<div dir="ltr">Crispin: <br><br>(I have made similar points in another thread; this was written earlier and is repetitive in some places.)<br><br>I am inspired by your "<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;font-size:initial;text-align:initial">There are lots of lab-based metrics that have been negotiated between the physics-ists and the users which are helpful in selection or pre-selection. </span><div style="text-align:initial;width:631.875px;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><br></div><div style="text-align:initial;width:631.875px;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">And we will continue to discover more because lab assessments are cheap and replicable and urgently needed. "</div><br>This is one example of promising R&D you could propose in the C4D discussion; I will start there too. A large menu of metrics, contextually varied and (my preference) including subjective, qualitative measurements, will help defining service standards and objectives from the viewpoint of users. Just what I proposed in my piece on Modern Cooking five years ago (which I may not defend any more; haven't re-read since I wrote it.) <br><br>But why hasn't this been done in the past? I think it is because of this obsession with fuel efficiency and extraneous goals in the standard-setting exercise. <br><br>First, my distinction between "heating stoves" and "cookstoves" is shorthand for utilization factors for new capital investment, not ignoring co-production (Tami asked that question about a year ago, about allocation of efficiency). Cookstoves are also used for space heating in regions that are not too cold (nighttime lows above freezing). What distinguishes cookstoves is the versatility for different thermal tasks - frying, grilling, baking, not just boiling water and simmering as testers and certifiers wold have it. <br><br>Energy efficiency is an old quarrel between engineers/physicists and economists/businessmen. I have seen it and been in it for at least 35 years. The verdict always is - it is the total cost of a desired service, including the cost of equipment and operations, that make any investment in energy efficiency worth while. <br><br>(The dirty secret of economics is: not all costs can be computed, nor all benefits, in particular that elusive thing called "consumer preference" and "appeal, aspiration". I can debate any cost benefit imputations as well. Manufacturers of new vehicles, appliances, homes do their own cost/benefit calculation from the viewpoint of sales forecasts, market share, and profit centers.) <br><br>From stoves to entire homes, all vehicles, all electrical appliances, it is generally the case that a) standards for higher efficiency, to be effective, require R&D for new products that consumers have to invest in, and b) generally, the higher the efficiency standard, the higher the investment cost and lower the rate of replacement or penetration in future markets. <br><br>So what happens - say in the case of US - is that those who develop standards of energy efficiency - USDOE - or maximum emission rates (hourly, daily, annual) for new stationary and mobile sources - USEPA - have to a) survey the actual landscape of regulated products in use, b) take into account a diligently developed "implementation plan" for air quality in specific areas and projections over a decade or two, c) consult with appliance/vehicle manufacturers as to cost and time schedule for different products so as to see how the NSPS will affect air quality over what period. Then invite public comment, promulgate regulations, negotiate with states for implementation, and be ready to face lawsuits and Congressional scrutiny. (For USDOE, energy efficiency improvement is a policy goal in itself, but the analytical and regulatory processes are similar). <div><br></div><div>No such process exists in what you and are debating here. In the present circumstance, we have that same Empire Promotion Authority pushing for standards of higher fuel efficiency. There is a chorus of engineers singing the gospel of "fuel efficiency, fuel efficiency". To what end, I cannot tell. I see no theory linking efficiency changes to any of the four evils parroted by GACC - resource depletion, climate change, family health, and sexual violence. No validity for the past, no validity for the future. The object is not to solve any problem, even identify what the problem is, but only to spend money and hold conferences, summits, forums, whatever. </div><div><br>Cults have their rituals. Why, when it comes to test protocols, the ISO DIS 19867-1 (or for that matter that sophomoric D-Lab report) have no estimate of the total lifecycle costs of stoves/fuels from consumers' point of view. But look at the Cambodia stove auction products; somehow the designers, marketers have figured out how to win on the appeal of usability. <div><br></div><div>What do you or all of us collectively know, in a way that can be documented, of these half a billion cooks who have prematurely died to date from "dirty cooking" since the beginning of the industrial revolution? (I am just making up a number like IHME makes up a number. Roughly average 2 million premature deaths from HAP per year over 267 years.) <br><br>To me, the implicit attitude - "They are all the same" -- is inherently racist. I am sorry to say this, but Western academic fancies have ruled the dialog on "stoves", especially the dialog on design and standards for stove. It is also Western academics who have taught me of how the "material conditions"of the poor differ - from coastal Odisha to Brazillian favellas and supplement what I saw in Soweto or Port Vila or for that matter the poor neighborhoods right here in the midst of opulence. If you are in the business of selling stoves - not selling just papers and speeches where the poor are reduced to statistics, you must have a market characterization, way finer than what GACC got from Dalberg and Andersen. <br><br>The rich are alike everywhere, the poor differ from place to place, even if their per capita incomes or expenditures are said to be the same.