<div dir="ltr">Paul:<br><br>I agree with Crispin as far as the history goes - from the 1960s to 1990s - with a minor correction: India's improved or smokeless chulha program went Up in Smoke (as the 2015 Caravan story showed). I know somewhat the history of World Bank stove projects from the 1980s to the 1990s in Sub-Saharan Africa. <br><br>When I volunteered my time to review evaluation studies of more recent projects - by definition on the public dime - and entrepreneurial designs and marketing, I had in mind a review of activities in the last 10 years (including some private non-profit activities that have continued in South Asia and Africa, two regions I am familiar with.) My sense is, there was very little design innovation; they picked up on existing models.<br><br>BP and Philips did spend private money on biomass stove design and promotion. And Shell Foundation also assisted some entities. <br><br>The $200 million question is, why didn't GACC finance technical R&D of the type you have been working on, and expand the technical base on which new students can gain insights for innovation? <br><br>I have three overlapping hypotheses: a) GACC did not have the technical competence to guide such work (and proved this with the D-Lab report - a rehash of platitudes in a narrow technical framework; b) GACC did not have any contracts to do such support; c) EPA had neither the money nor competence to sponsor, say, "user-centric iterative engineering" approach for stoves and different varieties of fuels BUT it did have money to create this smokescreen that is ISO TC-285. <br><br>Perhaps, if by now President Clinton had directed $500 m for the "clean cooking" agenda, something could have been started, picking up what is salvageable from the last five years of GACC and ISO work. But we know that EPA and GACC could not even organize another round of bids for stove testing (Todd's e-mails). <br><br>I will have more to write on this sorry tale of this Inside Job. But I only draw inferences from public information and knowing how Washington works. Some investigative journalist needs to examine this red herring called PM2.5 emission rate. <br><br>Nikhil<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 4:02 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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-6983445626016488708WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Dear Paul<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I was thinking of stoves that have been ‘widely adopted’ and 40,000 copies is not in that category. Chine has a biomass stove design that was adopted in the 20’s of millions. They
have a coal stove design that is even more widespread. Both were designed with public funds.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">India’s improved chula was publicly funded and there are many millions of them.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">The Primus kerosene stove was privately developed, correct? That gained widespread use and was a huge improvement over the prevailing technologies.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">What else from the private sector?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Thanks<br>
Crispin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:windowtext"> Stoves [mailto:<a href="mailto:stoves-bounces@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves-bounces@lists.<wbr>bioenergylists.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Anderson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 20-Dec-17 02:09<br>
<b>To:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.<wbr>org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Stoves] Who paid for development of popular improved stoves. (was...Re: "Those of us who believe that the WBT is critical to stove improvement")<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Crispin and all,<br>
<br>
You wrote:<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Most of the popular improved stoves were developed on the public nickel, not by individuals with the possible exception of the Sarai Cooker which has several hundred producers. I think that was done privately.<u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please include most of the variety of TLUD stoves as being privately developed. (reference is the "Origins and History...." document at
<a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef4204d6af7d49a9d67208d5471cb354%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493110947820085&sdata=NQm%2FNxApkAaPCy9LpB%2BNVfACCi92xcH1MIkRbD8tcQM%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
www.drtlud.com</a> ) Wendebo and Reed did efforts that were side issues of their employment. My work as a retired professor only had some funds for 2 years in 2010-2012 from the BEIA project in Uganda. P. Mukundan's company Servals did the production design
work for the stainless steel Champion TLUD at its own expense. The more-then-40,000 Champion TLUDs in West Bengal have had zero public funding, and we thank atmosfair (German private carbon credit entity) for its investment. I am not sure how much public
funding Prof. Nurhuda received (probably not much, if any), but his stoves now sold via Prime are not supported by public money. Maybe there are other cases, but not known to me.<br>
<br>
What stoves are you considering as having been developed with considerable (total or %) public funds? Let their stories be told, if relevant.<br>
KCJ<br>
Rocket<br>
Envirofit<br>
??<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>Doc / Dr TLUD / Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Skype: paultlud Phone: <a href="tel:(309)%20452-7072" value="+13094527072" target="_blank">+1-309-452-7072</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Website: <a href="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drtlud.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cef4204d6af7d49a9d67208d5471cb354%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636493110947820085&sdata=NQm%2FNxApkAaPCy9LpB%2BNVfACCi92xcH1MIkRbD8tcQM%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">www.drtlud.com</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 12/17/2017 1:06 AM, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear Nikhil</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">>>…</span></b><span style="color:#1f497d">we will continue to discover more because lab assessments are cheap and replicable and urgently needed. "</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
>This is one example of promising R&D you could propose in the C4D discussion; I will start there too.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Good idea. It is the right audience.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">>…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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I don’t think so. The WBT was largely used by enthusiasts trying to invent the better mousetrap that would have the world beating a path to their door. After 30 years, that still hasn’t happened. Most of the popular improved stoves were
developed on the public nickel, not by individuals with the possible exception of the Sarai Cooker which has several hundred producers. I think that was done privately.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><snipped><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div> </div></div></div>