[Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT
Anh Nguyen
ntanh72 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 26 00:26:23 CST 2018
So now by removing all char, would it be miss-leading too, in another
direction?
Also, by removing all char produced, it will obviously devalue all char
making stoves, although the original intention might not be anti
char-making stoves, the result is clearly unfavorable.
Anh
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:55 PM, plloyd at mweb.co.za <plloyd at mweb.co.za>
wrote:
> None of this addresses the documented failures of the WBT. However, it is
> true other protocols do not consider charcoal. WG2 was supposed to develop
> measures of "usable char" and failed to do so. Instead it assumes all char
> is usable, which is misleading. Philip
>
> Sent from my Huawei Mobile
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] A call to stop using the WBT
> From: "Ronal W. Larson"
> To: Discussion of biomass ,Xavier Brandao
> CC:
>
>
> 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
>
> [*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
> <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> 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> 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> 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> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180126/a335b807/attachment.html>
More information about the Stoves
mailing list