Dear Philip and David and all,
Two excellent comments came in via the "Stoves Digest" with a different
Subject line, so I have pasted them below.
Yes, people have aspirations, and most (all?) would like to have
something with the features that Philip mentioned. And some would even
pay 3 to 5 months wages, especially if credit can be obtained (from fuel
sellers, etc). But that is a sub-set of the stove purchasers.
It is like Americans with reasonable incomes purchasing a new or
multi-featured automobile for US$20,000. (or more!!, and with low
mileage per gallon). (That is low km per liter for those who like to
see both measurement systems presented. ;-)) ;-) ) Some of them
cannot really afford it, but it gives them more than just
transportation. Prestige, extra space, can be used to transport
neighbors when the weather is bad, better music inside, attracts the
young ladies, etc. I have no problem with that. But thank goodness
for the used-car businesses and for the economical cars and for motor
cycles and even bicycles and public transport.
The point is, some people aspire but realistically cannot attain.
And if those people expect that their country or fellow citizens or
people from overseas are going to resolve the problems of finances and
access to such vehicles (or such nice stoves), they will be
disappointed. Wealthy people and wealthy nations do not help poor
people (in their own country or overseas) attain the top of the line
products. The affluent barely help them attain the mediocre or poor
quality (but improved) vehicles or stoves or whatever else. Please
remember, the low-income people who need the benefits of the truly
improved cookstoves often also face problems of water quality or access,
health care, etc. etc. etc.
Therefore, the "ten dollar stove" ($10 stove) really is important. And
if the combustion device is that inexpensive and uses less fuel and
lower cost fuel, and if it allows them to later move up to a $20 stove
STRUCTURE (while using the same combustion device), the fringe benefits
of better appearance and two pots at one time and other features can be
attained by those who choose whichever features.
Meanwhile, the $10 stove can help reduce or reverse deforestation (which
is of little interest to most of the very poor people who live from day
to day or month to month and seldom think about decade to decade.)
National leaders and concerned citizens do (and should) think about
decade to decade, (and even for future centuries, but that is evidently
not the case).
So, I am delighted when I see TLUD stoves that are beautiful,
multi-burner, multi-purpose objects of high esteem. But that is not
how the main impact will occur. I will work on $50 stoves also with a
focus on the TLUD combustion capabilities and controls, but I do not
work on costly stove structures associated with high priced stoves with
baking ovens etc etc. I will help those who do that work, because it
does have value (and will probably earn more money than will come from
the combustion devices).
Paul
David LeVine wrote:
I think this points out that there are really two classes of stoves:
One with a price of about an hour's labor, one at around $500.00.
A lot of attention goes to the cheap stoves since they are affordable
to everyone. Less is going to the expensive ones.
It appears that an efficient, attractive stove made available with
microfinancing, it does well, and a cheap stove could be sold "using
the same technology."
While the coal merchants will not be pleased with lower coal usage,
stove purchasers will be. The expensive stove can also pay for
tooling to make cheaper stoves.
Dave 8{)
Philip Lloyd wrote:
Dear Paul, Dave and others who have contributed to this interesting
discussion
I found extremely poor people in South Africa, <$100 per household per month
(mainly State assistance), keen to pay $500 and upwards for a coal-burning
stove (well, actually, originally designed as a wood-burning stove but
dragged into use for coal). Cast iron, fireclay lined, with a chimney and
dampers to control air flow, three or four spaces for pots closed with cast
iron circles when not in use, and an oven for baking. Many had recently come
from rural farms to town, and were living in temporary homes built of sheet
iron and found materials. The stove was their first major investment, and
there was a local microfinance system via the coal merchants enabling them
to purchase it.
They were not interested in cheap cookstoves! The $500+ stove had come to
represent social status, as well as meeting a wide variety of household
needs, cooking, water heating, garbage disposal, space heating, and a social
focus to the home that even neighbours could come and share. There was a
flourishing trade in second-hand stoves and in spare parts, particularly
grates and chimney pieces. Some people had small businesses baking bread for
stoveless neighbours, or making jam, or even running play schools on really
cold winter days when other homes were really too cold for infants.
I think the lesson is clear - if you just focus on cooking, you may be
missing something. The first criterion must be to meet people's needs, and
it may be much more than cooking. Some stove designs even miss the essential
demand for simmering, so they fail the very first test of acceptability -
you can't even use them for cooking. Yes, cost is a factor, but not
necessarily a driver.
Hope that helps.
Best regards to all
Philip Lloyd
Paul S. Anderson, PhD aka "Dr TLUD"
Email: [email protected] Skype: paultlud Phone: +1-309-452-7072
Website: www.drtlud.com
On 11/11/2012 1:16 AM, Philip Lloyd wrote:
On 11/09/2012 08:52 AM, Paul Anderson wrote:
Dear David and Crispin,
And where the wages are less than $100 per month (and some of that
money is for a reasonable meal during the work day), the labor
component is almost negligible compared to the costs of new (not scrap)
sheet metal.
When the stove is ceramic/fired clay, the clay can be cheap but there are
the costs of firing it and then transporting it. So the labor still adds
only a relatively low amount to the stove.
Can these low-income workers (yes, they have a job and they are better off
than those without any work) afford a $25 stove? That would be a week of
wages.
Would any of us who live in the affluent societies pay one week of wages
for a stove? That might depend on your income!!! And we have
discretionary money far above the money needed for food and lodging.
Paul
In the USA, many stoves cost between $400 and $2,000 (US dollars), and
the mean seems to be about $1,000. That implies $1,500 in income
before taxes. Which implies an average income of $78,000 annually or
$6,500 per month if a stove is one week's income. While I feel this
is high, it is pretty close, 1 week's income for a stove is not
unbelievable.
Yes, those of us who live in an affluent society DO pay 1 week's
income for a stove, and then pay a fraction of that every month for
fuel or energy to run it.
Dave
Dear Paul, Dave and others who have contributed to this interesting
discussion
I found extremely poor people in South Africa, <$100 per household per month
(mainly State assistance), keen to pay $500 and upwards for a coal-burning
stove (well, actually, originally designed as a wood-burning stove but
dragged into use for coal). Cast iron, fireclay lined, with a chimney and
dampers to control air flow, three or four spaces for pots closed with cast
iron circles when not in use, and an oven for baking. Many had recently come
from rural farms to town, and were living in temporary homes built of sheet
iron and found materials. The stove was their first major investment, and
there was a local microfinance system via the coal merchants enabling them
to purchase it.
They were not interested in cheap cookstoves! The $500+ stove had come to
represent social status, as well as meeting a wide variety of household
needs, cooking, water heating, garbage disposal, space heating, and a social
focus to the home that even neighbours could come and share. There was a
flourishing trade in second-hand stoves and in spare parts, particularly
grates and chimney pieces. Some people had small businesses baking bread for
stoveless neighbours, or making jam, or even running play schools on really
cold winter days when other homes were really too cold for infants.
I think the lesson is clear - if you just focus on cooking, you may be
missing something. The first criterion must be to meet people's needs, and
it may be much more than cooking. Some stove designs even miss the essential
demand for simmering, so they fail the very first test of acceptability -
you can't even use them for cooking. Yes, cost is a factor, but not
necessarily a driver.
Hope that helps.
Best regards to all
Philip Lloyd
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site:
http://www.bioenergylists.org/
