[Stoves] EEG = Energy Expenditure Groups. was Re: grid powered stoves

Thu Dec 21 23:14:24 CST 2006

Dear Crispin and all,

I really like your comments about Energy Expenditures Groups (EEG).  Good to
have some categories but not debate whether the amounts should what you have
suggested or some other suggestions (such as divisions based on $15, $30, $45,
etc per month which would be 50 cents, 1 dollar, etc per day).  We can utilize
actual values and know that there is a plus or minus variation in any of the
statistics.

I have just returned from a month in Cambodia (so I am behind on reading some
messages, sorry).  There, one "typical" family with income of about $10 
per day
($300 per month) (call it a lower-middle-class family) in Phnom Penh (capital
city) was using about US 50 cents per day for cooking fuel (and NO need for
room heating).  That would be in the $15 per month bracket.  A combination of
charcoal and LPG was being used.  Fuel costs were a concern, but not a massive
impact on the household budget.

In contrast, a financially "poor" family might have about the same fuel needs
but earn only about #3 to $4 per day ($100 per month).  For such a family, $15
represents 15% of the total income.  That is a significant amount and a
stimulus to have savings of fuel costs.

So, what is important is not just the Cooking Fuel Costs, but also the
percentage (%) of the total household income going to fuels.  Maybe 
there could
be matrix with Household Income on the X axis and Cooking Fuel Costs on the Y
axis.  Such a matrix could reveal "zones" for meaningful Energy Expenditure
Groups (EEGs) that take into account more than just the Cooking Fuel Costs.

For example, families with high incomes do not need to worry much about fuel
costs, and could have a modern LPG cooking facility.

But at the impoverished zones, fuel gathering (that is, labor costs instead of
cash costs) is an important way to lower the Cooking Fuel Costs.

Has something similar been done before?  Seems basic, especially for targeting
markets for stoves and fuels.  There could be different matrices for different
countries, and then we could compare them to find similarities and 
differences,
including allowances for the major differences in income levels between
countries.

But at the low end of household incomes ($1 or 2 or 3 per day), I suspect we
will find the great similarities of impoverished people who collect wastes or
chop wood for personal fuel use.

*******
Assume for a moment that a user-friendly, acceptable alternative stove could
save $3 of a $15 per month (ten cents per day) Cooking Fuel Costs.  In 
one year
that would be $36 savings, perhaps enough to pay of a stove.

Even if saving only $1.50 per month, that is $18 per year.  So why have we
suggested a target of the $5 stove?  Is that mainly because we are thinking of
traditional stick-wood as the fuel?

Paul
-- 
Paul S. Anderson, Ph.D., Geography professor - Emeritus
Telephone:  USA-309-452-7072 (residence and office)
Internet site:  www.ilstu.edu/~psanders
For my gasifier stoves info, go to:
http://bioenergylists.org/contributors#Paul_Anderson

Quoting Crispin Pemberton-Pigott <crispinpigott at gmail.com>:

> Dear Friends
>
> This is looking like a major opportunity to connect some of the most modern
> stoves products to a fairly large population segment.
>
> I am wondering if we should target the segment that spends a certain amount
> of money on energy.  Suppose we divided the stove using population into
> groups that are not income groups, but energy expenditure groups.
>
> For example, Energy Expenditure Group 1 would be those who spend up to
> $12.50 a month on energy.
>
> EEG1 = Up to $12.50 per month on energy
> EEG2 = $25.00
> EEG3 = $37.50
> EEG4 = $50.00
> EEG5 = $62.50
> EEG6 = $75.00
> EEG7 = $87.50
> EEG8 = $100.00
> EEG9 = More than $100.00 per month
>
> A large family in Maputo is spending about $20.00 a month on charcoal, a
> small family, perhaps $8.00.
>
> The point of this is to see if there are large numbers of people in certain
> EEG's who could afford to bu a stove with a fan that performed well enough
> to give 'value for money' to the extent they would move to a new technology
> or fuel.
>
> The best of all worlds would have people move _down_ the EEG scale to use
> less total money per month for energy while having a rising standard of
> living and a cleaner environment.
>
> If a fan stove can burn a lower quality, more available fuel cleaner and
> hotter than is done at present, there will be a quantity of money made
> available to invest in a stove.  If is too expensive to buy outright, it is
> a matter of access, not technology.  Access can be addressed in many ways.
> At the moment it is a problem of getting a suitable technology.  It appears
> to me there is a gap first in the supply in terms of product and then
> manufacturing.
>
> It would be helpful to fill in the blanks regarding populations in EEG's and
> relate that to technologies which would interest them.
>
> Regards
> Crispin
>
>> They get electricity for at least 12 hours in a day. So
>> charging batteries is not a problem at all.
>> Yours
>> A.D.Karve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> Stoves at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_listserv.repp.org
> http://www.bioenergylists.org
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail.