Having personally developed improved cookstoves and combustion heaters in India, I can see some merits (as well as limitations) to the approach of giving stoves and selling pellets, but I would like to add some points from my own experience.
The issue of fuel demand and Household Air Pollution is truly vast (approx 3 Billion people globally use rudimentary cooking fires) and there is no 'One Size Fits All' solution. There are many companies trying to commercialise 'improved' cooking, and they generally all suffer from the same problems. Whatever option they are selling, it will be useful for some and not for others, for a wide range of reasons including cultural norms and environmental limits.
I have adopted a different approach in India, which is to train people to use local materials at minimal cost to make their own smoke reduced cookstoves. This allows them to adapt, renovate, replicate, share, modify, improve and generally adjust the stove to suit their own social, cultural and environmental living situations. In this way we are empowering locals (particularly women) to take control of a central aspect of their home, the cooking hearth.
This work is currently running in India under the Not-For-Profit Smokeless Cookstove Foundation with the purpose of empowering the people most effected by fuel cost and smoke pollution. Its early stage for the Foundation, but the work has now been independently audited with very positive results, and is slowly being scaled up.
5
I don't get it. Isn't it rather hot and sunny in Africa? At least part of Africa. When I moved up to the "backwoods" of Canada where it is sunny but not particularly warm, I had the choice between going hungry, eating raw, cooking on a wood stove which required constant feeding twigs to, and surveillance, or . . . solar. I scanned the internet and found a solar oven constructed of two nested boxes, some Alcoa aluminum wrap, a can of flat black spray paint and a discarded window from a junk store. This was designed by two American women in their 60's doing the Peace Corp thing. Some days it took forever if the clouds kept "winking" at the sun, other days, it worked fine. It made absolutely NO smoke, and it was fun. I love an experiment and this was right down my alley.
5
While pelletizing wood provides a cleaner cooking fuel and uses less trees, we could go further by using simple energy saving techniques. Also, many women are too poor to afford either pelletized wood or charcoal
In 2014 I worked with Malawi women who made some cash creating food products for market sale from their own agricultural produce. Their major complaint was that they hated the work and dangers of collecting firewood.
Together we created insulating baskets out of locally available materials. Rice or maize porridge could be brought to a boil over firewood (or pellets, if available). Then the hot cooking pot with lid was placed in an insulated cavity in the basket and covered with an insulated "pillow." No more cooking was required, and the food remained hot for much longer.
Even soaked beans could be cooked this way, but required 2-3 reheatings, about 20-30 minutes total over wood heat, compared to 2- 3 hours. Due to the expense of firewood or charcoal, high protein beans are used infrequently in Malawi, so this innovation made a highly nutritious local food source affordable.
Making and selling the insulated baskets provided another source of income. This was a win-win solution.
3
I have a friend who is a mason. He helped build the chimney in our house 30 some years ago.
For a number of years this man and other masons from here in Maine (and maybe elsewhere) would go to Central American countries during the winter and build simple cook stoves with chimneys in very simple dwellings. They did all of this at their own expense.
My wife called them "masons without borders".
As he has neared 70 he has stopped.
Sometimes there are simple, old solutions.
3
@Fred -Isn't this missing one of the main points of this story? That these stoves are converting material into energy at a much higher rate than a regular fire? Which is what would be in those cook stoves with chimneys your friend's built? And charcoal would still be the number one fuel source? The story about masons from here in Maine donating their time and money is a great story. But now we know how to make these cooking fires far more energy efficient, which is cheaper, and by default better for the environment. Let's focus on that part of the story.
2
@MrCS
No, I think it's about people's health first and foremost and their ability to cook food.
People who live in cities can worry about energy efficiency and air pollution. Not inconsequential concerns but... .
1
I’m just trying to understand how the Compton Cowboy and the Leafilter Gutter Guard fit into this solution.
I hope this company is also supporting reforestation and tree planting schemes along with wood pellets.
Also, what about biogas from animal and human waste?
1
If reading this doesn't provide us poor hedonic inflicted/plagued Americans (whoever) - SOME sense of introspection about our lives as "me" "mine" "more" machines -AND about billions of people making less than 50 cents a day and choking to death from the mere act of cooking their beans:
Then the gift of human life has been surely nothing more than a chemical and biological mistake of nature
7
@dave
"Then the gift of human life has been surely nothing more than a chemical and biological mistake of nature."
