[Stoves] Project design and implementation I [Was Sujatha on Stove types and poverty]

[Sujatha Srinivasan]

Dear Stovers,



I submit some comments for discussion below - based on a few different
mails over the last few days.



·       “Project culture” as Nikhil calls it, is a good term. It
represents, as it should, more than just the stove. It represents how the
whole ecosystem comes together to ‘mitigate’ the interconnected challenges
of energy, economy, ecology. The stove alone cannot do it. The stove when
set in the right ‘project culture’ can do it. To be more specific, a “good”
stove set in a ‘good project culture’ can do it. A “good stove” in a ‘poor
project culture’ cannot do it. It may be possible that a ‘bad stove’ in a
‘great project culture’ to do it – in the short run. I guess I’m just
saying that in the final tally, the stove and the project culture have to
“fire well” together. Getting this alignment right can take several
iterations – with the learning curve for each project being unique. This is
where, I think, exists a lot of potential to bring in interventions that
can steer the learning curve on to a developmental ascent.


·       The “stove testing” and “project metrics”, I think represent the
“start” and “finish” – it is the project implementation that does the
actual journey. The actual journey is what is going to truly help the
sector. In most cases, large projects will declare the “start” and “finish”
with no visibility into the journey. That, perhaps, is also the inherent
nature of large projects to being “closed” to outsiders and more focused on
showing a justification for the project. But true interventions that can
have a meaningful impact on the metrics only during the journey –
particularly around synching the stove with a conducive ‘project culture’.
This is of course assuming that a reasonably good stove is chosen. In
reality, when project implementation starts in a given community, whatever
stove is given will be rated better than the baseline by the users. That is
the expected psychology. It is when there are periodic dipsticks to
calibrate the progress of the project culture, can we truly find the
‘moments of truth’ that will provide the ongoing diagnosis and therefore
scope for ‘treatment’ such that the project stays well to deliver on the
‘impact metrics’. This might open opportunities to “fold in” contributions
from others and create scope for meaningful conversations for funding.


·       I’m not quite understanding Nikhil’s statements regarding “full
price”. I think there is a “full price” for everything including a targeted
profitability. What one comes to know at the end of the month, is how well
the implementation has been managed within the budgets of the “full price”.

1.     The retail distribution model for cookstoves is a “different beast”
altogether. And not to be combined with ‘projects pricing’. The
manufacturer will have to figure out his pricing with the retailer and I
think it is a fairly straightforward play of negotiations, mostly dictated
by the retailer, who has no interest in anything to do with developing the
sector or contributing to global mandates. It’s a straight sale for him
driven purely by commercials with the market mechanism that will determine
how far a particular stove will go. I don’t know of much scope for bringing
in funders into this channel. Neither the need for it. The retailer himself
will do the funding if he sees a market for it, by advancing credits and
installments.

2.     But for the project pricing, a ‘full price’ is definitely possible
and in fact represents the price that the user has to pay for the stove and
the supporting eco-system around it. This is a bundled price that is locked
upfront by the funder and the project implementor. Project pricing, when
broken down into meaningful components, can create scope for bringing in
funding, if the right proposal is built around it.

·       ‘Subsidies’, often used with varying interpretations, certainly has
a role to play in a sector as challenging as this. Strictly speaking,
carbon subsidy, is not a subsidy at all, as the funders gets their money
back over a few years, subject to the project’s implementation keeping its
end of the bargain. I prefer the term “patient capital” rather than
subsidy. Sustainable development can only happen only when the funding that
comes in has an ‘exit route’. This also sets the base for a healthy
‘economic attitude’ even among the users. Only when the users have some
skin in the game, will they start to think of ‘higher order’ mission like
deforestation, energy conservation etc. The objective should be to
kickstart the “project” with patient capital – and nurture it to a point
where it morphs into a market driven model. “Patient capital” allows any
investor to invest in challenging sectors, setting the expectation that his
capital will be returned but with a longer lock-in (hence patient). If
projects are able to show an ROI – ALONG with progress around a gradual
ladder of metrics on “socio-economic-health” impact, there might be more
dynamism in fund flow into the sector.

·       To Tom’s question 2 questions : The beneficiaries in the Deganga
project have basically 2 options : To sell the stove-char to the project
(for which they get some payment).. Or Not. (in which case they have the
choices of using it to cook, but don’t do it, because their cuisine isn’t
one that is charcoal based cooking or use as biochar which may fetch very
little pay or sell to others for higher pay than what the project offers).  I
do not have information on what percentage of the beneficiaries sell their
char into the project and whether this percentage has changed. To Tom’s
second question, this stove char payment might hold a big part of the
answer to “why people continue using the stove”. I would imagine that even
if they get access to LPG, they might continue to use the TLUD (for the
extra income it fetches) but perhaps step it down to a secondary stove. But
I only have hypothetical answers.

