (the song goes "three stone fire or other traditional
stoves"), fuel collection (scavanging or self-produced), dwelling type or
size/quality of ventilation. If we bothered to define the context, we would
have a better definition of the problems than theorizing in air-conditioned
hotel rooms.

I am not yet ready to endorse your view that "Solid fuel stoves that cook
the fuel are much cleaner, generally, than those which don't." Because the
quality and relative cost of fuels and stoves, and user preferences,
matter.

After all, cookstoves are for cooking meals, not merely generating heat.
The heat that matters comes from spices and conversations.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:

> Dear Nikhil
>
> As paid up members of Humblers Anonymous we should carry on offering what
> we can to whoever will accept it. Have you heard of the book from the
> 1800's "Guidance Unto The ‎Ignorant"? That guy should join our club.
>
> Regarding 'cool inventions': inventors want their creations to be
> considered as cool as they think they are. Customers often have a different
> concept of what is cool.
>
> In some markets 'pride of ownership' is about what others think is cool.
> It rates highly, number 3 or 4, in ranked purchasing decision contributors.
>
> For solid fuels and generating some sort of broad revolution, I hold far
> more hope for coal burners than wood because in a large fraction of places
> where coal dominates domestic energy, there is no option, or the option is
> limited and in the process of being actively conserved. It is far easier to
> burn coal cleanly than indeterminate wood. Animal dung is quite predictable
> but requires some basic processing in many cases.
>
> For biomass, processed wood and slash holds promise but the 'exciting'
> developments are (largely) in the grip of the char-makers with their own
> agenda to which the users should bend their lives. How often does that work?
>
> If I advised the TLUD promoters I would suggest getting widespread
> adoption of the devices before trying to hornswaggle funding mechanisms for
> char buy-back ideas. If gasifiers generate twice the heat of charmakers
> from a kg of fuel‎, that is serious competition against the alternative.
>
> Solid fuel stoves that cook the fuel are much cleaner, generally, than
> those which don't. That's a fundamentally different approach and qualifies
> in my book as a shift as great as introducing kerosene.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>
>
> Crispin:
>
> In all humility, may I suggest that your answer "Ignorance about how to
> invent cool stuff and get it adopted" comes across as a bit arrogant?
>
> Under conventional stereotype, where women are the principal home workers
> and hold exclusive responsibilities and powers over cooking and feeding (if
> not on purchase of food ingredients), I submit that cooking is about (a)
> women's time and energy allocation; and (b) the overall human environment,
> in and around the homes.
>
> There is perhaps not a single "cool" invention in solid fuel cookstoves
> does not seem to hold much promise for the Third World masses the way it
> happened with, say, Primus or Nutan stoves using kerosene some 60-80 years
> ago, or LPG/electric stoves and other thermal appliances over the last 50
> years to this date. (There are fancy wood cookstoves in the Western markets
> as well).
>
> Then again, who knows, wood or pellet stoves with electric assist may
> change a lot.
>
> I do agree there is a wide chasm between the users and the inventors, and
> the overall context of fresh and waste biomass with considerable variation
> in economic geography, that may be said to limit success with solid fuel
> stoves in the past.
>
> Remember, the current fraction of humanity, the Bottom Half, is more
> variegated structurally from the upper half than was the case 50 or 100
> years ago. And the bottom 20% if much farther apart in assets and income
> from the top 20% than ever, at least in the last 100 years.
>
> Population and human capital (health, education/skill-base, employment,
> security) dynamics are far more complicated than the simple mindsets of the
> 1960s to 1990s suggest (and which is what lies within many of us).
>
> Thank you so much for the pithy "Hence, the current mess."
>
> As GACC slides into the last three years of its plan, it's worth
> revisiting "the mess". Reformed thinking and institutional apparatus are
> necessary.
>
>
> Nikhil
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
> crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Gordon
>>
>>
>>
>> - What are people trying to do?
>>
>>
>>
>> Invent cool stuff and get it adopted to help save the world.
>>
>>
>>
>> - What problems are getting in the way of your success?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ignorance about how to invent cool stuff and get it adopted.
>>
>>
>>
>> - What collaborations are possible?
>>
>>
>>
>> The best one would be for the ‘stovers’ to approach social scientists to
>> find out in much clearer detail why people behave the way they do when they
>> use domestic energy and apply it in their lives.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is usually a gulf between the wanna-be designers and the potential
>> users, as large as the gap between marketing people and the self-same
>> designers.
>>
>>
>>
>> A three-way collaboration between marketing, design/engineering and
>> behavioural scientists would produce products that would naturally attract
>> funding.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the moment people seek funding first, technical solutions second,
>> marketing expertise third, and a deep understanding of the users last.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence, the current mess.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Crispin
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170905/f4ee7202/attachment.html>