And a good deal of fornication.
1
“Inyenyeri would also stand to collect revenue from an arrangement it later entered into with the World Bank to sell credits for reducing emissions.”
What a fascinating bit of trivia. Capitalism is so incredibly grimy.
4
Yes let’s have people solve the world’s problems for free. You first.
3
What a strange digression this sentence is:
"He touts his ability to connect with customers, the women who do the cooking in Rwanda, though even after a decade living in the country he does not speak the local language, Kinyarwanda."
Do you realize how many people live in LA and have never bothered learning English, even after decades here?
5
Or those in LA who have never bothered learning Spanish, even though their city has a Spanish name for good reasons...
3
@M
Verdad!
And what happens when a part breaks?
1
I have worked on decentralized renewable energy and clean(er) cookstoves since 2013. I currently work with a group of researchers in Europe on these issues whose mission is to empower communities, not to get rich from them. This article does not approach this entrepreneur's claims critically, and few of his claims have been backed up by the literature.
These sorts of claims have always reeked of false advertising that would not be allowed in so-called 'developed' countries, but facts are often glossed over in relation to poor people...
What of his claim that someone like him must get very rich to find an effective solution?
I would be very happy to introduce you to a Maasai elder from northern Tanzania who has devoted his life to improving his community, especially through decentralized energy. He is not rich. But he is very successful.
I'm surprised not to find any mention of the studies that question the health benefits of cleaner cookstoves and that this entrepreneur's claims and a few anecdotes are allowed to stand unchallenged.
Of those from the US, Europe, etc who have created businesses...there are many social businesses where the goal is not to get rich but to empower local communities. The best ones are usually led by locals, though.
Whoever does this guy's PR deserves a gold star: but the NYT should not publish such a profile: the stakes for the poor are simply too high.
7
10 years and you don’t know the local language? And you married someone from the country? I feel like someone who professes to care would make the effort to learn enough to at least hold a conversation
5
@John
Well, his wife is half his age so maybe all he has to do is point?
@John
I wish you would explain that to hundreds of thousands of people living in my hometown.
Another attempt by White men to save the Dark Continent from misery, possible extinction is noble. However, success will require the indigenous inhabitants implement the new stoves. Whenever opportunities have been provided to the natives, they have been unable to utilize without custodial care of non natives, i.e., Whites. Why is this? What do you suppose the reason is? This is a sincere rational non political realistic inquiry. Or is asking the reason not allowed..?
4
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Leave them alone - nature will lead them to what is best for them not some one who wants to make a name for himself.
1
While this sounds like excellent work, it isn’t the first for profit effort to bring stoves to Africa. Burn Manufacturing has been expanding their reach there for years, and have sold over half a million of their popular and efficient Jikokoa stoves.
Reference: https://burnstoves.com
1
@Dan Finkel
Thanks for that link, very cool product. Why no coverage by NYT? Perhaps a group of interested foresters and volunteers could help guide the planting of fast growing trees to offset the deforestation occuring. NOT for profit.
As this story points out, the problem is that it is difficult to take this model to scale. It's not even at a break-even point. And if people trade trees and other wood for pellets, the forests may still be denuded.
Still, being able to cook and do other chores, as I do without much thought every day, is a miracle for these Africans, to say nothing of not having to breathe smoke. I wish them all well.
7
I strongly disagree with an excessively capitalistic business model to benefit a few. I direct you to an on-going stove project with focus on financial gains for the impoverished families that use these same types of micro-gasifier stoves with or without fans and with or without pellet fuel. See "TER Projects" documented at JuntosNFP.org/resources Further info on TLUD stoves is also at www.drtlud.com The Goodman article is EXCELLENT!! We need support for the non-profit approach, like it is getting started India.
5
@Paul "Dr TLUD" Anderson
I would agree with you, but I've seen some of the paychecks of the CEO's of a few non profits.
I wish the author of this had gone back and looked at all the non profit and start up attempts on cooking stoves (most have been in Africa) and then contacted those people and got a reaction to/more information on what a total failure their efforts were. Then cross compare to the efforts of Mr. Reynolds in more detail.
