[Stoves] stoves and credits again

Fri Sep 22 10:54:55 CDT 2017

This is in response to Andrew's starting a new thread. I am mighty happy to
see where this is going - on the problem of time/labor allocation and on
separating the source of primary fuel from the location of use.

My comments between *** below on individual points or the quoted discussion
between Andrew and Crispin:

AH: ", I argue that it (char) is a co product  which contains unused
potential chemical energy."

 *** Which is the only way to characterize this. Economics of co-products
are funky, and how preferences translate into values and prices is another
theoretical discussion. Back last January or earlier, Tami Bond had asked a
question about how to compute efficiencies when there is more than one
output. I don't know if I ever replied, but the answer is "abitrarily".
(Came from someone who runs a gas combined cycle plant with a water
desalination plant. It's the same in all other co-product cases, including
marriages.)  Here, since it is all a persuasion game, making a credible
case is the first step, keeping in mind that those in power may not
necessarily have sense. ***

CPP: "> A stove that burns wood completely paralleled with a small charcoal
making operation in the same community might use less total wood and
produce more total char because both technologies can be optimised to their
function."
AH: "I really cannot see this, see above. To make charcoal in a
dedicated device still requires that the offgas is used for it to be
efficient as there is an excess over that necessary to raise the raw
material to pyrolysis temperature, unless it is exceptionally wet."

*** Ignore fuel efficiencies; don't matter in and of by themselves. It is
the total efficiency in allocation of money and labor plus fuel - and the
opportunity costs of resources - that matter. Crispin is on the right
track, whether or not "less wood" and "more total char" hold. Production
cycles are different, hence also valuation of time. ***

CPP: "The cleanest wood burning stoves are as clean-burning as an LPG
stove, or there is not enough between them to find a meaningful difference."
AH: "Good it's nice to see that reiterated, it means it remains a goal,
to aim for the dissemination of better solid fuel cook stoves."

*** These may be different markets. Considering the hassle factor of solid
fuel cooking at home, especially for small families and adults working
outside homes (a demographic shift only Anil seems to have explicitly
recognized), and also capital costs of high-performing stoves, it is better
to market solid fuel stoves to the commercial markets, even home-based
industry. The Kirk Smith/WHO or SE4All obsession with "households" is a
statistical quagmire as far as "cooking market" is concerned. "Better"
cookstoves cook; theoretical cookstoves perform better in labs and once
"disseminated" by GACC, employ BAMG for HAPIT computations. For "poverty
reduction" impacts, just get the cooks out of home kitchens unless they can
make money cooking..***

CPP: "> I proposed two years ago that in Hebei, which has a serious problem
with air pollution caused by the in-field burning of crop residue, that
they put a small price on the material making it worth collecting it to a
central point. This could be charred while making wood gas that can be
piped into the local distribution network. The remaining char would go into
the input line of local fertiliser factories that are making organic
fertiliser, of which char is one component. .."
AH: "There appears to be a win win situation here and I gather there
is still a vast part of equatorial Africa where annual burning
takes place. However it brings me to another reason I like the idea,
though not the practicalities, of a householder-subsistance farmer being
paid
a subsidy funded by the developed world. The trouble is I have a parochial
view and not a good worldview of what types of persons depend on biomass
fuelled stoves. Are they also predominantly growers?"

*** You, Andrew, have nailed a principal fault with the "household energy"
(pollution, fuel, stoves) enthusiasts -- having solutions for problems
ill-defined, in particular user characteristics, fuel cycles, and economic
geographies. What CPP is referring to a specific situation with certain
demand profiles (gas pipes for heating or commercial fertilizer) and
density, and certain affordability, absorptive capacity. It is necessary to
get away from the notion of a "householder-subsistence farmer" as the
target market. Just look at land ownership statistics - better quality than
air pollution bubbles - and agricultural productivity statistics. There is
a general trend of rural areas releasing labor as mechanization has entered
the food production chains and agriculture has become industry. But
everybody needs to cook - and not just cakes - the last I checked. As a
rough guess for countries I have looked at, I would say that fewer than 50%
of the users of solid fuels for cooking produce their own primary fuel.
Which is why there is a vibrant charcoal industry all over sub-Saharan
Africa (with Somali charcoal going to Yemen, for instance). ***

AH (on UK):  " it wasn't long before farmers realised the price
being offered was less than the cost of the mineral fertilisers that had
to be replaced before another cereal crop could be grown.
Combine harvesters were modified to chop the straw rather than bale it
for sale, so the straw could be incorporated into the soil for the
next season's growth."

*** This extends the discussion on "co-production" further. In India, crop
wastes went to brick-making. There is no reason brick-making cannot be
forced to switch to processed solid fuels which can also be marketed to
commercial food processing and restaurants. It is the fuel-free, cook-free,
context-free competition for stove efficiency and WHO-imposed PM2.5
emission rate targets that has wasted time and money, fooled people, and
fueled propaganda for LPG subsidies. Get real; ISO voluntary performance
standards for household cookstoves will muddy the markets for more
efficient biomass use instead of expanding them. ***

AH (also on UK): "So my contention is that apart from the carbon credit
there is a value to the land in not having to export a cash crop."

*** Oh, PLEASE DO BE CAREFUL. I haven't visited GEF and carbon finance
project designs lately, but to mention that improved stoves could do
anything BUT reduce fNRB (fraction non-renewable biomass) is a kiss of
death. CO2 bean-counters have to be convinced, to their theoretical
satisfaction, that it is only the CO2 that they are paying for. (I know
FCCC rules on additionality, etc., and haven't looked at C-Dev and Gold
Standard methodologies in detail. The very fact that there are
"methodologies" - convoluted and irrational as they may be - is proof that
carbon markets are for the rich, by the rich, of the rich. The poor as
usual are simply fodder for rich theories; perish the thought they become
rich and drive the rich country academics out of sustainable business.)
 ***

The big "take away" from CPP and AH is that obsessing over a household
cookstove is a fatal flaw of the "Stover" ideology. Inventing excuses -
deforestation, climate, health, renewability, poverty alleviation, women's
empowerment - at the level of households only encourages competition over
metrics without a theory of change. Expand the fuel sources to all locally
available solid fuels and use to all local uses or far enough that the
differentials in land, water, labor, and feedstock and costs permits. Cheap
rural labor to produce charcoal for urban markets is no different from
producing milk, meat, grains, flours, oils or even meals for those markets.
Why, some years ago I advocated that Europe and North America produce
charcoal from boreal forests and export to tropical Africa and Asia for
commercial markets. The economic and environmental justifications are
plenty. (My thought was prompted by a story in the Economist that the
albedo effect of denser boreal forests produced warming that exceeded the
carbon sequestration gain.)

I do not generally like to argue for "holistic" approach because the whole
is too messy. But when dots present themselves to  your eyes, connect the
dots. Plain enough "positive contribution" from me.

Nikhil

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've changed the title to move back to the idea of what value can be
> added to TLUD use:
>
> On 18 September 2017 at 20:21, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170922/c8eb13c3/attachment.html>