[Stoves] Which technologies will best reduce CO and blackcarbon, improve health and safety and lower household energy costs?

[Tom Miles]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 23:32:35 -0400, Jeff Davis wrote:
JD>I'll say 20.
TRM>That's a safe bet. Typical active participation on a listserv is 5%
(0.05 x 600 = 30). 

AJH>I was a bit flustered by the introduction of the category improved
charcoal and brick kilns as I don't know how the scale of brick making
compares with cooking. Also improved charcoal making and improved biomass
combustion seem to be mutually exclusive.

TRM>The issue of how much wood is used in kilns to make bricks for stoves
has been raised on the Spanish discussion list(estufas at bioenergylists.org).
Charcoal making is recognized as a significant source of pollution. Improved
kilns are considered by the UNFCCC as Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM).
Projects in Asia have been awarded funds for these improvements. See
www.bioenergylists.org for CDM, Charcoal and Charcoal Production.

Improved charcoal combustion has received considerably more interest from
web visitors than it has discussion on this list. It is considered by some
to be a significant area for improvement. Search the Category Browser for
Authors: Bailis, Kammen
See:
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/apr/tech/kb_kenya.html 
  
AJH>I assume the vote tracking is by IP rather than cookies?
TRM>IP. Are you planning on stuffing the ballot box?

AJH>I'll say Tom's becoming a techno junkie ;-)
TRM>Probably true but there are reasons for trying the opinion poll. Opinion
polls always have significant limitations but they are a simple and direct
measure of perceptions. A risk with this group is that instead of simply
voting their perception some will not vote but pick apart the poll questions
or answers. I'm looking for both - results and reactions - and so far the
poll has been very productive.     

At 12 votes "improved biomass combustion/gasification" and "processing
alternate fuels" are gainers. As noted above I think there is a perception
that charcoal has less potential impact. This was true among those who
attended Stoves Camp.    

Harry Stokes prompted me to add alcohol as an alternate fuel which is an
important addition. See Harry's new Project Gaia reports at
www.bioenergylists.org 
LPG should also be considered an alternate cooking fuel.See Kirk Smith:
http://bioenergylists.org/en/smithlpg05

One reason for conducting the poll is simply to restate the overall
objectives of the discussion of fuel and stoves development. Another is to
try to put the technologies in some relationship to the goals. Richard
Stanley points out: "it could  be argued that the delineation you've
presented is based on assumptions of relatively full stomachs and rational
minds from such a cultural precedent..To me, if you are going for the real
mass population,  its not just about lowering emissions etc..Its about the
mass populations generating the capacity to feed themselves sufficiently
that they can even begin to consider the improvements you mention." Hunger
relief hasn't been a stated objective but certainly is an important one.
With the depletion of biomass fuels in refugee, urban and some rural areas
fuels from recovered materials like paper take on a new significance.

For those of us attempting to organize and present information in ways that
make it easily accessible and useful it's important to understand how people
think about the technologies and the needs. We get one picture from the
stoves discussions and meetings and another from web visitors. About 50% of
our visitors are web only. The poll is open to both.

After four months with the new web page format we are getting 250 views per
day or about 6,000 per month. That's four times our previous rate. Our
bandwidth use has more than quadrupled. More people are finding more
information. 50% are new and 50% are return visitors. 45% spend less than
2.5 minutes on the site. 12% spend 2.5-5 minutes on the site; another 12%
5-10 minutes; 10% 10-20 min; 10% 20-40 minutes; 5% 40-60 minutes and 5% more
than 60 minutes. People tend to zero in on one or two pages. 53% only view
one page per visit. 36% view 2-5 pages per visit. 7% view 6-10 pages. 3%
view 11 or more pages. 

Web visitors come from 129 countries. 70 different countries will check in
at any given time. Numbers of views is partly skewed by internet access. 59%
North America (53% US, 3% Canada, 3% Mexico); 14% Europe; 14% Asia; 9% South
and Central America; 2% Africa; and 2% Oceania. Active donor countries to
stoves projects are well represented. Project field offices and local
organizations are active and easily identifiable web visitors.

All opinions are important. Vote for the technology of your choice, but
VOTE. :-)

Tom Miles