This is *probably* a book on western user experience design practices applied to impoverished countries and how not to do it.
But good luck to the company. I hope they succeed.
5
What a sad philosophy that nothing grows unless somebody gets rich! What about solar cookers? They require a small upfront cost, and then are free to operate, for years, if not forever! You can even make them out of cardboard and aluminum foil for just a few bucks. No pellets to lug around. No smoke or gases of any kind. Nobody gets rich, but the planet is better off.
11
There are places like Northern California and Southern Oregon that have so much excess fuel. Any chance a public/private partnership could be developed to make pellets here and ship them to countries that need them?
10
@TLF Portland unless there is a 100% way to sterilize them, it is a bad idea to be moving wood products around the planet due to invasive fungus and insects that ride along. Local is better.
6
@Mr. Point
Maybe Atlanta could send some kudzu back?
A few thoughts: Our large scale coal stoves are called electrical power plants. We are making less progress on getting rid of these than the Rwandans are on reducing home coal use.
Other thought: whatever happened to the solar stoves? 40 years ago they were going to transform India and Africa.
And another thought: Standard Oil distributed oil lamps for free and charged for the oil. In doing so it became the largest multinational company of its time. Good thing or bad thing? Hard to say, but better for people's eye health than candles, and reprieve for the whales whose corpses were no longer needed to make lamp oil. On the whole, not bad tradeoff, but Cephalus raises some good points (in another post).
3
OK, so a guy capitalises on all the development work that was done by not-for-profits and European universities, the clean-burning stoves resulting from that work now having been thoroughly tested and quality epidemiological studies conducted showing they mostly FAIL to mitigate ill health effects from burning solid fuels, then he comes up with the same exploitative scheme used by Apple (make 'em dependent on after-sale stuff), camera makers of old (the money is in the film sales), and ink jet printer companies (give 'em away and then bleed the customers to death with exorbitant ink prices). Nice. Maybe a little fact checking would be in order before such articles hit the presses & internet. See & for long-standing not-for-profit work in this area.
9
@ Cephalys
So negative. At least this guy is trying. The problem isn’t just ill health effects, it’s giving mostly women time back in their lives to do what they have to do to everyday to keep their families alive, and it’s protecting the environment. Let’s hear better realistic ideas if there are any out there. I can tell you from experience, non-profits like universities come up with great ideas and do research on them, but it often takes money on the ground to put an idea into action that actually changes lives on a grand-scale problem like this one.
8
@Cephalus Hi there, I work for Inyenyeri. A couple corrections--the stove was designed by a 22YO dutch industrial design student in his garage with his dad. We buy it from them. An independent study released last week confirms they reduce emissions by 98%. It's the 2nd part of this webinar here
http://cleancookstoves.org/events/502.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDsjlpH5P4U
And yes, the way it works for us to put the world's best stove in these homes is to give the stove, and sell the fuel. It costs less than they are already spending anyway and is much cleaner and better for the environment. So what's the problem with that?
9
@Cephalus
I think a better analogy would be the razor companies. Give the razors away cheap and make money on the blades.
I am wondering why there is no discussion of solar cookers. No fuel needed but the sun. Doesn't take much more than some aluminum foil to make a quick one. Not one mention in the comments I've read.
You don't need a solar farm or electricity. I took one with me on a trip to Belize nearly 20 years ago to cook for 4 people. Hmmm, maybe I should find it again and set it up on my porch!
8
@Miriam Warner - the difference is you're on vacation cooking while you have lots of free time; the women in Africa this article refers to - do not have such free time for cooking with solar. And there are real-world problems in villages with solar cooking equipment, like it's often costly and fragile.
3
@friend for life The villagers have time to make the money to buy the pellets, and the time to lug the pellets home, but they don't have time to cook with a solar cooker? Solar cookers are not as slow to cook as some people think. The better ones are actually quite fast. Simple ones can be built out of cardboard and aluminum foil.
3
@Miriam Warner Solar cookers work when the sun is shining. In Rwanda, the sun goes down at 6pm every day of the year ( equator ) which is when people go home and start cooking. No matter how clever or affordable, people won't use something that doesn't fit into their lives, which is why solar cookers have never taken off.
