Remarks
Dr. Steven Garrett and Dr. Philip Hopke
Washington, DC
January 26, 2010


Andrew Reynolds: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It’s nice to have you here again for our Jefferson Science Fellow Lecture. We usually have these on a monthly basis, and we were told I think it was Thursday that Secretary Clinton -- or gee, was it Monday? It was really very recent. Secretary Clinton’s having a town hall meeting right now so we’re competing against number one. But it’s really good to see the gather here. And I must tell you, this is probably one of the more timely lectures that we could possibly have. A word about the Jefferson Fellows for those new to our audience here, and that is a program that we began in 2004 here at the State Department to go nationally and encourage tenured professors from our universities to come join the State Department for a year, and then by agreement with their universities and professors to be with us as consultants, if possible, for at least five years after the assignment in Washington. And in this way build what as [unintelligible] Advisor to the Secretary has been trying to do since its inception 10 years ago. Bring more science capacity to the State Department, bring more science and engineering literacy into our work in foreign policy, and now with Senator Clinton and the Obama administration, coupling that as never before in diplomacy and development -- bringing scientists and engineers to the front lines of development and diplomacy.

And the Jefferson Fellows are a seminal and core activity to make this transition, and to make the State Department and AID stronger in the future with respect to this capacity. We have 31 alumni from our program now, that is Jeffersons that have served for the year and returned to their chairs and are continuing to consult with us -- some regularly and some not as regularly -- and we have 10 Jefferson Fellows serving with the State Department in AID this year. That is the equilibrium number we were always targeting, and now year to year we hope to recruit from our nation’s universities 10 additional Fellows and to divide their expertise between U.S. State Department and AID as much as possible. This morning’s lecture is given by two of our alumni who served last year, and I think it’s timely you will agree. I imagine you are here because you felt it was timely. Because this particular question of black carbon and the emission sources of cook stoves is such a powerful story that has to be told. And it is really at the intersection of diplomacy, development, and engineering and technology. We have two of our distinguished Fellows here to do this today, and I’m not going to steal any of their thunder because they have a wonderful paired presentation, but let me just give you a small idea of who they are. Dr. Steven Garrett received his Ph.D. in Physics from UCLA and he continued studying quantum fluids at the University of Sussex in England, followed by two years at the Physics Department at the University of California, Berkeley as a Fellow at the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science.

Dr. Garrett joined the faculty of the Navy Postgraduate School in 1982, where his research efforts were concentrated on the development of fiber-optic sensors and thermo-acoustic refrigerators. He left the Postgraduate school in 1995 to assume his current position as the United Technologies Corporation Professor of Acoustics in the Graduate Program of Acoustics, and the Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, one of the prettiest places on the map. Professor Garrett is a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and recipient of the Popular Science magazine award for Environmental Technology, the Helen Caldicott Award for Environmental Technology, the Rolex award for Enterprise, and has been issued over two dozen patents. And joining Steve is Phil Hopke. Now Steve served in the East Asia Pacific Bureau of the State Department, so here was a scientist, an engineer, working in one of our regional Bureaus, which is a very important place to see Jeffersons assigned. We have functional Bureaus of State and AID where scientists and engineers have been always useful, but to bring our scientists to the frontlines in the diplomatic regional Bureaus is also a powerful addition. Phil worked in our Research Office in Intelligence and Research Bureau of the State Department and specifically on his expertise, his field, and had great impact in the run up to the Copenhagen Conference.

He is the Bayard Clarkson Distinguished Professor at Clarkson University and the Director for the Center of Air Resources Engineering and Science. Professor Hopke received a B.S. in chemistry from Trinity in Hartford, and his M.A. and Ph. D. in chemistry from Princeton. Post-doctoral appointment at MIT, spent four years as the Assistant Professor of the State University College at Fredonia, New York, joined the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, rising to the rank of Professor of Environmental Chemistry, and subsequently came to Clarkson in 1989 as the first Robert Plane Professor, with a principle appointment in the Department of Chemistry. He moved his appointment to the Department of Chemical and Bio-Medical Engineering -- Bio-Molecular Engineering in 2000 and accepted his current appointment in 2002. His research interests are Characterization of the Ambient Aerosol, including development of sampling analysis and data analysis tools. And Phil had been very, very -- he’s global in his reach because he’s often brought in as an expert and witness for particular regulatory questions. I think you’ll find this presentation between these two gentlemen very stimulating, prescient, and perhaps looking to the future and where we should be taking this technology in development. So without further ado -- I’m Andrew Reynolds, I’m the Deputy Science and Technology Advisor here at State -- we welcome you, after these gentlemen make their presentations we’d like to open the floor to questions and answers. We’re recording, so please go to a microphone at that time, identify yourself, your organization, and we’ll go from there. Phil?

