[Stoves] Stove types and poverty [Was Rogerio: Pro-publicaarticle out]

[Anderson, Paul]

Tom and Sujatha,

I accept to use Sujatha’s number of at least 31,000 TLUD stoves in West Bengal.  (There are a few thousands in the state of Assam also.)

The households (HH) with those stoves have the following situation:

1.  The buyback of the charcoal is financially separate from the rest of the project, that is, it is not with any subsidy (except that there is competent management oversight that is maybe partially subsidized (paid for) by the overall project.)   So that should be able to continue even after carbon credit money stops for the project.

2.  Household purchase their own fuel, with a savings equal to 2.5 times the factory price of the stoves (or maybe 1.5 times the retail price of a stove in the future).  Although the willingness of HH to purchase a replacement stove is an open question that is not yet necessary and not yet tested, the overall financial benefits on fuel savings suggest that they could do so.

3.  The project includes a per-stove per year payment of about US$10 for support services that include stove maintenance that fixes stoves or replaces them at no cost or low cost to the HH.  This is important for the project because if HHs are dropping out of the stove usage, the number of stoves getting carbon credit (CC) support is reduced.   So, every stove counts and is maintained in use.

4.  The remaining CC funds are used to repay lenders or for project expansion or for costs to have CC verifications conducted.   So when CC stops, those expense stop, and except for #2 above, the project can continue as currently operational.

5.  Questions are:  Is it worth $10 / stove / year for the support?   And are there other sources for such funding?  And what could be changed?
Possible Responses are:
A.  Maintenance on the stoves could be charged on an as-needed basis?
B.  Or a form of “stove insurance” could be charged to those who voluntarily sign up for continued maintenance and perhaps a new TLUD stove every 5 years?
C.  Or a government that recognizes the advantages of use of such stoves might provide some assistance to the stove-support program, perhaps for  $5 per year?
D.  Or just maybe the wealthy populations (people, companies, nations) that continue with problems of reducing their CO2 emissions might just realize the advantages of keeping these TLUD stoves in operation and decide to continue some form of CC assistance?
E.  Or combinations of above or inclusion of other possible responses.

Summary:  I think there will be solutions for when these problems arise when CC is turned off.   Meanwhile, the real struggle is to get the stoves into use in the first place.   And that is where I spend my time.

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

From: Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org> On Behalf Of tmiles at trmiles.com
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 10:14 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass cooking stoves' <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove types and poverty [Was Rogerio: Pro-publicaarticle out]

Sujatha,

Thank you for your very interesting and helpful perspective. Your view is an aspect of monitoring and evaluation that we don’t often hear from these programs.

When payments for carbon end it seem to me that the 31,000 TLUD owners have various options. If the stoves are still serviceable they can: burn the char for cooking; use the char as biochar; sell the char to others for cooking or for biochar; or, abandon the TLUD and use another device. Their choices will depend on individual circumstances but, if incentives to use LPG or gas were not available, would you expect a large number to continue to use the TLUD? Who would continue to use the TLUD and who would move to other stoves?

Many thanks

Tom
Stoves List Owner

From: Stoves <stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>> On Behalf Of Sujatha Srinivasan
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 11:10 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
Cc: ndesai at alum.mit.edu<mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove types and poverty [Was Rogerio: Pro-publicaarticle out]

Dear members of the group,

Greetings. I speak here now, because I was “asked” along with Sujay on the cc by Nikhil.:)) Please know that although silent mostly, my team and I read most of the messages, and also take the liberty to “pass along” what we believe is relevant to the people in our cookstove eco-system. So thank you for your discussions.

I have the following points to ‘contribute’ to the discussion, based on what I am understanding from the email thread. But before that, a quick ‘setting of expectations’ - I do not have direct access to “primary data” from the Deganga project. My responses are based on the data submitted to me in my role as the “attester” for the project.  31,000 TLUDs is what has been submitted to me as the number of stoves deployed. Not 40,000.


•       I think there are many things that made the TLUD “click” in the Deganga project – and at this point, in my opinion, none can be singled out as “key”. Unless someone funds a scientifically designed field research and does a “regression analysis” on the “satisfaction levels with the stove”. Until then, it can be a debate of perspectives – with some saying that it is only because of the stove, with some saying its only because of the carbon funding, with some saying its only because of the stove-char market which puts money in the hands of the household.

o   Unless there is a project where users are paying the full price for the stove, it would be difficult to assess what really drives the “favoring of the TLUD stove” or any stove for that matter. In any project for that matter.

o   I also think that the “key drivers of purchase” for any stove – will change with scale and duration of the project. Since user expectations are a moving target… so the results of any study that attempts to understand factors that “favour the stove” from users, in my opinion, may be more interesting for the “direct project stakeholders” as an input to manage user expectations or to establish that the “right” stove was chosen. But such studies could also run the risk of spotlighting one part of the solution and trying to extrapolate based on that.

