<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Stovers and Stove proponents,<br>
<br>
First, I thank both Ron Larson and Crispin Pemberton-Pigott for
their spirited discussion (and mutual challenges to each other and
to all of us) about several key issues important to the GACC
objectives.<br>
<br>
If you have not read through the discussion below, I encourage you
to do so. The higher up you are in the leadership of GACC and
Standards for stoves, etc., the more important it is to read the
disagreements and where they agree.<br>
<br>
Basically, I and others would like to read some comments / replies
by leaders with authority and budgetary power about the various
issues raised . One of the many issues could be the degree to
which the leadership is supportive about the work in the trenches
about biomass stoves (or on LPG or LNG or electric stoves). The
GACC position about being "neutral about stove technology and
fuels" takes on different meaning when it becomes big business
(fossil fuels and big dams for electricity) vs. relatively
localized biomass fuel and corresponding stoves. <br>
<br>
There will continue to be a lot of "talk". And maybe only years
from now will we see that was actually being done in this decade
that is now half over.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
On 11/22/2014 3:03 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:COL401-EAS3934A85E49D1C554A46B54BB1750@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0mm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.xapple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:x_apple-tab-span;}
span.xfull-name
{mso-style-name:x_full-name;}
span.xp-name
{mso-style-name:x_p-name;}
span.xp-nickname
{mso-style-name:x_p-nickname;}
p.xe-entry-title, li.xe-entry-title, div.xe-entry-title
{mso-style-name:x_e-entry-title;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0mm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0mm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.xtco-hidden
{mso-style-name:x_tco-hidden;}
span.xtco-display
{mso-style-name:x_tco-display;}
span.xtco-ellipsis
{mso-style-name:x_tco-ellipsis;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear
Ron<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><span
style="color:#1F497D">></span></span>This is mostly
to ask for more data. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">OK<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">>>…</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">LPG is
the most expensive…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
class="apple-tab-span"> </span><b>[RWL1:
Nothing like this was stated or implied during the
webcast. Can you provide some cites?</b><br>
<br>
<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Cites
of what? Is anything contested about this? LPG is a
compressed gas sold at a pressure above 4 bars which
requires that all aspects of its containment and sale
(tanks, hoses etc) meet national or international
standards and in the case of tanks (all the large ones)
inspection every year by a qualified pressure vessel
inspector.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">South
Africa has 28 National standards dealing only with
LPG stoves and fuels and distribution equipment. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL1a: Anything there that should impact the
future of what this list should be discussing? Any
specific cite?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
don’t think so. If you want to go into LPG stoves and
fuel supply, bring money. It is not a game for the small
player. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Greenhouse
gases from charcoal making? Seriously? Is that
what caused the 0.001 degree rise in the average
global temperature over the past 18 years and one
month? We should perhaps recall that wood
literally grows on trees and is made of 90% CO2
(on a mass basis). Unharvested, unused wood rots
to methane. What is the comparative GHG number?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL3: a) Are you denying the Kirk Smith
claim on char-making providing a lot of (unnecessary)
GHGs? A cite?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
am not sure what you are after here. I know you to be
provocative so I will assume there is nothing behind
these questions. The fact is that Water vapour and CO2
and methane are GHG’s. Do you need a citation for
that?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> <span class="apple-tab-span">
</span>b) The .001 degree needs a cite. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
think you can look at the GISS temperature chart at
woodfortrees.org. I am sure you are aware of the issue
of the lack of an increase in the average global
temperature in the past 18 years. It has been talked
about since at least 2005. CO2 goes up, temperature
doesn’t. Why? James Hansen promised it would.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Focussing on 18 years air surface
temperature for only one of a dozen different energy
imbalance measures is not very helpful. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Well
let’s look at that. What do you mean by ‘helpful’? You
mean the inconvenient truth is that CO2 goes up (a