6
I'm not surprised to see so many comments that claim to know what "Africa needs", from electric grids to LPG, to solar ovens. Much of these comments are steeped with assumptions and lack nuance. The "success" of any one of these projects (including electric grids and distributed renewables) cannot be separated from the complex workings of everything else. "Africa" does not exist in a vacuum and is not collapsible into any one list of stereotypes.
I guess I'm a real cynic when it comes to projects that tote singular power to transform xyz (and yes I research these projects for a living). Still, I did find this article interesting to read, if not at times compelling.
7
If we aerate their lake and estuary sediments, we can restore those to, by oxidizing and removing their in situ sources of eutrophication.
An exceptionally long article on one solution, without a hint about alternatives and competitors. For instance, what about solar cookers? They are designed to solve the same problem -- and have been doing so in Africa for years. See https://www.aidforafrica.org/member-charities/solar-cookers-international/
3
Solar ovens aren’t practical at night
9
Or even a hot, a cloudy day
3
@Life Expectancy As the Critical Variable Or in the rain season.
3
Rwanda has a reputation for attacking local corruption. But become a large company, and the military will be at your door with its hand out. And don't dare criticize Paul Kagame.
4
Oando in Nigeria has done this for years with LPG cookstoves. It's also a for profit venture that involves the government, business, local NGOs and creates local micro businesses by supporting neighborhood distributors. That program has been evaluated by major development organizations and PwC. But a white guy who discovered economic development policy yesterday didn't come up with it, so...
1
Burn Design Labs and later, its manufacturing company, Burn Manufacturing pioneered clean cookstove technology 5 years ago. They established modest operations in Nairobi in 2013 and soon thereafter expanded to a full fledged fabrication plant. They have sold over 340,000 of their jikokoa model clean cookstoves in Sub-Sahara Africa. They're on the fourth generation product. https://burnstoves.com/jikokoa/
2
@Kevin
their web site says it uses charcoal.
2
Would be interested to know how much wood is required to "get to scale" and where all that "sustainable" wood will come from? Wood is a "renewable" resource as long as tree cutting is kept to a rate that can be replenished. This requires replanting and time for new trees to grow.
10
I was a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa working in Agriculture, so I was in the very rural villages. It will be hard to get the rural people to change their tried and true way of doing things. They have survived doing things in the traditional way and know that new things break down or as they say "spoil themselves," and parts are not available and supplies dry up. I never faulted the locals for their view they are the ones whose survival is at stake not the suppliers of the new technology survival.
4
@Marlowe Coppin This has note been our experience at Inyenyeri, in part due to Eric's vision on customer service. Our interests are aligned with our customers-we only make money if they use the stoves, so we offer lifetime free repairs, replacements, and upgrades, and it's free to become a customer and no penalty ( besides returning the stove ) to quit. Our highest retention rate year over year is in rural areas, as we save people up to two hours a day they previously spent collecting wood. You can learn more here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGn9vcFx7LM
1
Your article had a great expose on Mr. Reynolds but failed to ask any real probing questions.
Several research articles have shown that while wood pellets do not cause respiratory inflammation compared to coal, they do end up causing pervasive DNA damage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4625445/
Among biomass fuels, while wood is better ranked in terms of incombustible particulates than dung (for example), kerosene, coal, and piped gas are the most efficient (and thus have the least number of particulates). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568866/
Wood pellets also tend to have greater metal particulates in them, depending on the source for wood.
Offsetting coal for wood is merely replacing one bad fuel with another. It is a shame to be profiting from this ham-fisted attempt to save lives.
5
@AJ, MPH
An improvement is criticized because it's less than perfect.
7
@Ivan Light Thanks Ivan,
My criticism isn't meant to detract the laudable efforts of Mr. Reynolds. It is meant to detract the @nytimes failure to provide comprehensive journalism presenting all sides of the story, especially to a public that may not be aware of the current development in public health and toxicology.
My criticism is meant to critique that the effort is not an improvement on the whole. Coal and wood are both equally pernicious on average—they excel in different ways and fail in different ways, relatively.
3
@AJ, MPH - Really, you seem to have all the answers...pat yourself on the back please, and just leave out the back door... while others are busy doing something to help someone in real need today.
1
Wonderful project: warmest wishes of perseverance.
If moisture is extracted from pellets by solar energy (readily available in most of Africa), thya would make it even friendlier.