Phil Hopke: Thank you, Andy. Okay.

[inaudible].

Okay, that’s not good. All right, so what I want to do is give you a quick introduction into cook stoves, from descriptions of the human health implications coming there from and the climate implications. And so, you know, since you’re here I expect you probably already recognize that cook stoves are a significant impact problem. But a lot of people don’t really realize that cook stoves are a serious issue in the world. And that, you know, for an awfully large number of people -- there still is a significant number of people who are cooking their food daily -- something of the order of three billion people get their food cooked daily on household solid fuel combustion. About 2.3 billion of them are Biomass, 700 million with coal, and so you have this problem of an indoor fire producing a lot of by-products which are going into the room, leading to significant health impacts, and that material then moves outside of the house, becomes ambient air pollution, and also has significant global warming implications. And so what we want to begin to do is to look at what’s going on here in a typical Indian wood stove, for example. You take a kilogram of wood which represents a fixed amount of energy that’s going into the stove. A little of it -- about 20 percent -- actually ends up heating the food in the pot, about 75 percent of it is wasted, and importantly, about eight percent comes off as products of incomplete combustion in terms of particles, carbon monoxide, methane, and other organic compounds. So if we look, for example, at where solid fuels are used, they’re heavily used, for example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, throughout Asia into Southeast Asia, and still, to some extent, in Central South America and Central America.

This is a worldwide, global problem of a variety of areas in which there still is significant use of Biomass fuel. Now the key is that we have a large number of diseases for which there is epidemiological evidence for the role of household fuel use in inducing the disease, particularly Acute Lower Respiratory Illness, ALRI, meaning mostly pneumonia. And that’s impacting children particularly. And you now are starting to see some other things which are coming to the fore in terms of potential reproductive outcomes, low birth weight, asthma. And more on certain evidence potentially out there about things like cognitive impairment, birth defects we’ll talk a little bit more about those later. We have Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease -- that’s bronchitis and emphysema. Cancer -- lung cancer but potentially some other cancers are now being suggested in terms of significant impact of this indoor pollution. Cataracts coming from the pre radicals in the atmosphere and the hot small particles getting into the eyes. Tuberculosis, heart disease, and some other things. So the key is that we now see strengthening evidence for the existence of the things that we’ve known about for a while, particularly Acute Lower Respiratory Illness in children, COPD in cataracts in women. We’re expecting this year that the new 2010 World Health Organization Relative Risk document will provide more quantitative information on the risks of household solid fuel use on these diseases.

Recognizing that these diseases are multi-causal, so that we have to look beyond just cook stoves as a source of the problem, but there is clear evidence from a variety of meta analyses and systematic reviews of the published studies, that there is significant independent risk from the indoor air pollution although the risk coefficients are a little bit smaller than had been previously found. And now from Kirk Smith’s studies in Guatemala we have our first real Exposure Response Reports available for Acute Lower Respiratory Illness infections in children. As I said, there’s growing evidence for the inclusion of additional diseases in this list, including adverse pregnancy outcomes. Again, how is Biomass burning in a cook stove very different than smoking? We’ve known for a long time that smoking produces adverse pregnancy outcomes in terms of low birth weight, prematurity. The only thing now is that the people don’t get the nicotine. Lung and other cancers potentially, ALRI in adults, and now increasing evidence for potential of heart disease. Remember that ambient air pollution kills people primarily through cardiovascular disease in already diseased people. So if we take some work by Arden Pope and his colleagues, and we look at the data based on smoking up here and ambient air pollution down here. You can see that there is a pretty good linear relationship between the adjusted relative risk of heart disease, and the estimated daily doses of PM 2.5. And the solid fuel zone that we would have from household solid fuel use falls right in the middle. So we could expect results that aren’t quite as high as smoking, but are substantially higher than ambient air pollution. There’s indications of CO effects, birth defects, cognitive impairments, and potentially lowered IQ. So we know from the previous 2004 review that there was something of the order of 1.6 million deaths a year from Acute Lower Respiratory Infections, about a million children, 600,000 women.

