[Stoves] Must reed: Re: [stove] ProPublica article out

Xavier Brandao xav.brandao at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 07:19:28 CDT 2018


Dear Crispin,

 

Ego might be the main issue of the human species.

The same inputs lead to the same outputs.

 

I disagree with Paul: the stove sector doesn’t need to work harder. We worked hard enough. The sector needs to work smarter. Disruptive technology is needed, but before that, there’s a need for disruptive thinking.

 

Best,


Xavier

 

 

De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] De la part de Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Envoyé : vendredi 13 juillet 2018 13:42
À : Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
Objet : Re: [Stoves] Must reed: Re: [stove] ProPublica article out

 

Dear Xavier

 

Good to hear from you as always.

 

Your summation on global failure (compared with hoped-for results) can be repeated by looking from another angle:

 

My view is that the main influencers, be they individuals or institutions, display monomaniacalism resulting in not only the failure to achieve their touted goals, but also causing others to fail where they might have succeeded.

 

Monomania means fanatically going after one thing. 

 

We see:

-          TLUD as a method of burning promoted because it burns that way (gasificationism)

-          Char making for non-cooking purposes, i.e. to save the planet

-          Rocket Stove dimensionalism where ratios are held sacred, more than function

-          Numerous, spurious health claims, vague attributions and unbelievable causal assertions (ameliorism)

-          Fuel efficiency preferred over function (thermalism)

-          LP Gas promotion in a sector dominated by carbon-neutral fuels (unilinealism)

-          Speculative fund-raising by imputing health benefits based on wonky methods and models (shamanism)

-          Unapologetic insistence on the use of the WBT, an unpublished, unreviewed test method known to have numerous problems with no skill in forecasting performance in use (desperately trying not to have been wrong or careless)

-          Using a single fuel with a single moisture content as the ‘standard’ with which to rate absolute or comparative performance (uniformitarianism)

-          Selling cooking stoves as a solution to deforestation

-          Selling cooking stoves as a solution to general air pollution

-          Selling cooking stoves as a solution to family health problems

-          Selling cooking stoves as a solution to IAP

-          Selling cooking stoves as a solution to sexual violence in refugee camps

-          Selling cooking stoves as a solution to drudgery and time inefficiency

 

One begins to ask, “Is there anything a cooking stove cannot solve?”  An observer might legitimately ask, “If improved cooking stoves are capable of solving so many problems, why don’t we see more people buying and using them?”

 

Looking at Darfur, we can learn a thing or two because they have had the most interventions. Some homes have been given no less than 10 “improved stoves” by competing agencies (I refer, of course, to the Stoves Wars of Darfur.)  So what gets used? What do women and cooks prefer if you watch them, interview and ask? 

 

Two stoves are popular: One is the all-mud stove developed locally by Practical Action, because it holds the pot properly and cooks using a variety of available biomass materials. The other is the Darfur stove from Berkeley, which when turned upside down makes a good platform for cooking the main type of pancake, which the mud stove does not. Turned the right way up, the all-metal Darfur stove makes a passable charcoal burner though it is not very fuel-efficient as it was designed to burn wood. Charcoal is a preferred fuel because, according to the cooks, “It is cheaper to buy than wood.” Cecil Cook found the same thing in the suburbs of Maputo. Thermal energy from wood was not a good offer, and Shangalane, the hard, expensive charcoal, was by far the best deal in terms of energy delivered per $. 

 

What are the cooks monomaniacally interested in? How well do the proffered “solutions” match the preferences and inclinations of the cooks? 

 

At a minimum, we can say there seems to be a mismatch between what cooks want and do, and how stoves are imagined and manufactured. 

 

Knowing how to burn is not the same as knowing how to cook. (In my case it is the same thing – burning.) Cecil the Cook attended the blowtorch school of cuisine. That requires a skillset I don’t have. When it comes to deep-fried dinner, I will support my local diner.

 

Regards

Crisp’n’delicious 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180713/59c8db56/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list