lot) and temperature doesn’t is ‘off message’? I am
not ‘focussing on 18 years’ I am stating a fact. The
global temperature trend, starting now and looking
back until the trend is non-zero, comes to 18 years
and one month. This is hardly controversial.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I see something almost every day
on 2014 likely having the highest global temperature
in the last 100-150 years. <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">And
why not? It is a fact – the temperature has been
rising at a rate of 0.6 degrees per century for about
200 years. The longest period without any rise has
been the last 18. This is likely to undermine the
value of stove program CO2 offset trading credits, do
you agree? The CO2 sensitivity is not what it was
assumed to be. I am sure you are aware that the
estimated temperature rise for a doubling of CO2
concentration was almost cut in half by the IPCC in
February this year. That cut the value of CO2 offsets
in half. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Focussing
on the ‘highest global temperatures in 150 years’ is
not helpful. The temperature 800 years ago was
significantly above what it is now. Focussing on the
resons why <i>would</i> by helpful.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>c) The issue about making char in the
field is mostly one of illegality - generally not
re-planting. Are you arguing that present char
production is sustainable on average?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Charcoal
production varies in sustainability from place to
place. Where is it illegal, generally speaking, it is
unsustainable. Where it is legal and regulated, like
South Africa, Swaziland, Rwanda and Haiti, it tends to
be sustainable. It used to be sustainable in Chad
before it was made illegal. Now it isn’t.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>d) Don’t understand your last question
on “comparative GHG number. Can you rephrase?</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">What
is it you don’t understand? See the comment above:
water vapour, CO2 and methane are GHG’s. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><br>
The old saw about 'fan stoves' was discussed here
a couple of days ago…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL4: I have heard this from more than Prof.
Smith. I don’t recall this topic “a couple of days
ago”. Anyone able to give a specific cite?</b><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Please
see the archive here on fan stoves being the only clean
way to burn biomass (Kirk says, and has said, for a
number of years).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>b) Being part of the “TLUD crowd”, I have to
remind you that being able to sell the produced char is
unique in the stove world. <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">There
is no need to remind me – I am on the look out for ways
to turn that into a viable business. As you probably
know I am not really a stoves person, but a
microenterprise entrepreneur having created something
like 15,000 work rural opportunities. I see selling
charcoal as a great business opportunity. I doubt that
it can be done by bringing wood to a city and making
charcoal and selling it back to a rural community – we
have discussed that before. I put numbers on it and
challenged you to provide alternatives which you did
not. It is unviable. It may however work by taking
agri-waste products and making something to sell. I
assume it will work for rural Indonesia where sugar
making (not cooking) is a major need for energy. In
particular candle nut shells are strong enough when
charred to ship a considerable distance.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Making money is more important than
saving money for many of us. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">That’s
possible. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Using the char as biochar rather
than selling it will make more sense for many (and is
now being done in several char-making stove programs.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
think you will have to show the business case for
biochar. Lloyd Helferty is working hard on that in
Ontario.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>You are perhaps saying that biomass for
stoves is in perpetual short supply. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
said nothing of the sort. The UNFCCC however has a
predisposition that a lot of biomass is ‘unsustainably
harvested’. This is not the case in Indonesia virtually
everywhere. There are rules for determining whether or
not harvesting is sustainable. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Not true if we start planting
instead of stealing feedstock. The world will be a much
better place with a big effort at reforestation. On can
have (must have) both increased stock and increased
flows.<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">This
is easily accomplished on paper and quite difficult to
achieve in practice in Africa. The issue is the
ownership of land. Otherwise known as land rights.
People will not protect land over which they have no
control and from which they derive benefit at no cost.