We don’t have quantitative information on COPD and cardiovascular deaths but we know they’ve got to be there, we know the numbers of burns, cataracts, hernias, coming from carrying this wood, and a lot of problems of gender-based violence, particularly in things like refugee camps. You see these pictures of children carrying large quantities of wood, remembering that boys often carry wood up to the age of 11 or 12, then when they become men carrying wood is the job of women and children, but by then they may already have hernias. So there’s significant health impacts. The key now is that over the last few years we’ve recognized that there are likely to be also significant climate effects. We’re interested in the radiation balance of the earth in which sunlight comes in, bounces off of clouds and particles, gets absorbed by the surface of the earth, but also can get absorbed by particles that are light absorbing. The earth radiates energy, but part of it then gets trapped by greenhouse gasses and gets re-radiated in to the surface of the earth, and all that goes into adjusting the temperature. Remember that the greenhouse effect is in fact critical to allow us to live here. Without it we wouldn’t be warm enough for us to live on the surface of the earth. But too much greenhouse effect is not what we want. So we want to focus on particles because that’s my thing, and we’re looking then at things that are like white particles which can scatter and reflect, but particularly black particles which can absorb.

Remember that the reason things are black is because they’re absorbing all of the wavelengths. And that resulting heating then either gets emitted as long wavelength light, or warms the air immediately adjacent. And the point is that one has then the significant emissions. In here is India that’s hidden in the haze. This is an interesting picture that came up on NASA websites a couple of weeks ago showing just how bad the atmospheric brown cloud is across India, throughout Southeastern Asia. So the key is that we have then both complete and incomplete combustion effects coming from burning solid fuels. We have carbon dioxide which is an important indoor air pollutant, an important outdoor air pollutant, but not particularly in terms of health effects. But it is an important part of the greenhouse effect. The key is that there’s these other gasses like carbon monoxide, methane, and other VOC’s, which are important indoor pollutants, outdoor pollutants, and have significant warming effects. There was a piece on NPR this morning -- somebody pitching the importance of methane as the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. And then there’s particulate matter, and as we’ve seen there are health effects for both indoor and ambient particulate matter. And now as they say there is significant climate change potential because of black carbon and that really has come much more to the fore over the last two or three years. So if we look at the IPCC chart for global warming, we will see that we have a large amount of CO2, but if we look at the whole collection of things that warm the air, carbon dioxide is slightly less than half of the overall warming. There’s an important effect from methane, there’s an important impact from carbon monoxide because it forms ozone in the atmosphere as well as forming some additional CO2, and there’s black carbon.

Both the direct effect of black carbon absorbing light in the atmosphere itself and also depositing on snow caps and glaciers leading to reduced albedo, reduced scattering of that otherwise white areas of the earth. So one of the keys here is that a gram of black carbon is the same as putting a small heater in the atmosphere for a week. So you’re putting a lot of energy up there although it deposits out fairly quickly. On the other hand, carbon dioxide -- a kilogram of carbon dioxide -- three orders of magnitude different, is the same as a Christmas bulb for a hundred years. So black carbon represents a significant short term heating of the atmosphere. And so, we can reduce greenhouse gasses -- nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, CFC’s -- but these are going to effect the atmospheric concentration slowly, and they’re only going to affect things like ice and snow indirectly through the warming, and they tend to accumulate in the atmosphere. But with black carbon we have the opportunity for relatively immediate effects because its lifetime in the atmosphere is only in the order of 10 to 14 days, and can melt snow and ice directly by changing its reflectivity. So we have a change -- we have a comparison here in terms of a long term management challenge. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be working on these, but it means that it’s a long term difficult challenge, but here is a potential opportunity for some quick and effective reductions that may be very useful. Particularly cook stove contributions could be particularly large.

The impact, the amount of warming potential in the atmosphere is estimated by Tammy Bond to be something of the order of 150 times the amount of energy that is delivered into the pot by a particular stove. So that if we have something of the order of six gigajoules delivered per person per year for two billion people, we’re talking about a change in forcing of about minus .11 watts per square meter. This is actually a big number. Okay. The overall warming that’s occurred in the last hundred years is only about 10 times that. So, we have to be careful though because if we’re going to get really true litigation, we have to have robust efficiency in emissions. We have to have a really good understanding of what these stoves will do starting with the in use and lab use. We need to look at the overall stove system, including the fuels, stove, the pot, and the user. We have to look at replacement. Not only do we have to have big numbers but we also have to get the bad stoves and the three stone fires out of operation. And we need to know whether these stoves are actually going to be used properly, figure out ways to help people make sure that they’re used appropriately, and to do that we’re going to have to be doing that at a very large scale, at the order of 100 to 125 million stoves a year worldwide. In terms of both making, maintaining, delivering, and providing fuel. So there are significant climate impacts, a large fraction from the products of incomplete combustion.

