[Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT

Thu Jan 25 19:31:36 CST 2018

List and Xavier:

> On Jan 25, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
>  
> « a.   What are some characteristics of the new test you propose to replace the WBT? »
> What do you mean by characteristics?
	[RWL1:  By “characteristics”  I mean a serious difference in the test procedure from what is now going through (with strong support) the ISO process.  
	All the protocols mentioned below already do boil water.  What many protocols that you laud don’t do is make any attempt to even measure char produced.  It is ludicrous to tell a stove producer who is marketing a char-making stove (which happens also to be cleaner and more efficient even ignoring char - with high Tier rating in all categories) that you’re sorry - but the approved stove protocol for that country says you must ignore all char when you calculate a Tier.

> Possible replacements of the WBT are the CSI and HTP, protocols to be found here:
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing <https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5rmmRmIsdlnQlRQX3A1cXVOQ3M?usp=sharing>	[RWL2:  I don’t believe that either the CSI or HTP approaches  (both from South Africa) says anything about measuring (and accounting for) charcoal production at this above site. I found one reference to the fact that charcoal should be treated as unusable.  I also found evidence that Crispin made a change (or a recommendation) involving charcoal in 2013 - but the documentation you suggest his so inferior to that I have seen from WG2 that it is pathetic.   
	So as near as I can tell, char production is not considered in either the CSI or HTP methodologies;  if so, can you give a specific reference (page and line).
	For sure the Chinese and Indian test methods do not.

> I think the protocol documents are quite detailed. What is not clear in the document, what clarifications would you like to have?

	[RWL3:  They are in WG2 outputs - much less in everything else I have seen. I want a clarification on how charcoal is to be handled in your preferred test methodology.  Especially as it relates to Tiers.
>  
> « b.   What happens to the Tier system that is now based on the WBT? »
> The Tier system is also put into question. I guess there will be a need for a replacement.
	[RWL4  Remember the Tier approach was unanimously (I think) recommended at the Lima meeting.  What do you (or anyone) find fault with about Tiers?   You are proposing to drop a main reason there is an ISO process at all.

> There is one question: is a Tier system absolutely necessary?
	[RWL5:  Clearly “No" - not absolutely necessary.  But very helpful to achieving better stoves - I think the answer is a clear yes.  And your answer to this question is what?

> Why do we need a Tier system for?
	[RWL6:  To achieve better stoves.  (I’d go further and say so stoves can help take carbon out of the atmosphere. Not agreed to by some on your list.)

> Can we develop better stoves without it, or not?
	[RWL7:  I think the evidence is strong that Tiers are helpful.  Kirk Harris says they are.  This is a very complicated topic and we need a shorthand.
	Groups who want to and can buy stoves - are using the tiers.  Tiers are easy to understand.

> If it is indispensable, then the Tier system must mean something, it must be reliable.
	[RWL8:   The vast majority of the experts working in WG2 of the ISO285 process are telling us that it is reliable.  
	You are not giving any rationale for dropping them - but it seems clear you are opposed to them.

>  
> « c.   Assuming that this comes up at the ETHOS meeting starting tomorrow - how would you recommend GACC handling that vote, if there is one? »
> I would recommend that the GACC discuss openly and transparently this question, and that the participants give their opinion.
	[RWL9:  Good - agreed.  I hope this comes up for serious discussion at ETHOS and someone can report back on the discussion (and any “vote” if there is one).  I am claiming here that you have enrolled a very small subset of test experts.  I am predicting an overwhelming favorable discussion - and that GACC should heed that discussion.

> I would recommend everyone to read the studies and the alternative protocols, first. If no one knows what the problem is about, it is difficult to talk about solutions.
	[RWL10:   I would urge that GACC make no moves of any kind until they and we can see what WG2 has come up with - and the objections that remain.  I am sure there will be some who disparage the “denominator equation”: e3 = e1/(1-e2) = 1/(1+i/e1) have not understood why it is imperative to use it (and especially to get Tiers).  
	I have put a fair amount of time into this - and willingly admit I have no idea “what the problem is about”.  It IS very clear that some think the “denominator equation” is dead wrong - and there are some who can’t stand Tiers.

> Then the participants could express what are their needs in terms of testing,—-
	[RWL11:  The needs seem clear to me - to compare stoves - so as to effectuate improvement.  (and the WBT and Tiers have been successful in that.)

> and what they think are their potential difficulties in transitioning from the WBT to other lab protocols.
	[RWL12:   Again - no new method has been proposed that I know of.  Years have been spent in a horribly tedious process dictated by ISO rules.  So without something specific to consider, in the presence of strong support for the WG2 output - it seems clear to me that there are huge “potential difficulties in transitioning”.  Time is wasting - and we don’t have time

> As I 	said previously, I don’t think there are many difficulties in making this transition.
	[RWL13:  And you also said you have not been involved in the (I think) successful WG2 effort.

> And if some participants want to work towards the development of new and better protocols, more adapted to their needs, then that should be encouraged too.
	[RWL14:  Absolutely - and ISO processes say how that can be done.  But it makes zero sense to stop when you are almost done (on the key - WG2 - portion), with something that has received wide approval.  I repeat, your group, from my knowledge (mostly at ETHOS meetings and stove camps, but also as the first coordinator of this list), is in a small minority.
>  
> « d.   What is your response to an observation that this appears to be a reaction against char-making stoves? »
> Who makes this observation?
	[RWL15:  For one - me.   I see no-one promoting char-making stoves on your list.