<br><br>Let me give you another example - the narrative that "Stoves are not replaced because women's lives are not valued. Because women don't make economic decisions," and somehow alluring the aid industry that miracle cookstoves will save women's lives<br><br>What rubbish. <br><br>Anybody who has an idea of the complexity and the depth of human relationships - from their own experiences or novels and movies or from reading sociology and anthropology of the poor, not just statistics, and read newspapers - should realize that stereotypes limit understanding. All over the world, I have seen poor people spend more over the years as their incomes have increased and become more stable, buying things that consider priority. It may be that when it comes to stoves, husbands and fathers-in-law find investments in unfamiliar technologies; I doubt men as fathers uniformly ignore, neglect, and punish girls. <br><br>When a woman who has spent much time with well-meaning surveyors, stove marketers, researchers, of course she doesn't want to say that your product is not worth the bother, so men of the family come handy excuses. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
Sorry carricatures and outrageous stereotypes are marketed by rich people. (What I just wrote is also a stereotype, but I haven't wasted loads of money in third rate econometrics to derive co-efficients to fourth significant digit.) Regressions are treated as progression by pundits. <br><br>There is no evidence that fuel efficiency of a solid fuel cookstove has a significant, wide-spread, influence on changing the stove/fuel choices or that promised efficiency gains have been realized. (Heating stoves are a different matter and purchased wood or charcoal might be exceptions.) Buyers may already have discounted promises of fuel savings. and other factors - smoke, time to cook - may be more important. <br><br>You recognize as much - "time to boil". Do we know what the baseline is, around the world and for different types of stove/fuel combinations? Do we know how that baseline has changed and is likely to change in the near future? <br><br>Why theorize without a theory of cooking behavior, not just stove adoption? My tentative hypothesis - again, spotty observations, even asking customer service phone reps from US to UK to India and the Philippines - is that younger women in the BOP populations are on average spending less time cooking, relegating it to older women or children (under 16) at home or hired help, and simply buying more pre-cooked food ingredients and even meals. The premium on cook's time has thus increased, in part because of greater labor force participation by women. <br><br>But the cognoscenti at IWA - including yourself - did not see it proper to put "time to cook" as a performance metric. All other performance metrics were also without a baseline - except for three-stone-fire efficiencies and emission rates cooked up by WBT vested interests. <br><br>Why bother with facts when theories and protocols are so dopey, one can develop a life-long dependence and get paid for it??<br><br>Or take fuel-flexibility. I heard at a Winrock/EPA webinar a few days ago that there is only one experiment to date for varying fuels with a particular stove to measure emission rates (probably efficiencies too). ALL other stove testing in labs is done with just one standard fuel, it seems. There are a lot of data points for three-stone fire and different varieties of solid fuels, but none for an actual stove barring this one.<br><br>Why? Why this maniacal attachment to 3SF as the baseline and standarized fuel for lab testing of efficiencies and emission rates, while ignoring time to cook and fuel flexibility? <br><br>The sad answer, I submit, is that for 40 years we have been distracted by all sorts of red herrings while ignoring cooking - the cook and the foods. (Small-scale local projects are often exceptions to this rule.) Teaching dogma to younger generation is not exactly a new modus operandi for pundits. <br><br>Nikhil</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</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 lang="en-US" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);line-height:initial">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Dear Nikhil</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I have let you get away with saying 'it is only efficiency' by repeatedly showing that fuel efficiency does matter both to most users and most stove promoting initiatives. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
100% of the heating stoves in Central Asia are used for cooking. So no more about 'heating stoves'. They are multi-function. One of the important metrics in Kyrgyzstan is the ability to burn garbage. We test that too. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