5
@Michel Osinski - the pellets are frankly far more efficient than dry wood - That is why pellets are so popular for millions in the US and Europe.
Appropriate Technology: we need a lot more of that. But here are a few questions.
1. "He settled on a Dutch-made stove that reduces wood down to clean-burning gases. Using pellets reduced the need for wood by 90 percent compared with charcoal." I suppose that's by volume, not weight. It's weight that counts. Also, that phrase 'clean-burning gases' is rather unscientific. The cleanest theoretical burn would just produce CO2 and H2O. What does this stove actually produce?
That stove: OK, it's Dutch. Is it steel? Aluminum? How does it wear out? Then what happens to it?
2. These pellets seem to be packaged in plastic sacks. Is anyone paying attention to that?
3. Nothing at all about the factory making the pellets. Should we anticipate scaling up to a giant mill decimating forests (very efficient), leading to roadbuilding and lots of motor fuel use? Or local workshops in which an imported machine is fed local wood? There was something about people gathering sticks.
4. Wouldn't it be nice if one guy or one company weren't going to get very rich off this?
11
@99Percent
Geeze Mr Sunshine, take it easy. Let’s get the microscope out and see how you live.
6
@99Percent - You're a real prize...why crawl back under that rock you must be living in.
Try analyzing your home's delivery of electricity, gaz, water - and even if you're using totally off-grid (those factories and slave labor producing/assembling solar panels), what about those dirty trucks delivering Gaz, the extensive networks of electric utility poles crossing the country and the big dams or coal fired, or nuclear plants funding it - Why not use your hyperbole to condemn wind power or the inefficiency of women giving birth.
Seriously, get a life dude...
@99Percent HI, I work for Inyenyeri.
1- it's by volume, and it really adds up. Here's independent research on our emissions; 98% reduction. Starts at 36 mins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDsjlpH5P4U
2-They are plastic so they don't rot. Rwanda is wet. They get reused, a lot.
3-Again, since we use 90% less than is ALREADY BEING USED when making charcoal, even larger plants will still use vast amounts LESS to make pellets.
4. You may be interested this; Dr. Starr has thought a lot about what it takes to actually get something to scale, without subsidies https://ssir.org/articles/entry/somebodys_gotta_get_rich
3
Indoor smoke is very dangerous to the eyes. Women and young children are disproportionately affected. I'm totally onboard with this and am donating. Thanks for reporting on this, NYT. It's so frustrating to read news about the things we can't do anything about. This is the kind of reporting that encourages us to take responsibility for the world we live in.
9
Congrats and best wishes to Mr. Reynolds for every success with his endeavor. He and his associates should be proud of their work on a problem that affects many millions of people.
Whether making wood pellets or charcoal, one needs a huge supply of trees to feed the process, hence the denuding of so many African (and other) countrysides. What happens to the business model when the stoves are used by hundreds of thousands of families and the supply of trees diminishes?
The current cost of the stoves is very high for most families, especially rural ones. In order to reduce the cost perhaps it would be helpful to enlist the aid and support of science/technology-oriented schools like MIT and CalTech, and of manufacturing entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, to apply fresh eyes and improved technology to making the stoves. (I know, Musk has baggage, but he can make reusable rockets that take off and land, quite a feat; Tesla cars, the jury is still out.) This search for assistance needn't be limited to the US; most of us own, use and are satisfied with numerous items manufactured in China ranging from appliances to computers to tableware and watches--manufacturing similar and improved pellet stoves at lower cost ought to be a cinch.
By the way, many rural women who use the stoves will still have to walk 20-30 minutes carrying water for cooking; and soot is often scrubbed off with sand or dirt. Which leads to the issue of providing centralized water sources--but that is another story.
5
@Mon Ray HI, I work for Inyenyeri. Since pellets use 90% biomass to do the same amount of cooking, even if we were in every single household it would result in vastly less wood being used.
And again, the stoves are FREE to customers, in return for buying pellets from us.
And yes, people still have to walk far to collect water, but since their pots and clothes are so much cleaner, they end up needing about half as much as before.