·       To Dr. Paul’s and Nikhil’s messages on “big picture” and “nailing
down demographics” – my only worry is that this could end up creating a lot
of “maya”. What I think will take the discussions closer to the goalpost of
actionability is to study and identify ‘best practices’ that can be helpful
to technology integrators – and perhaps provide a roadmap for funders,
implementation folks and perhaps also as a visible barometer for the
outside world to get a sense of “how the project is steering itself through
its learning curve and what support it needs that was not envisaged at the
start”.

·       I did see some messages on QA policy and “conflict of interest” –
but didn’t have the time to explore if these are relevant to the stove
testing or also to project implementation protocols.

·       Phew! I wrote too much: If I were to summarize, I’d say,

1.     Should we look at “stove within the project culture” rather than
Stove alone?

2.     Should we look at each project culture as unique. Without comparing
it too much to a “global overall” or “global ideal”? Comparisons add flavor
and shades of understanding perhaps, and can be interesting and “good to
know” – but may not have real contributions for actionability to the
project – unless presented in the form of “best practices” which also, can
at best become some guideposts for the project culture. But can also become
the “milestones” against which the outside world can participate in the
project journey.

3.     Should we think of creating a “ladder of impact” that a cookstove
project is reasonably expected to deliver on – say in year 1, year 1.5,
year 2 etc? This, I feel, will set a more realistic dashboard for
evaluating projects, not just for the project stakeholders – but also to
the outside world of potential contributors. Thereby opening avenues for
seeking focused funding, grants, subsidy, patient capital or CSR? Although
these terms mean the same thing for the project (bringing in money), in
reality, these are very different pools of funds with totally different
players with minds and priorities of their own. But creating that “ladder
and mile stone approach” might make it easier for them to ‘pick and choose’
how to fund a certain project knowing that it is backed by an “authentic
ask”.

4.     A dashboard such as the above – might be a good “gift” that this
forum can present the cookstove influencers with? Such as GACC, WB,UNFCC… :)



Thank you!

