<div dir="ltr">Sujatha: <br><br>Thank you, thank you.. a dozen times. There are gems of observations here on "the project culture," independent of the Deganga project or technology. It works well with bankable investment projects, but not with retail goods promotion. Technologists think governments are like Walmart or Safeway. <br><br>From my reading of cookstove project implementation literature over the years, what you have written is refreshing, in some places unprecedented, and extremely well-written. Better than anything I have. <br><br>But then you know project and people realities on-the-ground AND understand the processes of intellectuals and bureaucrats. Not just mindsets, I mean the processes that make intellectuals and bureaucrats think and behave as they do; their incentives and predilections. <br><br>Ok, praise enough. <br><br>There is one opinion of yours I am not happy with - not that I disagree - and have struggled with - Users paying "full price" for the stove: <br><br>First, the term "full price" is vague. When it comes to portable cookstove, the manufacturer and the distributor have costs that are unknowable and even for them, unpredictable or difficult to allocate, e.g., inventory, financing, logistics. If there is just one type and model of a stove, you can be pretty much sure that no usual retailer would be terribly interested in it. This is as much true of solar home systems and solar lanterns as of stoves. What the final seller decides as the price at which the product moves is the "full price", it may or may not be what the manufacturer or distributor deem to be a "profitable price". The usual rules of thumb about "distribution margins" or "overheads" apply in setting a price, but not only does marketing require changing the production and shipping schedule as needed, prices also have to change in order to make space, introduce newer products. Profitability is something one knows at the end of the month or the quarter, except for the very small daily trader who only counts cash in the morning and night. <div><br></div><div>Second, I believe in "subsidies" or "discounting". If as a government I cannot subsidize, in some way or another, I don't think I should be in the business of blabbering about public policy objectives of saving forests, climate, women, or producing aDALYs. Otherwise it is a waste on pompous theorizing and fictitious evidence. I don't care for physicists and sociologists preaching "no subsidies". There are problems with poorly designed subsidies, but "make work" welfare programs for EPA and its contractors is as much public expenditure as any subsidies to stove manufacturers or fuel suppliers. <br><br>Now, research and conferences too have their legitimate purpose - if linked to a workable plan. GACC, I am half-willing to grant, had a genuine intent, but other than that "issue international standards, and Hillary would bring billions", it didn't seem to have a workable plan, just fantasies. <br><br>Even that I am more than prepared to ignore, having been a marketer of such fancies in the past (including on LPG, "advanced biomass stoves", in the name of millions dead and climate change). I was excited when Hillary became the Secretary of State and John Holdren the science advisor to Obama that "cleaner cooking" could get some mileage. The $100+ million of US government could have gone for productive research. <br><br>So the question I have been grappling with is, HOW to subsidize, not WHETHER.<br><br>I don't have an answer but have two hunches: <br><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>a) Small grants (up to $500k) can subsidize individual stove types for small projects, and should, risking the results would not be as promised. What alone matters is usability and use. If a stove is not used, all its promises remain in Amazon cloud. Such small grants, if competitive, can introduce multiple stoves in a given marketshed, but even a single type, if market-tested on an even small basis like the Deganga project, is ok. The transaction costs are high, but the more important issue is getting the right performance metrics. I for one don't give a hoot for the efficiency of boiling water, nor for emission rates per minute or per MJd. If the efficiency is acceptable to the user, that is enough. It is only when efficiency drives the price of commercial wood or charcoal down - because the demand falls, depending on price elasticity of supply - that the stove program can be said to have made any difference. Similarly, it is only when a low-emission stove has actually led to improvement in indoor and outdoor air qualities that its emission rates are relevant, if at all. (Utilization rate and stacking are important.) Such small grants - covering not just working capital but what we call technological and financial intermediation, expert assistance in the microscopic details of getting pro-poor businesses the technical knowledge of combustion and cooking, and getting loans from local banks - are absolutely vital to prove that a new retail product begins to "sell itself". <br><br>b) In many instances, fuel quality for solid fuels - primary or processed - should be ascertained for every novel stove (cooking or heating), and it may make sense to advance similar small grants to fuel enterprises or combined fuel/stove enterprises. The rebuttable presumption that meals, fuels and cooks are contextual, vary from one place to another and over time, must be applied in designing the scope of these grants. I happen to believe, with Dr Karve for instance, that there is a vast organic waste resource that can be turned into charcoal. (Similarly for waste oils into liquid combustibles, but I don't know enough.) This kind of waste-fuel-stove triple-objective strategy is inherent in char-making cookstoves except that the wastes under consideration are tree wastes. Larger enterprises could have greater variety and quantity of tree and crop wastes, and even wastes from food processing, and can use the pyrolytic gases and char themselves and sell food products and char (if extra). Let's not forget that huge shares of primary food production is wasted; properly collected, it too can be a fuel source, including for biogas and power generation. I am not suggesting that only those stoves that use processed solid fuels be financed, just that incorporating feedstocks into the calculus helps take advantage of synergies and cost reduction potentials, while avoiding some risks. (The famous BP case of selling household Oorja on pellet fuels but losing the market as brick kilns started paying more for the crop and mill wastes.)<br><br><br>I am also thinking that such "small grants" have to be i) programmatic, so as to allow enough learning, feedback, and careful expansion for more stakeholders, greater diversity of stoves and fuels, and ii) aggregated so that a common pool of technical or rather "merchant banking" (knowledge plus money, in various financial instruments) can be applied across the board. <br><br>GACC had quite a few good ideas along such "business support" lines. But it went gung-ho on the red herrings of international standards and "truly health protective" emission rates. <br><br>The monster of "solid fuels are dirty" and "emissions are hazardous" must be slain as soon as possible. EPA/WHO have taken one step forward, three backwards. All to do marketing for the rich (oil companies or professors). </div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>Nikhil</div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_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><font face="georgia, serif">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Nikhil Desai</font></div><div><span style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">(US +1) 202 568 5831</span><font face="georgia, serif"><br><i>Skype: nikhildesai888</i><br></font><br></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>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Sujatha Srinivasan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sujatha@servals.in" target="_blank">sujatha@servals.in</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">Dear members of the group, <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">Greetings. I speak here now, because I was “asked”
along with Sujay on the cc by Nikhil.:)) Please know that although silent
mostly, my team and I read most of the messages, and also take the liberty to “pass
along” what we believe is relevant to the people in our cookstove eco-system. So
thank you for your discussions.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">I have the following points to ‘contribute’
to the discussion, based on what I am understanding from the email thread. But
before that, a quick ‘setting of expectations’ - I do not have direct access to
“primary data” from the Deganga project. My responses are based on the data
submitted to me in my role as the “attester” for the project. <span> </span>31,000 TLUDs is what has been submitted to me
as the number of stoves deployed. Not 40,000. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">I think there are many things
that made the TLUD “click” in the Deganga project – and at this point, in my
opinion, none can be singled out as “key”. Unless someone funds a scientifically
designed field research and does a “regression analysis” on the “satisfaction
levels with the stove”. Until then, it can be a debate of perspectives – with some
saying that it is only because of the stove, with some saying its only because
of the carbon funding, with some saying its only because of the stove-char
market which puts money in the hands of the household. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Unless there is a project where
users are paying the full price for the stove, it would be difficult to assess
what really drives the “favoring of the TLUD stove” or any stove for that
matter. In any project for that matter. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">I also think that the “key
drivers of purchase” for any stove – will change with scale and duration of the
project. Since user expectations are a moving target… so the results of any
study that attempts to understand factors that “favour the stove” from users,
in my opinion, may be more interesting for the “direct project stakeholders” as
an input to manage user expectations or to establish that the “right” stove was
chosen. But such studies could also run the risk of spotlighting one part of the
solution and trying to extrapolate based on that. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Testing of stoves, the way it
is discussed in the groups, seems largely focused on “first time testing till a
stove model is chosen for a project”. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Once the choice is made, the
commercials are locked and in a way “closes” out adding further improvements to
the stove or closes out debates on how the stove was tested and how good the
testing was. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">It would be equally important to
have a set of guidelines to ensure that the production practices of the vendors
support consistency in quality to the stove submitted for testing. Who does
this verification? And how robust is it? Is it largely left to the governance
systems of the funder or the business ethics of the vendor or the “market’s
ability to observe and escalate?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Large projects do not always
think like how Dr. Paul Anderson thinks, when he wrote – “</span><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Helvetica">If I were to
conduct or have a hand in such testing, the results could be questioned.”. They
should be.</span><span lang="EN-US"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">To Nikhil’s references on procurement
and bureaucracy, particularly for large projects, it is inherently in the nature
of such large projects to have a stronger business/commercial angle to it, that
might have the fall-out of creating entry barriers and tentative information
sharing, for other potential contributors – whether in terms of technology or
financial solutions. In most cases, most of the “non-product” process are set
up fairly rigidly, at the outset, dictated by project feasibility (not exactly
wrong either). The net effect, in my opinion being, a large project that has
higher potential to benefit the deserving, can get “closed” to positive
contributions from others. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 18pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">Which, as I see it
realistically, perhaps opens up opportunities to attract “specific” funding
rather than just scale funding<span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">I would think that the best way
to attract funding for such large scale projects – is to bring forward
proposals that represent positive contributions to the project – but are not
covered in the original commercials. <span> </span>For
instance - adding technical improvements to the stove or improving the stove