This explains it well, in three minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGn9vcFx7LM
To Mr. Mcdiddle
I was in the military (U.S. Army) stationed in Africa during the late 60's in Eritrea. The poverty was something that I would not forget. I recall women trudging for miles to obtain wood sticks to use for cooking. The odor of burning wood was everywhere . You couldn't escape it. As Mr. Price pointed out in his comments yes while electricity or gas would be great to have the cost to implement would be tremendous and especially challenging in poorer countries. Me thinks you need to walk a mile in their shoes. Btw pellet wood stoves have a following here in this country particularly in the colder regions of the US. We need to break the habit of using fossil fuels and engaging in use of climate friendly sources. Mr. Reynolds is onto something here and we wish him great success in helping the people of Africa and ultimately saving our planet if its not too late.
5
Mr. Reynolds, you are an awesome human being. Your life is an inspiration to never give up. Thank you.
7
Fantastic, I am happy to learn about his history with Nau as I have purchased clothing there, sorry to hear he was pushed out, so encouraging his dedication to help those in extreme poverty.
2
This is a great story involving a practical solution! It can motivate other social entrepreneurs.
7
I applaud and support Eric Reynolds. He seeks market oriented solutions to prodigious challenges. While I, for one, don't believe all human activity should be market-oriented - namely, management of health, enablement of education, and swiftly reining in the juggernaut of climate change, the realities of our time are what they are. Money shapes action. Yes, we can identify imperfections in the model. (It was formed and is managed by people, after all.) Feedback will help the model to improve. Feedback from users, feedback from distributers of equipment and fuel, and feedback from readers of this article. The important thing is that another force of positive change is gaining momentum.
2
Rocket stoves that maximise the heat from any kind of local material and combust it more completely to minimise smoke are a much more realistic solution. in addition they can be fairly easily made, with simple cutting tools from old metal containers. No expensive imported fuel. But not much profit to 'entrepreneurs'.
2
Why do people celebrate bandaid solutions? Africa needs electricity not clean cook stoves. Anything less is an insult to the people who live there.
6
@McDiddle That's pretty uncharitable. You say bandaid, but this is something that can improve people's lives RIGHT NOW. The infrastructure for electricity might require millions or billions of dollars, and a huge paradigm shift for those using it. As Confucius said, "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."
63
@McDiddle Hi there, I work for Inyenyeri. Not sure I follow your point--you live in SF, PG&E brings you both heat and electricity every day. The fact is, humans need three things every day: water, food, and heat to make the food digestible. If you've never had electricity you can clearly get by without it. But everyone needs to eat ( and cook ) every day. This isn't a band aide--it's a basic human need. Have a nice day.
93
Reliable electricity for the parts of Africa that lack it is a worthy goal, but cooking one of the last uses for which electricity replaces other power sources. Reliability has to be really good before a person wants to trust electricity to cook.
Also, if you're thinking about an underdeveloped power grid or a local power source like a solar panel, cooking is a big power draw. You can have enough power to let many people light their houses with LEDs without having nearly enough to let the same people all cook diners on electric stoves or hotplates.
22
Reynolds is to be congratulated for his efforts to improve the cooking methods of much of the world to a cleaner burning fuel. This is a very serious problem for many of the globe's poor. Rather than using wood pellets, which still require the search for and hewing of trees by someone. I would suggest moving on to low cost propane. Propane is cheap, easily transported in bulk and small containers, burns cleanly, and can be turned on and off as needed. It also can be used to provide light and heat. What is needed is a sponsor with supplies of propane and a strong need to do something altruistically--like perhaps the oil industry. Like Reynold's wood pellet plan, going to propane would build a supply industry on a local level, but more importantly, would eliminate the savaging of forests. I proposed this idea to the oil companies some years ago, but never even got a reply.
5
@david g sutliff Hi this is Tom, I work for Inyenyeri. LPG costs more, and is a fossil fuel. Wood pellets are renewable, locally made, and cut carbon emissions by 90% compared to charcoal. And they're cheaper, so everyone can afford it. Altruism can't scale to everyone, here's a good article on the topic https://ssir.org/articles/entry/somebodys_gotta_get_rich
31
Thank you for that insight. I realize the problems with LPG, but i was thinking along the lines that going to gas eliminates the need to cut down trees which actually do not get renewed, and that staying with wood, means that someone has to devote time to getting it, often women who could be doing other things, like infant care. Then there is the smoke issue and the fact a wood fire can't be turned off when cooking is done.