I suggest that time to boil is an important metric, not from pot-on but from ignition. There are very few reports of comparative boiling times for food but one is the Berkeley venture to Somalia. Can you guess which stove was the fastest to light and bring
a pot to a boil? That is a metric combining rapid ignition and cooking power, neither reported separately these days. This metric is highly valued in a purchasing decision in most countries. It is purely a bean counting exercise with a numerical result that
can easily be related to adoption and pride of ownership. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Another is fuel flexibility which is a lab-assessable function with a number of reporting metrics. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Yet another is specific heating power per unit area of the pot. This is a new metric in cooking and very valuable as a predictor of user acceptance and cooking flexibility. There are lots of lab-based metrics that have been negotiated between the physics-ists
and the users which are helpful in selection or pre-selection. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
And we will continue to discover more because lab assessments are cheap and replicable and urgently needed. </div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Best regards </div><span class="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div style="width:100%;font-size:initial;font-family:Calibri,"Slate Pro",sans-serif,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125);text-align:initial;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Crispin </div></font></span><div><div class="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245h5">
<br>
<div id="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245m_-6673677488685215056_originalContent">
<div dir="ltr">Crispin: <br>
<br>
For the umpteenth time, please keep heating stoves discussion separate from cookstoves. Or for that matter, commercial cookstoves (more like heating stoves, higher capacity utilization rates) from so-called household cookstoves (so-called because nobody has
taken the trouble to characterize them except for parroting "three-stone fire and rudimentary cookstoves). <br>
<br>
I wrote specifically this time - "<span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Why, even Crispin so religiously believes that efficiencies of free </span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">fuel matter. No matter what the cost of an efficient
stove."</span><br>
<br>
If you are talking about charcoal, bioliquids, biogas, or even coal (as in Jharkhand) - i.e., purchased fuels of specific qualities, perhaps you will find some support for your theory that fuel efficiencies matter, but you will also find, if you bothered to
look, that stove capital cost is balanced against the promised financial savings from higher fuel efficiency). <br>
<br>
And when you turn to household cookstoves,show me how many households have 3Stone Fire and how many have in situ stoves, what they burn, how they acquire it or whether they purchase it at doorstep and at what cost, what they cook how,what kind of dwellings
they live in and where their stoves are when. And document that when they have changed their cookstoves, they did so solely because of efficiency gains. <br>
<br>
Until then, help the poor you can, and stop poking your nose in poor people's kitchens. <span style="color:rgb(128,128,128);white-space:nowrap"> </span><span style="white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000000">Leave it to Mrs. Clinton; she did and nothing good
has come of it yet.</font></span><span style="color:rgb(128,128,128);white-space:nowrap"> </span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<h3 class="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245m_-6673677488685215056gmail-r" style="font-family:Roboto,arial,sans-serif;font-size:18px;font-weight:normal;margin:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;display:inline-block;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap">
<a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2F2011%2F04%2F12%2Fforbes-india-hillary-clinton-black-carbon-stoves-indian-kitchens.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C88b75799356b48ff43e208d53ddfbf69%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636482953560427642&sdata=JZIQfSRBEjEc9Wi80%2B7TuN0UWfkzQKwxd3Dv9Nb%2FUVk%3D&reserved=0" style="color:rgb(102,0,153)" target="_blank">Why
Is Hillary Clinton Peeping Into Indian Kitchens? </a></h3>
Forbes, 12 April 2011. <br>
<br>
I know I forced you into a corner by saying "solely because of efficiency gains". But that - and that alone - has been the ever-elusive, illusionary goal of the stovers' movements, especially those stuck in boiling water with just one type of fuel and testing
different types of stoves. Why, you easily walked in the trap I set you - "No matter what the cost of an efficient stove." <br>
<br>
Just why does efficiency by itself make any difference,when fuel costs are as low as claimed by many pundits (as in "free collection", though not a single study exists at a national level on what kinds of biomass fuels - ranging from trees and branches to crop
waste (shells or stumps) to leaf waste to dung - have been used by whom, how, and how have the economics changed as some types of biomass has become difficult to collect free, as tens of millions of people have left farming and/or rural living, and girls have
been spending more time in schools, even going to colleges to get ready for salaried jobs? <br>
<br>
