EcoZoom builds a market for clean cookstoves | How many replicate tests do I need? – Variability of cookstove performance | Assessing the Climate Impacts of Cookstove Projects:
Dan Campbell
EcoZoom builds a market for clean cookstoves in developing economies | Source:Christian Science Monitor, Apr 22, 2013 |
In impoverished areas, people spend $1 to $2 per day to burn charcoal or wood to cook food, a huge expensive for them. A clean-burning cookstove cuts that cost by more than half.
EcoZoom is a for-profit certified B Corporation based inPortland,
Oregon, and a client of Mercy Corps Northwest, working to solve this problem by making clean cookstoves accessible and affordable in
developing countries.
Global Envision interviewed Chief of Operations Phil Ferranto on the challenges EcoZoom faces in convincing people to invest in clean cookstoves, developing a market for cookstoves in developing economies, and what sets EcoZoom apart as a socially-minded for-profit business.
Zohra Bensemra/Reuters/File
EcoZoom’s mission is to get clean cookstoves into the hands of cooks in both the developing world and developed markets. Can you tell us a little about how EcoZoom’s business model manages to market cookstoves to consumers who regularly choose to spend money on other products? Who are these consumers?
Our business model is to partner with key stakeholders throughout the value chain by setting up a sustainable commercial market. As I see it, there are three main categories of stove users: relief, development, and commercial stove users.
Sometimes we’ll start with somebody in a refugee camp whose life has been uprooted. Usually in that case we’ll work with an NGO who really knows the camp and its dynamics to make sure we find the right product for the camp – something that’s durable, something that makes sense economically for the NGO, and something that can be distributed to enough stakeholders within the refugee camp to avoid inner conflict.
Our second focus is on development markets, which are usually in rural settings where people are either finding fuel or wood, or maybe using a traditional [wood-fired] stove or a mixture of cooking, heating, and lighting solutions. In these cases individuals may not have a constant income stream or aren’t spending enough money on fuel to justify the purchase of a cookstove outright.
How many replicate tests do I need? – Variability of cookstove performance and emissions has implications for obtaining useful results
APRIL 23, 2013 · 0 COMMENTS
How many replicate tests do I need? – Variability of cookstove performance and emissions has implications for obtaining useful results, 2013.
Yungang Wang, et al. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720
Abstract
Almost half of the world’s population still cooks on biomass cookstoves of poor efficiency and primitive design, such as three stone fires (TSF). Emissions from biomass cookstoves contribute to adverse health effects and climate change. A number of “improved
cookstoves” with higher energy efficiency and lower emissions have been designed and promoted across the world. During the design development, and for selection of a stove for dissemination, the stove performance and emissions are commonly evaluated, communicated
and compared using the arithmetic average of replicate tests made using a standardized laboratory-based test, commonly the water boiling test (WBT). However, published literature shows different WBT results reported from different laboratories for the same
stove technology. Also, there is no agreement in the literature on how many replicate tests should be performed to ensure “significance” in the reported average performance. This matter has not received attention in the rapidly growing literature on stoves,
and yet is crucial for estimating and communicating the performance of a stove, and for comparing the performance between stoves.
We present results of statistical analyses using data from a number of replicate tests of performance and emission of the Berkeley-Darfur Stove (BDS) and the TSF under well-controlled laboratory conditions. We
observed moderate variability in the test results for the TSF and BDS when measuring several characteristics. Here we focus on two as illustrative: time-to-boil and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) emissions. We demonstrate
that interpretation of the results comparing these stoves could be misleading if only a small number of replicates had been conducted. We then describe a practical approach, useful to both stove testers and designers, to assess the number of replicates needed
to obtain useful data. Caution should be exercised in attaching high credibility to results based on only a few replicates of cookstove performance and emissions. Stove designers, testers, program implementers and decision makers should all benefit from improved
awareness of the importance of adequate number of replicates required to produce practically useful test data.
Assessing the Climate Impacts of Cookstove Projects: Issues in Emissions Accounting (policy brief)
APRIL 23, 2013 · 0 COMMENTS
Assessing the Climate Impacts of Cookstove Projects: Issues in Emissions Accounting (policy brief), 2013.
Michael Lazarus and Carrie Lee. Senior ScientistStockholm Environment Institute
This policy brief, based on an SEI working paper, focuses on a key precondition for cookstove projects to obtain carbon finance and to ensure environmental integrity: credible, scientifically robust methodologies to measure and verify emission reductions. 
Carbon finance is gaining appeal as a way to scale-up improved cookstove projects while also meeting the need for standardization and accountability. Researchers have found the potential volume of credits could exceed 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year.
To be viable and ensure environmental integrity, these projects need credible, scientifically robust methodologies to measure and verify emission reductions. The authors review existing methodologies, drawing on a literature review as well as interviews with market actors and technical experts, and identify gaps that need to be filled.
Cookstove projects can generate offsets through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and from three voluntary offset programs: the Gold Standard, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). To date, all but one project has used the CDM, the Gold Standard, or both.
Emission reductions from cookstove projects are calculated as the product of the amount of woody biomass saved, the fraction that is considered non-renewable biomass, the net calorific value of the biomass, and an emission factor for the fuel used. Each of these factors presents technical challenges that would benefit from further methodology work.
The authors note that cookstove projects’ climate benefits are not limited to carbon dioxide; they can also significantly reduce emissions of black carbon, carbon monoxide, and total non-methane hydrocarbons. However, these benefits are not yet quantified by the methodologies, nor can credits be earned for them.