<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Ron,<br>
<br>
Thanks a lot for your kind message.<br>
<br>
I am not sure I did that much for stoves, but I may be a bit more
vocal than other practitioners. I am not COO of Prakti anymore, I
am back in Paris and will be located there, but I'll work with
them on a regular basis. I know a lot of other people that are
doing a lot of work on stoves, among them my colleagues at Prakti,
but they are not as talkative and demonstrative.<br>
<br>
In France, I am far from being the only person: GERES has been
working with stoves for much longer than me, and they are doing
great job. A few other French NGOs, like Entrepreneurs du Monde,
have great experience with stoves.<br>
I am also not active at all in the ISO TC 285 discussion, I was
only present at the Hague in February 2012, I am merely following
the progress.<br>
<br>
<i>"Xavier - anything new on this char-making front at Prakti in
the last 3 years?"<br>
</i>Prakti is very attentive to the development in the TLUD front,
but has decided for now to focus on woodstoves, given the huge
market<i> </i>in India<i>.</i><i><br>
<br>
</i>For the 30 million USD study on LPG: it is an okay number if
there was 200 million dedicated to stove R&D. It is not the
case. The improved cookstove research has to survive with very
little.<br>
There was the 10 million USD DOE grant, there is the PIF grant
from the GACC.<br>
<br>
Can someone tell how much funding has been allocated to improved
cookstove R&D these last 10 years?<br>
I am sure it is much less than 30 million.<br>
This is the problem. We assess and measure rather than do, rather
than improve.<br>
<br>
I think this list is indeed the perfect opportunity to have people
from different backgrounds interacting.<br>
The role, the duty of science, that is indeed an interesting
question. Everyone needs science. I like the fact that science can
operate without being influenced by the politicians or deciders
agenda. But I also tend to think that science should serve the
practical goal to create a better world, hence its outputs,
whether from basic or applied science, should be useful for
practitioners.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Xavier<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12/15/16 06:06, Ronal W. Larson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8252B963-03E4-4CC2-8C38-9C6F19D74DCB@comcast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="">Xavier, cc list</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.
Thanks for taking the time to enter this foray. Below I make
four points about your following email (and a few earlier
others)</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>a.
We seldom hear from those active in marketing stoves - and you
have an exemplary background. I hope others with your
background will join you here. Thanks for your support of this
list. In googling I found that you were a member of the ISO
group - so thanks also for taking on that responsibility.</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>b.
I urge listening to Xavier in a webinar from 2013. </div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>c.
To learn more about you I reviewed a few months of this list
archives - and want to justify the $30 million number for a
study on the value of an LPG stove intervention (that you
questioned).</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>d.
I have transferred most of my stove time over to biochar, and
appreciate that you are open to char-making stoves and biochar.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2
(a). I urge looking more closely at Xavier’s company: Prakti.
See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.praktidesign.com/staff/xavier-brandao/"
class="">http://www.praktidesign.com/staff/xavier-brandao/</a> .
It seems that GACC might be directly responsible for this
company’s formation.</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>In
my googling, I found Xavier is the only representative from
France on the important ISO activity: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/6-1.pdf"
class="">https://cleancookstoves.org/binary-data/DOCUMENT/file/000/000/6-1.pdf</a></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Because
I have moved from (the charcoal-making side of) stoves to the
biochar area (with a sister discussion group - also managed by
Tom Miles; see my last paragraphs), I am much less involved with
stoves (and this list) than I used to be. So this is to thank
the many dozens of people who have been involved with this stove
measurement and characterization effort. I listened to a
progress report last week - and it seems they are getting near
done. Not sure, but I think considerable thanks should also go
to GACC here.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3
(b). i) The websites where you can hear Xavier and see his
slides are: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Q&A_Webinar_7Mar2013.pdf"
class="">http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Q&A_Webinar_7Mar2013.pdf</a></div>
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March%207_2013/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March%207_2013.html"
class="">http://www.pciaonline.org/files/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March%207_2013/Institutional_Stoves_Webinar_March%207_2013.html</a></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I
raise this only in part in connection with Xavier. This is a
wonderful series of webinars - approximately every other month,
organized by John Mitchell of EPA and Elisa Derby of Winrock.