eco-system based on scale to sustain stove usage.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">But then a reasonable
hypothesis would be that this will again come back to the inherent nature of large
projects to being bureaucratic and “closed” to such lateral entries. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="m_-3696467470716078373gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 54pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Courier New""><span>o<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span lang="EN-US">In fact, it might actually
require a high level of maturity by the project stakeholders to open the
project up for others to be able to identify such niches – which means opening
up the project to field studies by others. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you for the “space” to make my
comments. I’m sure these are not entirely new to you. <span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">Kind Regards</span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US">Sujatha</span></p>
<br></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:04 AM, Anderson, Paul <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-3696467470716078373m_-7972690359228122097WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Nikhil,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Directly answering your questions:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. No. I do not have funds for stove testing for TLUD stoves.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Surprise response: For MY work, I am not seeking funding for testing of TLUD stoves. Not small grants, not large grants. That is not utilizing my strengths. And If I were to conduct or have a hand in such testing, the results
could be questioned.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, AN OFFER. Anyone who has the funds and ability to test the TLUD stoves as they are being so successfully in use in West Bengal will have my full support and assistance to facilitate the necessary arrangements. I can be an adviser,
or left off of the list. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, such testing needs to be done. But my work is on expanding what is being continually shown to be working well with TLUD stoves in West Bengal. (Funding would greatly help.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<u></u><u></u></p><span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Email: <a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">psanders@ilstu.edu</span></a> Skype: paultlud<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</span><div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Nikhil Desai <<a href="mailto:pienergy2008@gmail.com" target="_blank">pienergy2008@gmail.com</a>> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 26, 2018 3:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <<a href="mailto:stoves@lists.bioenergylists.org" target="_blank">stoves@lists.bioenergylists.o<wbr>rg</a>>; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <<a href="mailto:crispinpigott@outlook.com" target="_blank">crispinpigott@outlook.com</a>>; Sujoy Chaudhury <<a href="mailto:sujoy.chaudhury@gmail.com" target="_blank">sujoy.chaudhury@gmail.com</a>>; Sujatha Srinivasan <<a href="mailto:sujatha@servals.in" target="_blank">sujatha@servals.in</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Stoves] Stove types and poverty [Was Rogerio: Pro-publicaarticle out]<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="m_-3696467470716078373h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul: <br>
<br>
Do you have the money to conduct in-field research on TLUD gasifiers' emission rates and the impact on indoor air concentrations as well as associated (caused or not) changes in disease incidence by age and sex? <br>
<br>
Say, for about three locations varying in biomass fuel types and quality, cooking practices, and weather/season conditions, with or without chimneys? <br>
<br>
If so, someone can propose to use HAPIT for two weeks at a time, six month intervals over three years, and certify aDALYs that you can then market at the rate of three times the per capita income. <br>
<br>
This would take about two person-years of US/EU-level consulting, and 20 person-years of India/Mexico-level consulting, plus travel and expenses, at about $1.2 million. There has to be at least one "international" investigator with enough say-so to publish
in Lancet or Science, or some Elsevier journal. <br>
<br>
If you have $10 m, you will likely get results favorable to you, or at least not disfavorable to you. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Georgia",serif"> <br>
</span>Or you could take Kirk Smith's mania for what it is - nothing. <br>
<br>
I just wrote an off-list response where you were cc'd. Kirk Smith's faith in "Mind the Gap" is unwarranted, simply because the supposed "non-linearity of exposure-response at the lower levels of exposures" is not based on any relevant data. It borrows spotty
- and disputed - literature on active and passive smoking, outdoor air pollution, for radically different cohorts over radically different air quality situations. It assumes that everybody has the same confounding factors - health conditions, genetic stock,
access to and availability of health care and medicine - everywhere in the world and any time, independent of the duration of the exposure. <br>
<br>
You can ignore the deceit that is in computations of premature deaths and DALYs. What matters for HAPIT is simply the change in PM2.5 concentrations, the assumptions behind which are unfounded and ludicrous, to say the least. <br>
<br>
I had a short critique of HAPIT last October, and sent it to Gold Standard, GACC (Sumi) and Kirk Smith, Ajay Pillarisetti. I posted a summary on this list. You may get the full critique from them; <br>
<br>
It is not just a critique of HAPIT; implicitly it is an attempt to deconstruct the whole ideology of "emission rates are damages". <br>
<br>
Now, back to what should be done differently. <br>
<br>
1. Junk the notion of "safe" emission rates. What matters for "health" is significant reduction in the dosage of pollutants implicated in disease causation chain. Prof. Smith can go on ad absurdum about "associations" of this and that with PM2.5 levels, but,
apart from blind faith in "the Gap" and IER, he has no business making any judgments about relative emission rates. (That is, I am willing to accept the absolutes - gas and electricity cause lower emissions and that unprocessed solid fuels may cause more.