What i really hope is something gets done to aid these millions of folks get a better way to cook a simple meal.
1
This endeavor is interesting but sounds familiar. Perhaps it is a variation of the shaving industry making its real money by selling the blades, not the razors.
Anyway, nothing is really totally new under the sun. Best wishes for success--- financial and environmental.
Eric Reynolds: you are a man committed and obsessed with building a healthier world. Bravo
May your company expand to scale [100,000+] in Rwanda very soon. The stove is brilliant, practicable and eases people's [esp. women's] lives. It also burns much cleaner than charcoal, the latter a deeply corrupt industry continent-wide that's literally killing lots of people.
Good on ya'.
37
Good luck Mr Reynolds. You’re doing so much good with this initiative. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Also, if you’re looking to raise money, try Kickstarter.com or gofundme.com. There are many good hearted people who would love fund your project, without asking for your soul in return.
11
Another even lower tech approach is the wonderbag:
http://www.africasgift.org/make-difference-your-armchair/sponsor-wonderbag/
The Wonderbag---a kind of giant "tea cozy" that insulates a pot that's already been heated up---looks as though it would be a useful ancillary to any source of cooking heat. I wonder if Inyenyeri would be open to distributing them; the bags would likely cut into the quantity of wood pellets used, but they might benefit Inyenyeri's customers.
How can you scale up pellet production to meet the needs of 100,000? How clean are these stoves under real-life conditions? Will people start sticking twigs and leaves in their stoves, creating the same smoke as the other stoves? Will these stoves be abandoned when people can't find the pellets? This was more about Mr Reynold's personal life (Great, started Marmot! Cool, young Rwandan wife!) than about the real challenges in the field---we need really clean cook stoves, used consistently, to improve health.
Otherwise, these will go the way of the Crock Pot...or is this really is the InstaPot of solid fuel stoves?
5
@A mother Hi this is Tom, I work for Inyenyeri. We can scale up pellet production, because it's a well established, very large global industry--the mechanics aren't complicated. The stoves are clean under real life conditions, as proven in this independent research:
http://cleancookstoves.org/events/502.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDsjlpH5P4U The stoves don't work well with anything but pellets, and since customers only get to keep the stove if they continue to buy pellets, they just use the pellets. We have always had pellets available, so abandonment hasn't been an issue either. As to them being truly clean, again recommend you review the independent research which confirms it. Sometimes good things happen. Sometime problems get solved. Maybe be open to that?
18
@A mother This is such a good start. When you or others come up with a better plan we move forward, again. Good Work Inyenyeri and Mr Reynolds !!
Casey Howard
The way of the crock pot? I got one in the early ‘80’s. Used it almost every week for over 30 years, until it finally died. If these stoves do as well, which they might, they’ll be a huge success even if something better comes along eventually.
Nice article and good news of any sort, particularly these days, is so welcome.
But why are you framing this as "capitalism," recognizing it does share some characteristics with it? It's social entrepreneurship, something which has been around for a few years now and can use the mainstream media coverage. Capitalism does not "go well beyond the bottom line" as this entrepreneur is trying to do. He's also seeking to benefit, not inappropriately, from the government's trying to put the old ways out of business, trying to pick up some carbon credits from the World Bank, develop relationships with customers, and doing some bartering. Not business 101, so don't imply it.
Let's be open to new ways to think about doing "business," including how capitalism can evolve in progressive ways. The old ways have too many problems. Try to see beyond the old labels and ways to categorize things. They do not help the creativity needed to come up with more of these types of innovations.
22
Charcoal is popular in most third world countries, and yes smoke is the result of moisture, especially prevalent in the tropical regions, which of course are mostly third world. All the best to Mr. Reynolds!
7
Necessity is the mother of invention. Simplicity it's best topping.
5
Based on this article, the idea seems too good to be true. Maybe it is. Maybe there are some environmental, engineering, or economic flaws in Mr. Reynolds’ plan.
But at least he’s trying to make a positive difference in the lives of truly poor people, which makes him a far better person than most (including me).
At the risk of being politically incorrect…
God bless this guy.
42
Peter Goodman accused me of being a "reflexive cynice" (thanks for responding to my criticism in any case) because *I* have lived a long time and have seen many people claim to help the poor.