> This call is not a reaction against any technology. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing against char-making stoves, much on the contrary. I think Moulindu Banerjee project in North-East India is a formidable success story.
> Char-making stoves will survive the end of the WBT.
	[RWL16:  Sure, but you are calling to restart a 5 year process.  We don’t have time for such non-sense.

> If there is a need for a new ways/protocols to measure their benefits, then we should foster such work.
	[RWL17:  That is already embedded in what you are calling to start over.  A huge amount of work has gone into the WG2 report that we will soon see.  I see very good work coming along from the other groups as well - but they are not WBT oriented

Ron
>  
> Best,
> 
> Xavier
>  
>  
>  
> De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] De la part de Ronal W. Larson
> Envoyé : jeudi 25 janvier 2018 22:59
> À : Discussion of biomass
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT
>  
> Xavier, list and ccs
>  
>             Four questions:
>  
>             a.   What are some characteristics of the new test you propose to replace the WBT?  
>             
>             b.   What happens to the Tier system that is now based on the WBT?
>  
>             c.   Assuming that this comes up at the ETHOS meeting starting tomorrow - how would you recommend GACC handling that vote, if there is one?
>  
>             d.   What is your response to an observation that this appears to be a reaction against char-making stoves?
>  
> Ron
>  
>  
>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:24 AM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Dear Anh, dear Michael,
>> 
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>  
>> I feel that sentence in the call is not clear. Of course, we are not talking about punishing those who are currently using the WBT in their projects, nor taking away stoves that have been developed with WBT, and are or have been disseminated.
>> Funders have funded projects which testing protocol basis was the WBT, stoves have been developed, fine. There are, still, despite the WBT mess, good stoves and good projects that were developed. Certainly, as we discussed previously, a lot of potential has been wasted because of unreliable results. But past is past.
>>  
>> Now, funders and donors are preparing new grants and programmes. Today, there is no excuse that a project or programme success depends upon a testing protocol that was at multiple times demonstrated erroneous and unreliable. This shouldn't happen anymore.
>> We cannot fund projects anymore based on a protocol which is, literally, a roll of the dice.
>>  
>> Does that sound reasonable to you? If not, why?
>>  
>> Thanks again,
>>  
>> Xavier
>>  
>>  
>>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>	
>> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>  
>> On 25 January 2018 at 09:25, Michael N Trevor <mntrevor at gmail.com <mailto:mntrevor at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> In the middle of the Pacific with what are they going to do come take away my stoves?
>>  
>> I dare you to try it---
>>  
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Anh Nguyen <ntanh72 at gmail.com <mailto:ntanh72 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> You said in your call "as well as stop funding or supporting projects, programmes and companies who use the WBT". So in your view, everyone who use WBT should be punished regardless of what good they are doing for the world? 
>>  
>> Sorry, I can not and will not support such call.
>>  
>> Anh
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Tom Miles <tmiles at trmiles.com <mailto:tmiles at trmiles.com>> wrote:
>> Dear everyone,
>>  
>> I would like to share with you this call, which is the continuation of the initiative that was addressed to the GACC.
>>  
>> So a few of us have decided to make a call to the stakeholders of the stove sector, to stop using the WBT, and to use and develop scientifically valid protocols instead.
>>  
>> Please find the documents of the call attached.
>>  
>> Please find below the list of the call signees:
>> Adam Creighton, Independent consultant
>> Ashiq Ahamed, Senior Project Manager, TIDE
>> Camilla Fulland, Senior Adviser and former CEO of Prime Stoves, Norad
>> Cecil Cook, Independent expert, Stove anthropologist
>> Crispin Pemberton-Piggott, Adjunct Professor, China Agricultural University
>> Harold Annegarn, South Africa Adjunct Professor, North West University
>> Jan-Carel Diehl, Assistant Professor - Design for Sustainability, Delft University
>> Jiddu Broersma, Technology Officer, Prakti
>> Jorund Buen, CEO, Prime Stoves
>> Miel Alanna, Independent consultant
>> Mouhsine Serrar, CEO, Prakti
>> Nikhil Desai, Independant expert
>> Nithya Ramanathan, CEO, NexLeaf
>> Partha Talukder, Business Manager, Prakti
>> Paul Medwell, Associate Professor, University of Adelaide
>> Peter Scott, CEO, Burn Manufacturing 
>> Robert J van der Plas, Independent expert, University of Adelaide
>> Sujatha Srinivasan, Director, Servals
>> Todd Albi, General Manager, Silver Fire
>> Vahid Jahangiri, Deputy Director, ILF
>> Wouter Kersten, Co-ordinator Context Variation by Design
>> Xavier Brandao, Independent
>> If you have comments, questions, remarks about this call, don’t hesitate to react.
>>  
>> If you believe this is important, join us! And contribute to a much needed change in stove testing and research.
>>  
>> Thanks!
>>  
>> Xavier
>> Xvr.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:Xvr.brandao at gmail.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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180125/ce210e7c/attachment.html>