Elisa is also chair of next month’s ETHOS conference. I
recommend this as a first rate gathering of people like Xavier.
I believe John and some from GACC will be there. I will try to
give a daily report on this - as I have in the past; but that
is a poor substitute for being there. I expect at least half
the dialog will be on TLUDs.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ii)
The last question in the webinar was: <i class="">Q16: How
are char-making and solar institutional stoves being used? </i></div>
<div class=""><i class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>A16:
[Xavier] We do not manufacture these type of stoves, but would
be curious to hear more about that. Remember that
user-acceptance is the key to the diffusion of any
technology. </i></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="font-style: italic; white-space: pre;"> </span>RWL:
Xavier - anything new on this char-making front at Prakti in
the last 3 years? Last month, I saw a nice looking TLUD to be
introduced soon by Envirofit. (I also heard of a study with
volunteers paid by Colorado State University to inhale stove
smoke - plenty of medical precautions!) Dean Still at Aprovecho
seems to have switched a lot of his attention to TLUDs. I
visited Peter Scott at Burn Labs last year as they disected and
discussed the Mimi Moto (see <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mimimoto.nl" class="">http://www.mimimoto.nl</a>.
For one of the few stove WBT (water boiling test) reports I
have seen, see <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mimimoto.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mimi_Moto_IWA-Tiers-of-Performance-WBT-4.2.3-Report-REV.A.pdf"
class="">http://www.mimimoto.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mimi_Moto_IWA-Tiers-of-Performance-WBT-4.2.3-Report-REV.A.pdf</a> .
In my mind these tests are well done and valuable in promoting
advancement of all stove technologies. Does anyone have other
stove test reports they can share?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>iii)
answer from (third fellow panelist) Fred Colgan of Instove</div>
<div class="">[Fred] <i class="">I’ve seen few solar stoves in
use in any form – household or institutional. I agree with
Xavier on the point of user acceptance.</i></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>RWL:
I bring this in because I have a response in preparation to
Dieter Seifert on solar cookers (hoping we can see ways to
better tie them to char-making). Here only to say I have seen
some very nice work with (a friend) Dr. Salih Hamadto’s use of
Scheffler concentrators in Sudan for institutional cookers -
see <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Energy_Enterprises_Company"
class="">http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_Energy_Enterprises_Company</a></div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My
point here is that there is a need to couple stove technologies.
Solar cookers/heaters could be highly desirable where biomass
is in short supply - and solar cookers/heaters always need
backup. Having charcoal making stoves will help increase the
supply of biomass.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">4 (c) Re the $30+million study on LPG (which you
wrote about recently): This does seem outrageous - but reading
up on the recent Lancet paper and the work from the Berkeley
folks (Michael Johnson et al) - many of the costs are in the
staff needed to follow the weekly results. We are talking 4
countries and 3 years; per year and country, we are down to $3
million each. The hardware costs are probably a small part of
the study. Assuming 300 households (could be more), we are down
to $10k/household-yr - and probably most of that spent in the
US. To make any sense out of the data, there will have to be
detailed knowledge not only of the stove emissions, but also of
the room into which they are emitted - and all the other stoves
nearby - and of the time spent by the cook in that room.</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My
guess is that Emory University is in here because it is next
door to CDC - the US Center for Disease Control. At the GACC
meeting in Cambodia, I met a Physician from CDC who was
consulting for GACC. I doubt they could find a better choice in
the US. I recommend not criticizing this study or its costs
until we learn more. This study could be a boon for biomass
stoves.</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Professor
Kirk Smith has good reason to be dissatisfied with biomass cook
stoves. But I believe he is overlooking the possibility that
stove users will find it hard to ignore char-making stoves when
their use can turn cooking expenses into income. Further, there
is an important health impact to CDR (carbon dioxide removal) -
which has a solution in char-making stoves - not at all in LPG.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">5 (d) Re biochar: This just to encourage those who
haven’t understood my emphasis on char-making stoves - please
investigate the sister list called “biochar”, which is now about
half the age of the stoves list. I wish that community were
moving as fast as is the stove community now. We badly need a
“BGA” (Biochar Global Alliance); (I am rejected “GAB”). The
biochar website for archiving messages is at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info"
class="">https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/biochar/info</a> .