However, the root of ALL environmental problems is human overpopulation. Capitalism of any kind cannot solve the world's impending collapse except by incentizing birth control and family planning.
As Edward Abbey observed, Capitalism is based on the notion of "Growth for the sake of growth", which "is the ideology of a cancer cell."
19
@Jay David
"The root of ALL environmental problems is human overpopulation."
Very little evidence for that I'd say. Plenty of evidence that massive overconsumption by the section of the worlds population living a 'western' lifestyle, is the root of ALL environmental problems.
Try not blaming the worlds poor from your comfort life.
9
I'm inclined to agree with you that overpopulation is the source of many or most of the world's problems. That doesn't make clean stoves a bad idea. People stop having babies at above replacement rate when two things happen: (1) women gain enough status to have a say in the matter; and (2) child mortality declines enough that people feel "safe" having only one or two children. (This is a little too simple, but close enough for the moment.) Improving the health of women and children and giving women more time to engage in business contributes to creating both those necessary conditions. If overpopulation is the underlying ill, clean stoves may be part of the cure.
5
... whereas statism/marxism/totalitarianism yield such excellent results. At least no one profits!
Eric Reynolds contention that one can make billions in profit while doing good is qualified by his later confessions that competition by others might undercut the model by "picking off wealthier urban customers while abandoning the rural poor" or getting their wood from "unsavory sources".
In fact, per capitalism, the mandate to investors is to pursue "greater efficiency" - i.e. greater potential to make profits, not greater benefit for poor consumers. Were more companies to compete for their share of profits, Reynolds would be forced to compete.
So maybe he should be less equivocal in stating the limits of free enterprise.
2
There is unfortunate mistakes in this article. Water does not make smoke for instance.
Sadly, even the best "improved" wood stoves still produce enough smoke in practice that they are nearly as unhealthy as an open fire.
The article combines charcoal and wood in odd ways. People gathering wood and the smoke it produces and then the production of charcoal. Charcoal fires don't produce a lot of smoke after they are started but do produce a lot of carbon monoxide which is deadly. But it's true that a lot of energy is lost in the production of charcoal so many more trees are lost for the same amount of cooking.
At this point, environmental public health community no longer talk about improved wood stoves as a solution as a way to improve the health effects.
So while he may be improving environmental outcome, he is not improving the health of the women who use these stoves.
1
@karl
You are cherry picking, essentially. Almost akin to some of the arguments/line of reasoning against nuclear power.
Wet wood *does* smoke like crazy. Boy scouts 101, amigo. Pellets produce a lot less CO and particulates than charcoal. Contrary to what you believe, with proper usage this can still improve the health of the people who use this type of stove.
25
@Pepe
It is not what I believe, it's what the science has demonstrated, burning wood of any kind is bad for your health. There is a lot of scientific literature that has tested the use of all type of stoves, including air driven pellet stoves. The reduction of smoke that these improved stove makes is not enough to significantly improve health outcomes.
@karl Hi there, I work for Inyenyeri. You're mistaken, but don't take my word for it. Here's links to independent research showing 98% reduction in emissions http://cleancookstoves.org/events/502.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDsjlpH5P4U
Not sure what environmental public health community you're talking to, because the ones we talk to talk about it all the time. Feel free to email me directly to discuss further [email protected]
4
Smoke cooking fires in homes is a problem for many people living in South America as well. A few years ago I visited a small village in the mountains to the west of Ambato, Ecuador where I was the guest of several families that had wood fires inside their homes which filled their dwellings with smoke. Some of these fires were kept going for many hours. Several of the women I met had a constant hacking cough that surely was the result of these fires.
17
20 years ago there was a wood chipping project in Central America that was built around self-sustaining forestry - fast growing trees that would be planted in already cleared spaces and supply the wood without requiring harvesting of the local hardwoods. Wouldn't that be a necessary part of this project- supplying the urban centers may take more wood for pellets than what can be sustainably harvested from local native supplies
6
@mejw1957
A most excellent point. The rural villagers could grow these trees on their land, sell them to the pellet factory. In this manner, they could actually earn money to balance out the purchase price of pellets. That would be humanitarian.
2
Wonderful article and thank you Mr. Reynolds for making life easier for so many.
31