You will find all kinds of mindless theories without evidence, even in spite of the evidence that fuel efficiency is but one factors in stove choice and that many evaluations of cookstove programs have pointed out that poor people are rational and they have
desires,aspirations different from the Western imperial environmentalists who want to save the earth and now claim to save lives. <br>
<br>
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. <br>
<br>
And your heating stoves won't sell in hell. <br>
<br>
Nikhil<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
<span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</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">
Dear Nikhil<br>
<br>
I will arrive later this morning in a place where fuel efficiency is the prime consideration for virtually all stove users. Your hobby horse about efficiency is lame in central Asia. It more of a hobbled horse.<br>
<br>
Poverty is real and we can double the disposable cash available in a rural home during winter merely by switching stoves. I believe this is also the case in Ulaanbaatar where the repayment time for a really good stove is 8 weeks or something - the stove cost
was covered by fuel purchase savings in 8 to 10 weeks.<br>
<br>
The only "cost-free, effort-free, time-free fuel 'collection' system" is to tap into a District Heating system undetected. If you have to pay for heat, in Bishkek it costs $8 per month. That is for the urban poor and elite. In rural areas heat costs the truly
poor more than $50-100 a month. We have different definitions of 'free'.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Crispin in the West end of the East<br>
<div class="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245m_-6673677488685215056HOEnZb">
<div class="m_1729453855881263205gmail-m_-4977092524516655172m_-3309178411391960245m_-6673677488685215056h5"><br>
<br>
Andrew:<br>
<br>
Vehicle fleet buyers may think differently.<br>
<br>
As in the case of stoves, operating hours and timing are up to the<br>
user. Which is why there is a "context" in which EPA or other<br>
regulators pursue emission standards for equipment such as diesel<br>
vehicles.<br>
<br>
If you recall, my primary objection to all this "standards" game is<br>
that a) there is no service standard (boiling water is not a proxy for<br>
anything) and b) there is no objective that these standards can<br>
demonstrably serve.<br>
<br>
For diesel vehicles, there is a service standard -- a certain range of<br>
user desires and required behavior (such as picking up and maintaining<br>
speed). And there is an objective -- improvement of air quality in<br>
particular locations.<br>
<br>
In addition, the authority to set and enforce standards is statutorily<br>
given, and development and issuance of standards is done in an open<br>
process (in North America and Western Europe of a certain period when<br>
I used to work on such matters). There is considerable amount of data<br>
collection and analysis, air basin modeling, science of air pollution<br>
and public health. And consultations with the users and impacted<br>
populations, any of whom can take the regulator to court on the<br>
specific standard proposed or the way it is enforced. (I do have<br>
lengthy experience in legal and legislative fights on such matters).<br>
<br>
NONE of this obtains in the case of "international standards" for<br>
"cookstoves in the developing world".<br>
<br>
That the tests of diesel engines do not "relate closely to real use"<br>
is an issue addressed long ago in the science of air pollution and<br>
health, at least in the US. If I remember correctly, basically the<br>
answer was, "When we do simulations, the projected emissions and<br>
air-mixing patterns in the areas under consideration show that our<br>
test basis is adequate." I don't remember the history on vehicular<br>
emissions, except as the standards related to the overall<br>
Non-Attainment of Air Quality Standards.<br>
<br>
Which is another wrinkle -- diesel engine standards are NOT<br>
promulgated independent of all other influences (including natural) on<br>
air quality. WHO folks would have you believe that a fuel switchover<br>
guarantees a particular,quantified level of indoor air quality<br>
improvement, based on actual studies. (They obviously don't explicitly<br>
ask you to believe that, but that is their intent. Glibly marketing<br>
deceit to gullible people is one way of promoting careers).<br>
<br>
I do not impugn the motives of people involved; I have found no<br>
evidence yet except that the process itself is evidently compromised,<br>
possibly corrupt (but not so, since no law applies).<br>
<br>
All I can say is that blind and lame people assessing an elephant<br>
cannot diagnose what ails the elephant or prescribe proper cure<br>
(unless they had been trained in elephant physiology by books).<br>
<br>
The path to hell is littered with good intentions.<br>
<br>
Why, even Crispin so religiously believes that efficiencies of free<br>
fuel matter. No matter what the cost of an efficient stove.<br>
<br>
What can an un-compromised bystander such as you can do? I suggest<br>
asking for a database on service standards (cooking practices and<br>
seasonal, locational variations), and then asking for the evidence<br>
that the performance metrics so fervently pursued by all are based on<br>
any theory with an evidentiary base. (Not the WHO attributability of<br>
premature deaths.)<br>
<br>
Nikhil<br><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div>