It is relative to what and with what impact on dosages, and which pollutants - including those from food itself - that matters, and even then only in part. There are few mass deaths due to dirty indoor air - 9/11 World Trade Towers and Pentagon is one example,
Montepeuz prison is another.) <br>
<br>
2. Junk ISO circus, and in particular the PM2.5 emission rate tiers, and the WHO "Guidelines for HFC". WHO has no business in energy and environmental policy, pretense and over-reach to the contrary, and knows little of air quality management, food culture,
or economics. On your own, investigate a little about chemistry of local fuels and composition of PICs in your TLUD stoves other than CO. If high-temperature pyrolysis has virtually eliminated NMVOCs, relax. If there are still some that lead to indoor concentrations
that are uncomfortable to the user, see whether any behavioral change is needed. Or use a chimney and check if it makes outdoor air quality worse than the national standard for hourly maximum or daily average and if so, for how much time.<br>
<br>
3. My three questions were: <br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#500050;background:white">i) What does a very poor household want in an improved stove - reliable fuel efficiency or low smoke, or, often, nothing, because the head of the household wants to fix a window
or throw a party?;</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</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>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#500050;background:white">ii) What is "good enough" in the sense of "marketable, usable" for not-so-poor households and what all determine the overall economy of cooking - not just costs of competing
stoves and fuels but availability and cost of water or food ingredients; </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="margin-left:30.0pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#500050;background:white">iii) Are there "cooking systems" options that actually help alleviate poverty in terms of freeing up cash savings or time?</span>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
I think - based on what I have read of the West Bengal project - I am cc'ing Sujatha and Sujoy, if they wish to add - that these three went in the favor of your Champion TLUD stove. <br>
<br>
This brings me to your questions:<br>
<br>
A. It seems good enough to get some support for some further scale up. No doubt. Public procurement rules go against "sole source" contracting, but if Shell Foundation or even UN Foundation have a window of "small projects" - the way UNDP/GEF had years ago
($200-500k, I think), that would be the best bet for you or your project partners. Bankability is the test. I suggest putting together a business plan and prospectus for a $2m funding for a total project cost of $5-10 m (including the cost of the stoves, paid
for by the users by and large except for initial discount or credit.) <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">C. Bureaucracies run on prods and fads, and have different thresholds of commitments for money and time, and different processes of justification. DfID dumped some 40 million pounds in India, Kenya, and GACC
to get -- don't know what; the project documents promised the sky, nighttime and daytime, because some bureaucrat (could have been a friend of mine; I don't know) chose to go ga ga over GACC and its misadventures. US government blew $100+ million (I have a
table in a draft post) on "clean cookstoves" but mostly via USAID, USEPA, USDOE, NIH, and CDC. Its output is peer-reviewed papers and ISO song-and-dance. <br>
<br>
I cautioned readers of this list two years ago that WHO/ISO meant to drive clean solid fuel stoves out of the market by definition and by regulation. And that GACC had no legal existence, hence no accountability. <br>
<br>
Does anybody still doubt me? <br>
<br>
<br>
Nikhil<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Anderson, Paul <<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank">psanders@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nikhil,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">>>. I am still looking for a formulation of the problem, definition of a market, and the delivery >>chain for usable stoves and fuels, at an appreciable scale.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are you saying that the West Bengal success story (Deganga report with 11,000, and now expanded to about 40,000), plus what I have been formulating, defining and with delivery chain
is:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A. Not good enough to get some support for some further scale up? Or
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">B. Is not known by you? (as if you and others are not even aware of the progress and methods that are functional thus far on a break-even and even net financial gain basis.)
Or<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">C. Something else????
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What should be done differently? Or abandon because it is not sufficient?
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I cannot get Kirk Smith to publicly comment specifically on the TLUD gasifiers. So you are in good company as those who cannot see any success worthy of acknowledging with biomass-fueled
stove.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul (still with multiple avenues for moving forward.)<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Email:
<a href="mailto:psanders@ilstu.edu" target="_blank"><span style="color:#0563c1">psanders@ilstu.edu</span></a> Skype: paultlud<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile: 309-531-4434<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u> </u><u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:9.6pt">
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>