There’s an opportunity for better energy services, so that we can in fact reduce a significant amount of global warming with a relatively modest investment, and we can look at sort of an overall view from a local scale in terms of hygiene, health in women and children, safety, and a local -- more local area in terms of personal security, deforestation, improved education -- or reduced education of children, time use for women. And then on a global scale we can think about things like climate change, tropospheric ozone, outdoor particulate pollution, and glacier melting. So there’s a lot of opportunity to fix significant problems with a better cook stove. So it represents a significant source of indoor pollution with a significant health impacts, indoor pollution produces outdoor pollution with additional health and visibility impacts. Even if cooking is done outdoors there are decreased health effects, but then we’re going to have ambient pollution, because that material’s going directly into the outside air, and therefore more directly affecting urban visibility and health effects from ambient pollution. And either way, these pollutants, as they get into the ambient atmosphere via carbon methane, carbon monoxide, are going to produce significant global warming. So a truly improved stove presents an opportunity for better health, better air quality, and a better climate, but the question is how do we get there? And the answer is -- Steve.

[applause]

Steven Garrett:

Let me start by thanking Andy for that kind introduction and those words about the Jefferson Program which is really an amazing program. I was in a group that had seven scientists, senior academics from seven different areas, and we get together quite a bit, and it always reminded me of The Usual Suspects. You know, what do you think is going to happen when you get these seven guys on the same lineup? And Phil has been a tremendous influence on me and my interest in Southeast Asia and focusing on a problem that actually might have a solution. What I’m going to talk to you about in my half of the talk is a workshop that was organized at the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok. This was an attempt to bring together people who were working in the cook stove area, and people who were specifically not working in the cook stove area, because we wanted to bring some fresh perspective to a problem that has been addressed for 10 or 20 years now. And we wanted to bring people there who would ask questions that hadn’t been asked in the decade just simply because they were new and see what kind of answers we would get. It was organized by three of us, two of us were Jeffersons, me and Phil and -- Phil Bane who was an IEEE Fellow. And here’s a splash of logos that would make a Nascar driver jealous. We had a tremendous amount of support through the State Department.

East Asia Pacific Bureau funded this through economic support funds who are sent to the area for environmental purposes. The National Science Foundation Myra McAuliffe -- Dr. McAuliffe was Program Officer there and supported this to bring U.S. researchers, academics, early career professionals, graduate students to Bangkok to participate. We worked with the ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology. ASEAN is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations -- sort of when I was growing up the group of countries we called Indochina -- and a facility that the State Department runs at the Secretariat for ASEAN in Jakarta that provides support to ASEAN activities including those of the Committee on Science and Technology. And then there were four universities involved. Phil and I are from Penn State and Clarkson, and we had a colleague from Berkeley, and a local colleague at the Asian Institute of Technology where this was run. There’s the obligatory conference photo. There was an excess of 90 people there and what was important was the mix. There was a great representation -- obviously, we were in Bangkok, so there was great representation from ASEAN. Academics, government officials, representatives from the subcommittee on novel energy research which is part of cost. U.S. government was represented strongly. We had -- the people in red are people who actually put money on the line.

Of course State Department, NSF, and we also were very pleased to have a generous grant from the office of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research that funded the local participation and graduate students primarily from the poorer countries in ASEAN; Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, a few people from Thailand. Plenty of academics. Most of those were self-supported, they came from their countries on their own dime to participate, and we had a great participation by stove manufacturers. One of them in the audience, Envirofit’s Chief Technology Officer Nathan Lorenz was there, as was his CEO. For Envirofit I have one of their stoves I’ll talk about down there. But there were stove manufacturers from Brazil, from Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland. It was really an interesting mix as anyone who was there would tell you. The challenge was to develop a road map. The goal is to plan for what is needed to develop and deploy stoves that would improve fuel efficiency by at least 40 percent and reduce emissions by greater than 90 percent, and to do so for large scale production and distribution. One of the things that didn’t make it into Phil’s talk, but he’s said on many occasions, is this is not about numbers, it’s about capacity. The Waxler-Marquis Bell has 20 million stoves in it -- if that turns out to be policy -- but what we really need is the manufacturing capacity to produce between 100 million and 125 million stoves a year and distribute them.