Now up to 21,000 messages since about 2007 (the site has
shifted around; we had a start in 2005 under a different name).
I am mentioning all this to say there is quite a difference
between the two groups - even though with the same ownership. I
raise this to better understand the differences. For biochar
there is an international organization with a board, and good
website - and a dire shortage of funds. There is a US group
with the same characteristics. Dozens of regional groups. None
of this for stoves. </div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Why
such good (albeit recent) funding for stoves and almost none for
biochar? Why lots of volunteer groups for biochar and almost
none for stoves? Why are the two discussion groups quite
similar (in part, meaning not enough people like Xavier who are
active full time in a business - but the biochar list seems
better than the stove list)? Is it because there is a GACC?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>This
is already too long, so I look forward to hearing some answers.
To summarize - this was mainly to thank Xavier for his past and
ongoing work with stoves - and being unique among the stove
producing/sales community for his valuable participation on this
list. And apologies for going off in different tangents, mostly
initiated by his most recent message - repeated below. I am
going to follow Xavier more closely now.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Ron</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Dec 14, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Xavier Brandao <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:xvr.brandao@gmail.com"
class="">xvr.brandao@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class=""> Crispin,<br
class="">
<br class="">
<pre class="" wrap="">"Nikhil says it is not suitable for generating policy. It is a Lancet-style study. It is not the type of information depth and quality needed to make policy."</pre>
Nikhil clearly says this study is a worthless piece of
rubbish, without further details:<br class="">
<pre class="" wrap="">"Ah, another report on "scientific" advance. I see scientists regressing to infantilism."
"Lancet and GACC are plain liars."
"Learn and respect science, that is all I ask of you."
"Honest stove research" does not belong to these suited-skirted gangs of "public health". Enough said. Just because so-called "scientists" publish "peer-reviewed" journal articles doesn't make the product safe from an examination of facts and methods. If you can justify these inane results. present your arguments"
</pre>
Not really along the lines of: "hey, good effort from the
scientists, interesting findings but it is unfortunately
not suitable for generating policy."<br class="">
<br class="">
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.<br class="">
<br class="">
Mine is that while it is probably not perfect, this study
is far from being rubbish.<br class="">
I think it is one more little step in the long stairway
that is our understanding of stoves and health. Every
progress should be saluted.<br class="">
<br class="">
It doesn't not prove anything 100%, but what study does?
It only focuses on pneumonia and stoves, but what health
study can assess all the factors?<br class="">
We complain that is does not do enough. Possibly, but that
is already something.<br class="">
<br class="">
<pre class="" wrap=""><i class="">It does not, as Nikhil points out, qualify as anything definitive that can be used to create policy.</i></pre>
And should it? Haven't people on this list said that
science should be independent, be detached from any
policy, and do its job, which is to increase our
knowledge?<br class="">
I think this is what this study tried to do, and did.<br
class="">
<br class="">
What are we complaining about exactly?<br class="">
<br class="">
To me, I think we need to be very clear in expressing what
we think, at the risk of repeating ourselves.<br class="">
<br class="">
Obviously, if I qualify myself as a "project implementer",
and not a scientist or researcher, I do have to rely a bit
on you guys, who have a much better understanding of the
technicalities related to this type of studies.<br
class="">
Asking for other people opinions, helps me building my
own.<br class="">
<br class="">
That's why this discussion is important to me, and I am
not satisfied with only a "this study is plain rubbish".
And I am sure it is important also for other project
implementers, in fact, anything related to stoves and
health should be.<br class="">
I sure hope the GACC is reading us, and that the results
of this study will help them make adjustment in their
communication.<br class="">
<br class="">
So that's why I ask so many questions, and try to make
things clear for me.<br class="">
<p class="">Again I ask: <b class="">if you would design
a health study to really understand </b><b class="">the
health impact of improved cookstoves, what would be
your methodology?</b></p>
<p class="">It is by answering this question that we show
our will to make progress rather than just debating for
the sake of debating.</p>
<p class=""><br class="">
Best,</p>
<p class=""><br class="">
Xavier<br class="">
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Stoves mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" class="">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br
class="">
<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><br
class="">
<br class="">
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see
our web site:<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/">http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>