<div dir="ltr">Paul: <br><br>Not too fast, please, about "But if you have to choose only one, the acceptance wins, hands down." <br><br>When users accept with inadequate information - say, testing for safety, reliability, durability - there is a real risk of not just unwise investments but loss of reputation for not just the particular manufacturer but the whole "cause" of stoving. <br><br>Maybe there shouldn't be such a "cause" quality or zeal to stove development. GACC CEO in her Foreword to this ESMAP Technical Paper 007/15 wrote:<br><br>"2015 is a critically important year for international development. Events such as the Post-2015 Summit,
the Beijing+20 conference, and the 21st session of the Conference of Parties (COP) give world leaders
an unprecedented opportunity to make momentous progress on health, women’s empowerment, the
environment, and climate protection.
This year, the focus must be on implementation of proven solutions that can deliver benefits across
multiple sectors and are ready to scale up."<br><br>I submit nothing of the kind has happened since except for LPG and electricity. <br><br>She wrote "Hundreds of millions of women were literally risking their lives each
day to cook food for their families over inefficient cookstoves and polluting open fires, and spending
hours gathering fuel often at great personal risk."<br><br>I invite Sumi Mehta - cc'd here - to show us how many lives were made less risky in the last two years. Five hundred? Five million? (Keep in mind that roughly 50 million more girls cross the age 10 or puberty every year in that demographic of "people cooking with solid fuels" that GACC pretends to raise money for.) <br><br>The less said the better on GACC CEO's claim "We are now closer to achieving a set of global
standards that will help us deliver high-quality, effective, and independently tested products." They fixed the metrics and the test protocols so as to stifle development of reliable, usable products. <br><br>Unfortunately, unless you are GACC with its non-transparent operations and a confirmed attitude of non-accountability - not even to its clients, it seems - there cannot be funds for project implementation. (We should all try to gather how much GACC did when its CEO mentioned "This year..") <br><br>For the mere mortals in the business of publicly accountable expenditures, "funding for project implementation" will have to go in tandem with testing and stove-acceptance, whether you like it or not. <br><br>Yes, WBREDA may grant your Deganga project owners some implementation assistance without additional testing and confirming stove-acceptance. I don't know what to suggest. Perhaps GACC should take the lead in identifying examples such as yours where implementation funds can be tied to "performance reports". (I forget the term in construction business when a contractor gets paid according to work completed.) <br><br>Perhaps other stove designers and implementers should come together and challenge GACC to support them for implementation of stoves and fuels already found to be accepted and used without subjecting them to "ISO standardized" WBT or IWA Tier rankings or any such puffery. <br><br>Three years ago GACC <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/about/news/12-02-2014-cookstoves-future-summit-report-available.html">claimed</a> that at its Cookstoves Future Summit "<b><span style="color:rgb(97,97,97);font-family:"Gotham SSm A","Gotham SSm B",sans-serif">A total of $413 million in grant and investment funding was raised." </span></b>This was over and above its contracts till then. Its most recent 2016 <a href="http://cleancookstoves.org/resources/495.html">Progress Report</a> says nothing about even a penny spent on anything in particular. <br><br>GACC is evidently good for its favorites and can get away with publishing colorful reports and serving imperial dinners. A thorough financial and performance audit should be demanded by American taxpayers. <br><br>Nikhil <br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Paul Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Stovers,<br>
<br>
The diplomatic comment is that there should be BOTH testing AND
stove acceptance.<br>
<br>
But if you have to choose only one, the acceptance wins, hands
down. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the
receipe. <br>
<br>
For a decade since 2005, I worked much on getting good test results
for the TLUD stoves. The NUMBERS. Oh yes, the NUMBERS. Stove
camps, comparisons, measurements, <br>
<br>
And I struggled to get a successful TLUD stove project somewhere,
anywhere. But in 2015, I found out about two things that happened
without my direct involvement.<br>
<br>
1. In 2015, the GACC and ESMAP published ESMAP Tech Report 007
about the status of cookstoves. There, in Figure 1, the gasifier
stoves were classified in the category of "Clean Cooking Solutions"
and were called ADVANCED. We can safely assume that appropriately
qualitied experts were making the decisions. It is no longer a case
of specific numbers and Tier x.x designations. Use the numbers if
you want to do so, and there are still some variations between the
various models of gasifiers, but the gasifiers have made it into the
big time, and the standard ICS have not. For clarity, I prepared
the "Classification of Stoves....." document that is faithful to the
ESMAP publication.
<a class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/2017/04/11/classification-stove-technologies-fuels/" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com/2017/04/11/<wbr>classification-stove-<wbr>technologies-fuels/</a>
If anyone disagrees about that, I refer them to the GACC and
ESMAP. And very favorable test results keep coming in. <br>
<br>
2. In late 2015 I found out about the TLUD stove project in
progress since 2012 in Deganga, India. I was a co-author on the
report ( <a class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com/deganga2016" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com/deganga2016</a> ) about that highly successful
pilot study with 11,000 quite satisfied users of TLUD stoves. If
acceptance by users is an issue, I refer people to that report and
to visit the project areas in West Bengal. <br>
<br>
So, now the TLUD stoves have both aspects well supported. Testing
and stove acceptance. Of course there is still much more work to
be done. <br>
<br>
But the major effort has shifted to what Philip and Nikhil have
mentioned, specifically the search for funding for project
implementation. Not for testing. Not for a stove-acceptance
study. (although testing and acceptance are both closely watched in
every effort.)<br>
<br>
Still working on TLUD stoves. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510moz-signature" cols="72">Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: <a class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>
Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a>
Website: <a class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.drtlud.com" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a></pre>
<div class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510moz-cite-prefix">On 12/3/2017 10:09 AM, Nikhil Desai
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Philip:<br>
<br>
I had a different reason - one-time subsidies for capital costs
are easier to design and implement. The main issue is what
stoves (and pots if possible) are in fact used and whether the
running costs are affordable for a large segment. <br>
<br>
Much of the woodstove design work is stuck in fundamental deceit
of metrics and testing protocols that do not answer the question
whether the stove can be expected to be used. (I can design
capital subsidies for briquetting and pellet-making). <br>
<br>
Not a whole lot of good is going to be done by issuing some ISO
reports. Nor is SE4All going to come up with $4 billion a year I
read Kyte announced at CCF 2017. <br>
<br>
I don't see any tenable theory of change in current EPA/WHO work
including that in TC-285. Pending that, poor people will have to
spend $400 for a stove they can be proud of and can use. (EPA
wants to legislate coal out of existence around the world. Fat
chance.) <br>
<br>
Nikhil</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-ZA"><div class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510m_-5211786844237339776WordSection1"><div><div class="gmail-m_-6166997163803092510h5"><div><div><div><div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>