Otherwise you’re not going to have the impact that Phil talked about. So the path that we wanted to be able to guide was U.S. government commitment to aggressively support American science and engineering expertise to improve and then distribute cook stoves in developing countries. The findings are summarized in a report that we’re about to release called Research Road Map for Improved Cook Stove Development and Deployment. That road map sort of summarizes where things are with cook stove science technology and manufacturing at the present time and there are some very bright lights there. Things are not where we need them to be, particularly in the emissions area, but there are some serious and rational starts, and those need to be monitored closely. Then we go on to label the research areas that we think are important. Some of them as you can see you would guess, but some of them were quite unexpected. And scale up strategies, and of course we provide a program organization that includes a management structure and a budget. This is the cover of the report there on the right, and there are a few quotes there. One that addresses the climate change issue, I won’t read it to you. Another issue is affordability. It’s a question of what kind of return you’re going to get on your investment. There are a lot of places you can put money, you know, you could try to mitigate climate and improve health, and you have to evaluate those in an unprejudicial kind of comparison. And finally, the technological imperative -- and I will read that to you -- that’s a quote from the Economist magazine from late 2009. They did an article on cook stoves and it opened with this line which I thought was wonderful. “If user demand were the sole driver of innovation, the Biomass cooking stove would be one of the most sophisticated devices in the world.” It is used by three billion people on this planet, and it’s the most common appliance, and the oldest appliance on the planet. And it hasn’t been improved in about 25,000 years. People are cooking, if you look on the right, on three stone fires. It’s not right.

That’s the technological imperative. We proposed a comprehensive program and it looks expensive. It’s a hundred million dollars over 10 years, but we claim it’s appropriate to the opportunity. I apologize again for the quality in the detail in the slide on the right, but I think it’s an important space for the analysis of energy interventions, particularly household energy. On the left access is a measure of the cost of one ton of carbon elimination. And that’s a logarithmic scale that goes from one to 300. On the horizontal axis you have the quantity that’s not as obvious -- it’s dollars per DALY. A DALY is a Disease-Adjusted Lost Year. So it’s a way of evaluating the cost of letting somebody live an additional productive year. And that runs six orders of magnitude, it runs from 100 to 100 million, and I will say more about calculations because there are a lot of assumptions involved when you make a calculation about the cost of mitigating carbon in the atmosphere, CO2 or CO2 equivalent. And you have to look at these numbers carefully, but what you can see -- I’m just going to focus on the two big blue dots very close to the origin are cook stoves in China and cook stoves in India. At the far right, at the top, is photovoltaic in China and photovoltaic in the United States. So in terms of health interventions, you do about 30,000 times better for your dollar working on cook stoves than you do putting in photovoltaics to remove pollutants from the atmosphere. And similarly you do about 100 times better in terms of removing carbon from the atmosphere per dollar invested.

The thing that scares me -- and I’ll point this out at the end -- is that if you go look at the sales figures for large appliance companies, and you look at the R and D expenditures that these companies make and you form that ratio, the percent of ratio as a fraction of sales for these companies runs about between 1.1 percent of sales, and two and two thirds percent of sales. What we’re proposing is about .7 percent of sales. So I am very scared that I’ve underbid this. But I will make other comments. The most important point to take away is on this space of health improvement and energy mitigation, carbon mitigation, you want to get as close to the origin as you can, going down to zero is better in terms of your dollar expenditures. So the specific research areas that are covered in the Road Map -- I’ll review them individually, I’ve just listed them here. And they’re things that you would expect -- combustion fuels, heat transfer, material choices. But there are other things like what we call the cook stove vector space -- trying to determine what combination of characteristics a cook stove must have to satisfy particular populations. And you must do that first, it’s our first category. Some of the things that were not in the mix for most of the cook stove interventions that were being considered were design tools and additional functionality. I’ll have obviously more to say about that. But when you talk about computer simulations, that tends to be dominated by combustion people who are doing pre-dimensional finite element codes -- computation fluid dynamics. What’s really needed is not that. What’s really needed is software that integrates the contributions from materials from heat transfer from fuels from combustion, because these components are very strongly interacting. If you make a change to the flow to increase heat transfer from the hot gasses to the pot, it has tremendous consequences down line for the combustion.