Kind Regards

Sujatha


On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 4:03 AM, Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sujatha:
>
> Thank you, thank you.. a dozen times. There are gems of observations here
> on "the project culture," independent of the Deganga project or technology.
> It works well with bankable investment projects, but not with retail goods
> promotion. Technologists think governments are like Walmart or Safeway.
>
> From my reading of cookstove project implementation literature over the
> years, what you have written is refreshing, in some places unprecedented,
> and extremely well-written. Better than anything I have.
>
> But then you know project and people realities on-the-ground AND
> understand the processes of intellectuals and bureaucrats. Not just
> mindsets, I mean the processes that make intellectuals and bureaucrats
> think and behave as they do; their incentives and predilections.
>
> Ok, praise enough.
>
> There is one opinion of yours I am not happy with - not that I disagree -
> and have struggled with - Users paying "full price" for the stove:
>
> First, the term "full price" is vague. When it comes to portable
> cookstove, the manufacturer and the distributor have costs that are
> unknowable and even for them,  unpredictable or difficult to allocate,
> e.g., inventory, financing, logistics. If there is just one type and model
> of a stove, you can be pretty much sure that no usual retailer would be
> terribly interested in it. This is as much true of solar home systems and
> solar lanterns as of stoves. What the final seller decides as the price at
> which the product moves is the "full price", it may or may not be what the
> manufacturer or distributor deem to be a "profitable price". The usual
> rules of thumb about "distribution margins" or "overheads" apply in setting
> a price, but not only does marketing require changing the production and
> shipping schedule as needed, prices also have to change in order to make
> space, introduce newer products. Profitability is something one knows at
> the end of the month or the quarter, except for the very small daily trader
> who only counts cash in the morning and night.
>
> Second, I believe in "subsidies" or "discounting". If as a government I
> cannot subsidize, in some way or another, I don't think I should be in the
> business of blabbering about public policy objectives of saving forests,
> climate, women, or producing aDALYs. Otherwise it is a waste on pompous
> theorizing and fictitious evidence. I don't care for physicists and
> sociologists preaching "no subsidies". There are problems with poorly
> designed subsidies, but "make work" welfare programs for EPA and its
> contractors is as much public expenditure as any subsidies to stove
> manufacturers or fuel suppliers.
>
> Now, research and conferences too have their legitimate purpose - if
> linked to a workable plan. GACC, I am half-willing to grant, had a genuine
> intent, but other than that "issue international standards, and Hillary
> would bring billions", it didn't seem to have a workable plan, just
> fantasies.
>
> Even that I am more than prepared to ignore, having been a marketer of
> such fancies in the past (including on LPG, "advanced biomass stoves", in
> the name of millions dead and climate change). I was excited when Hillary
> became the Secretary of State and John Holdren the science advisor to Obama
> that "cleaner cooking" could get some mileage. The $100+ million of US
> government could have gone for productive research.
>
> So the question I have been grappling with is, HOW to subsidize, not
> WHETHER.
>
> I don't have an answer but have two hunches:
>
> a) Small grants (up to $500k) can subsidize individual stove types for
> small projects, and should, risking the results would not be as promised.
> What alone matters is usability and use. If a stove is not used, all its
> promises remain in Amazon cloud. Such small grants, if competitive, can
> introduce multiple stoves in a given marketshed, but even a single type, if
> market-tested on an even small basis like the Deganga project, is ok. The
> transaction costs are high, but the more important issue is getting the
> right performance metrics. I for one don't give a hoot for the efficiency
> of boiling water, nor for emission rates per minute or per MJd. If the
> efficiency is acceptable to the user, that is enough. It is only when
> efficiency drives the price of commercial wood or charcoal down - because
> the demand falls, depending on price elasticity of supply - that the stove
> program can be said to have made any difference. Similarly, it is only when
> a low-emission stove has actually led to improvement in indoor and outdoor
> air qualities that its emission rates are relevant, if at all. (Utilization
> rate and stacking are important.) Such small grants - covering not just
> working capital but what we call technological and financial
> intermediation, expert assistance in the microscopic details of getting
> pro-poor businesses the technical knowledge of combustion and cooking, and
> getting loans from local banks - are absolutely vital to prove that a new
> retail product begins to "sell itself".
>
> b) In many instances, fuel quality for solid fuels - primary or processed
> - should be ascertained for every novel stove (cooking or heating), and it
> may make sense to advance similar small grants to fuel enterprises or
> combined fuel/stove enterprises. The rebuttable presumption that meals,
> fuels and cooks are contextual, vary from one place to another and over
> time, must be applied in designing the scope of these grants. I happen to
> believe, with Dr Karve for instance, that there is a vast organic waste
> resource that can be turned into charcoal. (Similarly for waste oils into
> liquid combustibles, but I don't know enough.) This kind of
> waste-fuel-stove triple-objective strategy is inherent in char-making
> cookstoves except that the wastes under consideration are tree wastes.
> Larger enterprises could have greater variety and quantity of tree and crop
> wastes, and even wastes from food processing, and can use the pyrolytic
> gases and char themselves and sell food products and char (if extra). Let's
> not forget that huge shares of primary food production is wasted; properly
> collected, it too can be a fuel source, including for biogas and power
> generation. I am not suggesting that only those stoves that use processed
> solid fuels be financed, just that incorporating feedstocks into the
> calculus helps take advantage of synergies and cost reduction potentials,
> while avoiding some risks. (The famous BP case of selling household Oorja
> on pellet fuels but losing the market as brick kilns started paying more
> for the crop and mill wastes.)
>
>
> I am also thinking that such "small grants" have to be i) programmatic, so
> as to allow enough learning, feedback, and careful expansion for more
> stakeholders, greater diversity of stoves and fuels, and ii) aggregated so
> that a common pool of technical or rather "merchant banking" (knowledge
> plus money, in various financial instruments) can be applied across the
> board.
>
> GACC had quite a few good ideas along such "business support" lines. But
> it went gung-ho on the red herrings of international standards and "truly
> health protective" emission rates.
>
> The monster of "solid fuels are dirty" and "emissions are hazardous" must
> be slain as soon as possible. EPA/WHO have taken one step forward, three
> backwards. All to do marketing for the rich (oil companies or professors).
>
>
> Nikhil
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nikhil Desai
> (US +1) 202 568 5831
> *Skype: nikhildesai888*
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Sujatha Srinivasan <sujatha at servals.in>
> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>> 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       Skype:   paultlud
>>>
>>> Phone:  Office: 309-452-7072    Mobile: 309-531-4434
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Nikhil Desai <pienergy2008 at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:15 PM
>>> *To:* Anderson, Paul <psanders at ilstu.edu>
>>> *Cc:* Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <
>>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <
>>> crispinpigott at outlook.com>; Sujoy Chaudhury <sujoy.chaudhury at gmail.com>;
>>> Sujatha Srinivasan <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>
>>> 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       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/20180731/92116bea/attachment.html>