Thanks for your good questions.
1. Yes, much is about money. Not much of it seems to come from or via
GACC. Certainly the literal Billions (yes billions) for LPG is from
government and LPG industry, most notably in Indonesia (has oil) and
India (imports oil, but Indian Government has a major hand in over 50%
ownership of all petroleum business in India — so I have been told.)
2. The 25 million stoves are largely approved for being counted because
of improved FUEL efficiency (as in Rocket stoves). But those do NOT
reach the Tier 4 level. And there will be millions of LPG stoves added
to the count. So we do expect the GACC to reach its 2020 goal of 100
million acceptable stoves, but not the way we thought back in 2010.
3. Who has paid for the stoves? Eventually it comes down to the poor
people who either 1) pay for a stove (that was developed and stimulated
by grant money), or 2) pay indirectly for a stove via the cost of the
fuel, even if subsidized fuel as with LPG.
A THIRD way to cover the stove costs is via “income earning from the use
of the stove”. For this there are two examples from what I am doing:
A. TLUD stoves are “charcoal making” stoves, and the people get paid
for their charcoal
B. TLUD stoves (and some others) can earn carbon credits, but this
needs to be developed more for the advantage of the stove users than for
the benefit of the stove manufacturers.
For both A and B, see the project description for Deganga
www.drtlud.com/deganga-2016 I am working on an expansion and
improvement of that methodology, with an announcemnet coming soon.
4. I see no issue about being “excluded” from participating in the ISO
efforts. What will come will come. There should be no efforts to
lower the standards. Please see the classification document
where “MACCS” groups together the “Modern Advanced Clean Cooking
Solutions”. The old stoves called “Improved” Cookstoves (ICS) will be
and should be a mark of NOT being good enough.
A Editorial note from Kirk Smith in 2011!!!!
<<< Remind us never again to write “improved” stove without the
quotation marks. >>>
Yes, in 2011. See:
Energy for Sustainable Development 15 (2011) 115–116
<<< The current usual descriptor—“improved”—is thus poorly framed.
What is needed is something that looks to the best, not tries to
distance from the worst. >>>
That Editorial is quite favorable about “the new generation of blower
gasifier biomass stoves in India.”
As stated in the cited Classification ….. document, gasifiers are in
the same league (the MACCS) with the LPG stoves. But one difference is
billions of dollars for fossil LPG and minimal dollars for TLUD project