So additional functionality I’ll say more about, and the last two items are measurements. A quote from one of our co-organizers from Berkeley I really just love, it says “You don’t’ get what you expect you get what you inspect.” There have been a lot of cook stoves that have been thrown out there that were claimed to be improvements for one reason or another, and they weren’t. USAID has just put out in the last year two reports on Uganda and on Darfur, and they did not name the NGO’s, but four out of six NGO’s in one of those internally displaced [unintelligible] were putting out stoves that were worse by a lot than the three stone fire in terms of emissions and fuel consumption. So you got to make the measurements. You have to have the standards. I’ll say more about that. And then paths to scale up -- as I said, the technological problem of the appropriate stove is challenging enough, but it’s harder to get it out to three billion people -- poor people. So I guess I’ll zoom through some this. One size fits some. There is not the cook stove that’s going to save this planet. There’s just too much variability in fuels, there’s too much difference in cooking requirements, some people cook in a pot but they cook starches, other people cook beans -- beans take ten times as long. So the transient effects on a bean stove are not as important as a steady state effects but that might be reversed in a stove that cooks starch. People in many countries want a plancha, they want a flat surface for tortillas in Central America, for injera in Ethiopia, you know, for crepes in France. You have to be able to provide that.

It’s not just simply a cook stove. Regional requirements beyond just altitude and seasonal variations -- you have accessibility of roads, and you have refugee camps and internally displaced persons camps. There are advantages and disadvantages, but these are people who need stoves because you don’t get a lot of nutrition out of rice that’s delivered there if you can’t cook it. And finally space heating is not really given, its due in this. If you look at places like Ulam Battar [spelled phonetically] and Nepal, you’re talking about cook stoves running between 20 and 24 hours a day -- only three hours, plus or minus an hour, they’re cooking. So there’s a lot of heat available there that could be used for electricity, and certainly improved combustion. I’m not going to say much about combustion fuel heat transfer, it’s kind of obvious. We’re in a developed country, our fuels are standardized. When you pick a fuel for your car you get to choose the octane, it’s tested. There’s a great infrastructure in the universities, and I’m the United Technologies Corporation Professor of Physics. The gas turbine business is a very, very sophisticated business. All of that is for engines that are 100 kilowatts and greater. Your car engine’s about 100 kilowatts. Cook stoves, the number one source of household energy for three billion people on this planet, are three to six kilowatts. We don’t understand small scale combustion. We don’t understand it. I’d like to also say that there have been really dramatic improvements by adding forced air to stoves. And it’s all been empirical.

There is no theory that people use to do this. It improves the efficiency, which is important, but it really significantly reduces emissions. And so for all the optimizations have been empirical, there’s no theory that really guides this. I like to tell my students at Penn State that locomotives were moving 100 miles an hour in the UK before Joule wrote down the first law of thermodynamics. You can make progress in this way but you can’t really optimize and customize your work if you don’t have an understanding of what’s going on -- how much air flow, where it comes in, how much it swirls -- nobody’s got a clue as to how that factors in. They just know it helps. Materials, again, the obvious ones, are high temperature cycling, any time you build a cook stove you’ve got to deal with moisture, people spill liquids. You have to be cognizant of the insulating properties, but not so obvious are things like thermoelectric modules, things that can generate electricity from heat, regenerators and heat exchangers for small scale heat engines, the Brazilians created a stove that has a small locomotive, generates about 100 watts. It’s a little bit on the expensive side, and it weighs a lot, and they have to cart it out to the Amazon, but people love it because it gives them electricity along with their cooking. And of course when you optimize the stove you have to keep the heat in, you have to concentrate the flame, so that you completely burn what Phil talked about incomplete combustion, you want to complete the combustion to get those emission products out.