See “tragedy of the commons” in the UK.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>
</b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">>>The
improved stove sector is being taken over by the LPG and
electricity sector. It will involve massive, beyond
imagination loans to poor countries for infrastructure
and it hinges on saving a claimed 4+ million ‘premature
deaths' per year.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL6: This is key. This is the subject of my
next message. I am not yet ready to agree on “taken
over” <span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Well,
watch this space I guess. The ANSI team at the ISO
meeting fought very hard to prevent the name of the
Standard not to be changed from Clean Cookstoves and
Clean Cooking Solutions, harder on that than anything
else actually. Now we know why. They have a plan that
goes far beyond improving biomass stoves. At the
Guatemala meeting the issue of whether this was a
biomass stoves standard (which it was clear most people
thought they were working on) or ‘all domestic cooking
stoves and all energy supplies’. It was made perfectly
clear by ANSI that they wanted to had a new
international standard covering all cooking appliances,
including electric induction heaters, hot places, LPG
and so on. I am not sure they realised that there are
already hundreds of regulations on these appliances. It
cause quite a stir in the WG’s.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>or “behind imagination loans”. But
yes the rationale is all on saved lives. We on this
list have not been making the needed case for not
being “taken over.”<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
warned a few weeks ago that there were forces much
greater than the biomass stove interest group intent of
using the cooking stove vehicle for their own purposes.
I only received two (flippant) replies which may
indicate the incapacity of this group to affect the
future of their own ‘industry’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">>>How
much investment will be required per life saved? How
does this compare with other opportunities to save
lives? We will soon find out, I am sure. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span">
</span><b>[RWL7: I am not aware that anyone has made
this investment calculation. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If
they have not, that is shameful. How can you spend
hundreds of millions of $ without knowing what the
payback is? It is akin to spending that sort of money
using a test method that has never been reviewed to show
that it is telling us what we want to know. As you know,
this is particularly upsetting to me as I have had to
witness the waste of so much effort by so many people
who were sincere and expectant. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I guess that the sellers of LPG
should have little trouble finding the necessary funding
- not needed from GACC. Anyone know? <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
LPG vendors are not in a viable business situation
outside certain particular locations and scale of sales.
Outside that, they want subsidies. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>What I remember from the finance
part of the discussions was that funding would be
heading to stoves, not the ability to add more LPG. I
think LPG burners are quite inexpensive already - and
not much need for R&D. (True?)<span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">It
would be informative for anyone interested in LPG
rollouts to look at Egypt, South Africa and Indonesia.
There are very particular circumstances in which it
works without subsidy. For general use in a poor
population, it is out of the question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> The issue seems to be on cost and
assuredness of supply. But I need help here. Anyone an
expert on where the funding is apt to come from if LPG
is really a major goal of any country? <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">See
above. LPG’s ‘last mile’ is not only the problem of
getting a stove to the cook, it is the perpetual problem
of getting the full tank the last mile, again and again.
It is not legal to take an LPG cylinder in many forms of
public transport. The idea that this is a substitute for
improved wood stoves is misplaced.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The average wood-consuming stove
user is apparently apt to have more than one stove now.
Having and using a wood-version isn’t going to stop
even if LPG stoves are in 100% of all the world’s homes.
There is plenty of work for this list.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Well,
we hope so, but it would not do us any good to support
the meme that solid fuels are ‘inherently dirty’ and
that LPG is the final solution. It is contradicted by
the evidence. Why is this not known in the hallowed
halls of Berkeley? Are they not keeping up?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="apple-tab-span"><b>
</b></span><b>I am pretty sure that wood-consuming stove
proponents will fail if they imply that saving any of
the 4 Million lives is not worth the expense. <span
style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
haven’t heard anyone say the expense is unwarranted. The
question is, how much and how much benefit. One of the
strangest aspects of this argument in favour of
‘non-solid fuel solutions’ is the assumption that stove
emissions have to be vented into the room. In order to
improve indoor air quality – add a chimney! Good grief
why is this so difficult to imagine? There are only a
few places (very concentrated populations) where IAQ
would not be greatly improved by chimneys alone. One
does not need ‘a fan stove’ to dramatically reduce
exposure to indoor PM.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>I doubt many believe that a switch
to 100% LPG (or electricity) is going to happen in the
near term. There remain plenty of things on this list
to do.</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Agreed.
It will not happen soon because it would be a terrible
waste of money compared with the other benefits that
could be obtained for the same money spent on other
health things. Chimneys are not expensive. Is that the
problem? Too cheap? Too effective? Too easy?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">We
need a frank discussion about this. But not having
invited to the table, who will present these options?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Crispin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>