•       Testing of stoves, the way it is discussed in the groups, seems largely focused on “first time testing till a stove model is chosen for a project”.

o   Once the choice is made, the commercials are locked and in a way “closes” out adding further improvements to the stove or closes out debates on how the stove was tested and how good the testing was.

o   It would be equally important to have a set of guidelines to ensure that the production practices of the vendors support consistency in quality to the stove submitted for testing. Who does this verification? And how robust is it? Is it largely left to the governance systems of the funder or the business ethics of the vendor or the “market’s ability to observe and escalate?

o   Large projects do not always think like how Dr. Paul Anderson thinks, when he wrote – “If I were to conduct or have a hand in such testing, the results could be questioned.”. They should be.

•       To Nikhil’s references on procurement and bureaucracy, particularly for large projects, it is inherently in the nature of such large projects to have a stronger business/commercial angle to it, that might have the fall-out of creating entry barriers and tentative information sharing, for other potential contributors – whether in terms of technology or financial solutions. In most cases, most of the “non-product” process are set up fairly rigidly, at the outset, dictated by project feasibility (not exactly wrong either). The net effect, in my opinion being, a large project that has higher potential to benefit the deserving, can get “closed” to positive contributions from others.

•       Which, as I see it realistically, perhaps opens up opportunities to attract “specific” funding rather than just scale funding

o   I would think that the best way to attract funding for such large scale projects – is to bring forward proposals that represent positive contributions to the project – but are not covered in the original commercials.  For instance - adding technical improvements to the stove or improving the stove eco-system based on scale to sustain stove usage.

o   But then a reasonable hypothesis would be that this will again come back to the inherent nature of large projects to being bureaucratic and “closed” to such lateral entries.

o   In fact, it might actually require a high level of maturity by the project stakeholders to open the project up for others to be able to identify such niches – which means opening up the project to field studies by others.

Thank you for the “space” to make my comments. I’m sure these are not entirely new to you.

Kind Regards
Sujatha


On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
Nikhil,

Directly answering your questions:

1.  No.   I do not have funds for stove testing for TLUD stoves.

2.  Surprise response:   For MY work, I am not seeking funding for testing of TLUD stoves.   Not small grants, not large grants.     That is not utilizing my strengths.   And If I were to conduct or have a hand in such testing, the results could be questioned.

So, AN OFFER.    Anyone who has the funds and ability to test the TLUD stoves as they are being so successfully in use in West Bengal will have my full support and assistance to facilitate the necessary arrangements.   I can be an adviser, or left off of the list.

Yes, such testing needs to be done.   But my work is on expanding what is being continually shown to be working well with TLUD stoves in West Bengal.   (Funding would greatly help.)

Paul

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434

From: Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com<mailto:pienergy2008 at gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:15 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>>
Cc: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at outlook.com<mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>>; Sujoy Chaudhury <sujoy.chaudhury at gmail.com<mailto:sujoy.chaudhury at gmail.com>>; Sujatha Srinivasan <sujatha at servals.in<mailto:sujatha at servals.in>>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Stove types and poverty [Was Rogerio: Pro-publicaarticle out]

Paul:

Do you have the money to conduct in-field research on TLUD gasifiers' emission rates and the impact on indoor air concentrations as well as associated (caused or not) changes in disease incidence by age and sex?

Say, for about three locations varying in biomass fuel types and quality, cooking practices, and weather/season conditions, with or without chimneys?

If so, someone can propose to use HAPIT for two weeks at a time, six month intervals over three years, and certify aDALYs that you can then market at the rate of three times the per capita income.

This would take about two person-years of US/EU-level consulting, and 20 person-years of India/Mexico-level consulting, plus travel and expenses, at about $1.2 million. There has to be at least one "international" investigator with enough say-so to publish in Lancet or Science, or some Elsevier journal.

If you have $10 m, you will likely get results favorable to you, or at least not disfavorable to you.

Or you could take Kirk Smith's mania for what it is - nothing.

I just wrote an off-list response where you were cc'd. Kirk Smith's faith in "Mind the Gap" is unwarranted, simply because the supposed "non-linearity of exposure-response at the lower levels of exposures" is not based on any relevant data. It borrows spotty - and disputed - literature on active and passive smoking, outdoor air pollution, for radically different cohorts over radically different air quality situations. It assumes that everybody has the same confounding factors - health conditions, genetic stock, access to and availability of health care and medicine - everywhere in the world and any time, independent of the duration of the exposure.