When you do that you contain the flame, and the three stone fire’s the number one source of lighting in the kitchen. You got to compensate for that, and things, I’m not suggesting thermoluminescent paints, but there has to be some kind of strategy, and they haven’t been investigated systematically. This is a composite from NASA of the earth at night, and if you look at the dark zones, those are the zones that Phil had said were Biomass burners. There’s a one to one correspondence in the use of Biomass for home energy and the lack of electricity. 1.6 billion of those three billion users, the majority of them have no access to grid powered electricity. If you want to put in a fan, that’s a problem. The other thing is that amongst poor people in these areas, electricity has enormous value. In my area, Southeast Asia and Cambodia, a person will buy a 12 volt 40 amp hour battery, walk it a few hours to a diesel generator, hook it up, pay the guy the equivalent of a dollar, and walk away having just bought a half kilowatt hour of electricity, paying two dollars for kilowatt hour. You are paying between 10 cents and 20 cents a kilowatt hour. So we know this is a product, small amounts of electricity are highly valued by people in isolated areas and they’re valued for a good reason, it provides lighting, it provides access, information, radio, cell phones, you name it. And we’re not talking about, you know, kilowatts like we use in our homes.

Five watts is plenty. Ten watts is extravagant. So when you worry about the problem of adoption, getting people to use a stove that their grandma didn’t use, this is the carrot you can throw to them. You know. The electricity, if you can get the electricity with your cooking, then that stove looks a lot more attractive. These are not issues that have been really permeating the cook stove area, but I think they came up in a very strong way at the Bangkok conference. Well, Phil, we merged these slides, not all the fonts carried over exactly. But another thing is design tools, and software and research coordination. And as I said before, we’re living in the 21st century. Computers are extraordinarily valuable but the kind of code that is useful is the kind of computer code that combines the combustion effects, the fuels, the gas flows, the heat transfers, and the materials. And provides, most importantly, a common vocabulary. The people who do the research on the materials need to provide parameters like thermal conductivity and heat capacity and things to a code that can factor that in with the heat transfer, with the combustion, with the gas flows. That vocabulary, or the variables that end up in a code like that and their joining conditions, that is what is passed from one segment to another and I just put up a piece of code on the right from a brilliant software package that was developed by Los Alamos National Labs for a device that I’m building for a cook stove that generates electricity using sound waves. But the point of putting it up there is you need software that integrates all these different disciplines that need investigation in a way that allows our mutual interactions to be accounted for, and to provide you with testable results because you must validate all these computer codes.

So you need to have output that can be tested in the laboratory. Performance categorization -- again, I’m not going to belabor this but living in the 21st century we have better sensors than we’ve ever had before, we have software, and we have networks. The idea of collecting a log that somebody in a Third World country has been filling out, presumably on a daily basis, is not the way to get this data. It’s just not reliable and it’s not accurate. On the right is shown a missions collection hood, and piece of electronics below that that’s just recently been made available. About 20 of these kits have been sold that actually allow you to measure CO, CO2, and particulate matter. And that’s important because my background, as Andy pointed out, is in acoustics. And there’s a lot of noise regulation, but before you can write a noise regulation you need a sound level meter. And the fact that you cannot develop standards if you don’t have the instrumentation that you can write the standards for is critical, and we don’t’ have that instrumentation, we don’t have agreement on the testing protocols, but standards are critical. It encourages competition. It lets people decide that they have a product that’s worth bringing to market. It also, more importantly, suppresses knock offs. I’m sure Envirofit will be successful. I’m sure they will sell a lot of these, and I’m sure within two months there will be things that look exactly like that that has no insulation. You agree, Nathan? And if you don’t’ have those standards you can’t suppress these knock offs.

Or if we don’t have the standards, I have a very nice Rolex I’ll sell you for 15 bucks. But also standards limit liability. If a cook stove manufacturer gets into a market and they meet these standards and there are accidents or other things, their liability, their exposure, is controlled. And that’s important. Finally, paths to scale up. I featured the Envirofit stove here because it’s really moved along. It’s not as good as we would like but it’s a long way down the road from what’s out there. And also the Oorja stove which is designed for India -- you can’t really tell but on the left there’s a black box that plugs into a wall, so you need electricity for that. You need pelletized fuel, which I’ve showed in the bag to the right. In an urban environment that’s a good choice. And these were directed for India where you can actually get the pelletized fuel and you can get electricity, although probably only four hours a day. There’s a battery in there so you charge that battery when the electricity’s available. And then the battery runs the fan and you can run that stove indoors without damage to the cook. So these companies have gone out in the dangerous territory. They advertise, they create supply chains, they enable sales organizations, and we’ve got to stay tuned up to that, we’ve got to see how they’re progressing, what works, where the road bumps are. So my last two slides are really about the economics of this, what level of investment in cook stove improvement makes sense? And as I said before, there are a lot of assumptions built into anybody’s calculations; I’m going to make some simple assumptions but I’m going to tell you what assumptions I’m making. If we say that we need half a billion cook stoves for this three billion population -- so, you know, family size of about six -- and we are willing to pay $30 a stove, that’s a $15 billion investment. According to Tammy Bond’s calculations we avoid 300,000 kilotons of CO2 in the atmosphere if they’re being used.

