<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>Is the real issue with the </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>ISO TC 285 process money? Is there fear that the process will result in funds directed to household energy and health will be directed to select suppliers? What’s at stake? Billions of $$? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Who has paid for the 25 million stoves apparently in use? What share has been paid by national governments, international air programs, and Non-governmental organizations? How will development and implementation of an ISO TC 285 affect that funding? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>How do the stakeholders who are developing the ISO TC 285 view the use of the standard? How will it affect their funding strategies? The Tier 4 PM 2.5 hourly average emission rate target is one metric. How does it affect stove policy among donor organizations? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What stakeholders feel they have been excluded from the ISO TC 285 process? What is the potential impact on them? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>It seems to me there is a lack of information and room for a lot of mis-information in this discussion. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Tom<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 17, 2017 7:35 AM<br><b>To:</b> ndesai@alum.mit.edu; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org><br><b>Subject:</b> SPAM: Re: [Stoves] Comparison fuel consumption - Time for changes<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Stovers,<br><br>Nikhil wrote a reply to Crispin and to all of us: (my emphasis added as PSA: ].)<br><br><< snipped >><br><br><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I happen to think WHO interjection in the ISO TC 285 process - in particular, Tier 4 PM2.5 hourly average emission rate target - drives a <u>stake into the heart of solid fuels cookstove effort. <br><br>[</u>PSA: Absolutely correct. Solid fuel ICS stoves are "Insufficient Cookstoves" with dated combustion technology that keeps hanging around and pretending to be "improved", an over-used and no-longer meaningful word. ]</span> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>So long as "international standards" and Tier certificates dominate policy discussions, with GACC insistence (the Implementation Science paper and previous work for the World Bank) on "permanent transition and exclusive use of clean cookstoves", I don't see <u>stovers of the past </u>getting out and helping users and their governments. <br><br>TC 285 is a "top down" drive [PSA: True] to clear the market for LPG. [PSA: Not necessarily true, but it is the reality unless the TLUD / woodgas stoves can get some serious support.}</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br>I am puzzled that Ron, Tom, and other knowledgeable people fail to <u>see this destruction of biomass stover community. </u></span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>[PSA: Again Nikhil is correct. ICS stoves are not sufficient any longer. The destruction of SOLID FUEL biomass stover community is overdue. Too much time and money continue to go to weak "solutions" with ICS stoves (which do not include woodgas/TLUD stoves). See the stove classification document at </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><a href="http://www.drtlud.com/2017/04/11/classification-stove-technologies-fuels/">http://www.drtlud.com/2017/04/11/classification-stove-technologies-fuels/</a> ]</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>(BTW, how much has your "step forward" led to funding increase for solid fuel stove design and testing efforts in the field? Or is it still "more of the same", however you choose to characterize the failures of the last 40 years?) </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br>[PSA: Please see the classification document cited above. It is time to rally with support for the existing (but few) stove designs that can use solid fuel as INITIAL fuel and then make clean-burning GASES that are the actual fuel for the heat for cooking (as are the woodgas TLUD stoves.). Otherwise, just hand over the serious efforts to the LPG advocates. Nikhil is correct; in the past 40 years the ICS stoves (including the simple ones and the rocket ones and the charcoal ones) have not risen to the challenge for even 100 million stoves, even with all the support from the PCIA and GACC and major donors like Shell Foundation plus the mega-efforts in past decades in India and China. In contrast, woodgas/TLUD stoves have been left to starve for funds, or mis-directed funds. ]</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>[PSA comments above by Paul S Anderson]</span> <br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Nikhil</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>******************<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu">psanders@ilstu.edu</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Website: <a href="http://www.drtlud.com">www.drtlud.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>