You can ignore the deceit that is in computations of premature deaths and DALYs. What matters for HAPIT is simply the change in PM2.5 concentrations, the assumptions behind which are unfounded and ludicrous, to say the least.

I had a short critique of HAPIT last October, and sent it to Gold Standard, GACC (Sumi) and Kirk Smith, Ajay Pillarisetti. I posted a summary on this list. You may get the full critique from them;

It is not just a critique of HAPIT; implicitly it is an attempt to deconstruct the whole ideology of "emission rates are damages".

Now, back to what should be done differently.

1. Junk the notion of "safe" emission rates. What matters for "health" is significant reduction in the dosage of pollutants implicated in disease causation chain. Prof. Smith can go on ad absurdum about "associations" of this and that with PM2.5 levels, but, apart from blind faith in "the Gap" and IER, he has no business making any judgments about relative emission rates. (That is, I am willing to accept the absolutes - gas and electricity cause lower emissions and that unprocessed solid fuels may cause more. It is relative to what and with what impact on dosages, and which pollutants - including those from food itself - that matters, and even then only in part. There are few mass deaths due to dirty indoor air - 9/11 World Trade Towers and Pentagon is one example, Montepeuz prison is another.)

2. Junk ISO circus, and in particular the PM2.5 emission rate tiers, and the WHO "Guidelines for HFC". WHO has no business in energy and environmental policy, pretense and over-reach to the contrary, and knows little of air quality management, food culture, or economics. On your own, investigate a little about chemistry of local fuels and composition of PICs in your TLUD stoves other than CO. If high-temperature pyrolysis has virtually eliminated NMVOCs, relax. If there are still some that lead to indoor concentrations that are uncomfortable to the user, see whether any behavioral change is needed. Or use a chimney and check if it makes outdoor air quality worse than the national standard for hourly maximum or daily average and if so, for how much time.

3. My three questions were:
i) What does a very poor household want in an improved stove - reliable fuel efficiency or low smoke, or, often, nothing, because the head of the household wants to fix a window or throw a party?;
ii) What is "good enough" in the sense of "marketable, usable" for not-so-poor households and what all determine the overall economy of cooking - not just costs of competing stoves and fuels but availability and cost of water or food ingredients;
iii) Are there "cooking systems" options that actually help alleviate poverty in terms of freeing up cash savings or time?

I think - based on what I have read of the West Bengal project - I am cc'ing Sujatha and Sujoy, if they wish to add - that these three went in the favor of your Champion TLUD stove.

This brings me to your questions:

A. It seems good enough to get some support for some further scale up. No doubt. Public procurement rules go against "sole source" contracting, but if Shell Foundation or even UN Foundation have a window of "small projects" - the way UNDP/GEF had years ago ($200-500k, I think), that would be the best bet for you or your project partners. Bankability is the test. I suggest putting together a business plan and prospectus for a $2m funding for a total project cost of $5-10 m (including the cost of the stoves, paid for by the users by and large except for initial discount or credit.)

C. Bureaucracies run on prods and fads, and have different thresholds of commitments for money and time, and different processes of justification. DfID dumped some 40 million pounds in India, Kenya, and GACC to get -- don't know what; the project documents promised the sky, nighttime and daytime, because some bureaucrat (could have been a friend of mine; I don't know) chose to go ga ga over GACC and its misadventures. US government blew $100+ million (I have a table in a draft post) on "clean cookstoves" but mostly via USAID, USEPA, USDOE, NIH, and CDC. Its output is peer-reviewed papers and ISO song-and-dance.

I cautioned readers of this list two years ago that WHO/ISO meant to drive clean solid fuel stoves out of the market by definition and by regulation. And that GACC had no legal existence, hence no accountability.

Does anybody still doubt me?


Nikhil
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>> wrote:
Nikhil,

You wrote:
>>. I am still looking for a formulation of the problem, definition of a market, and the delivery >>chain for usable stoves and fuels, at an appreciable scale.

Are you saying that the West Bengal success story (Deganga report with 11,000, and now expanded to about 40,000), plus what I have been formulating, defining and with delivery chain is:
A.   Not good enough to get some support for some further scale up?  Or
B.   Is not known by you?   (as if you and others are not even aware of the progress and methods that are functional thus far on a break-even and even net financial gain  basis.)  Or
C.   Something else????

What should be done differently?    Or abandon because it is not sufficient?

I cannot get Kirk Smith to publicly comment specifically on the TLUD gasifiers.  So you are in good company as those who cannot see any success worthy of acknowledging with biomass-fueled stove.

Paul     (still with multiple avenues for moving forward.)

Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP
Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu<mailto:psanders at ilstu.edu>       Skype:   paultlud
Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20180729/e32bbde8/attachment.html>