If people are putting plants in them that’s not exactly the return you’re going to get on your investment. A nuclear power plant -- if you go to the Westinghouse website and look at their latest greatest AP 1,000 nuclear power plant -- I can’t tell you for sure how much they cost. That’s not on the website. So I was very generous I said 15 billion buys you about eight of these 1.15 gigawatt plants. In the United States, averaged over the entire country, we put about two thirds of a kilogram of CO2 into the atmosphere for each kilowatt hour generated. That’s a number that’s very well known. So if you take that number and you take the 15 -- the one gigawatt times eight, you come up with about 50,000 tons -- kilotons of CO2 avoided. So the cook stove right up front is about six times better intervention for your money. That’s not the whole picture. Power plant will last 30 years. So you get to collect that for 30 years and that gives you maybe about10 dollars a kiloton -- I’m sorry, $10 per ton of CO2 avoided, which was a number that you saw on that graph that I showed in the beginning. And again, if a stove has a three year cook life and Nathan will give you a five year warranty, so maybe it should be a five year cook life, but these are factor two numbers. This is cosmology, this isn’t gyromagnetic ratio or, you know, the universal gas constant of three parts per billion. But just to give you a feel for where this is, the important part about a cook stove intervention is it stops global warming now. When you stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere, all you’re doing is not making the problem worse, because that CO2 lives up there for a hundred years or more.

Whereas as Phil pointed out with that cute little graphic, you know, if you can get -- if you stop producing the black carbon, you have an effect that reduces warming, and if you are losing sleep as I do about tipping point events, about letting methane out of permafrost and glacial melting, then you want to do something fast while you’re figuring out how to sequester CO2 from a coal plant, which by the way, is a $4 billion per plant investment. So you got to watch numbers like a hawk. This is the slide that scares me -- I mentioned in the beginning. Electrolux, Maytag, and Whirlpool, if you add in the vertical direction they produce between 20 billion and 24 billion dollars’ worth of appliances a year. If you look at their R and D budgets these are publicly traded companies, you find that the investment in R and D is a fraction of sales, it’s between 1.1 percent depending on the year and the company, and two and three quarters percent -- two thirds percent. We’re asking for about seven tenths of a percent, and it may not be enough by these standards. And remember these people are doing planned product improvement.

They’re taking a washing machine and adding a new wash cycle, that’s R and D for now. We’re taking a 25,000 year old technology and throwing it out the door, starting from scratch. So here are my three summary points. Cook stoves provide a unique opportunity. For those of you who are interested in more information, local health benefits -- LANSA just did a dedicated issue on integrated interventions and their health consequences, worldwide health benefits, recently Foreign Affairs magazine had a wonderful article with absolutely no equations. This is the State Department. We need improved stove technologies primarily and improved ability, but scale up in manufacture ability, maintainability, is absolutely crucial. And we believe as organizers of this workshop, that success requires U.S. government commitment. Whether that’s headed by State or USAID or EPA or DOE, I am not in a good position to make that call. The European governments and the Indian governments have sort of hopped on board. Their successes are not stellar by any means, I don’t know where things are going to go with them, but American science and engineering infrastructure can really make a difference here and they can make it they can make it cost effectively and they can make it quickly. Thank you for your attention.

[applause]

Male Speaker: I’d just like to add that the slides from the workshop will be available in the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air, from Jacob Moss from EPA is sitting in the third row in front, and in about two to three weeks all those individual presentations will be available, as will the Road Map Report.

John Savage: Hi I’m John Savage, I’m another Jefferson Science Fellow serving in Cyber Affairs this year. Have you -- in your research plan, do you have funds to encourage students to conduct experiments with cook stoves?

Steven Garrett: We most absolutely do, we have line items in there for, in fact -- you know we made this program up, nobody’s endorsed it yet. But one of the requirements for an associated research group is that they provide a judge for competitions, and we’ve allocated $300,000 a year for student competitions in there. But it’s the right thing to do and I agree because we’re looking at the long haul. Thanks.

John Topping: My name is John Topping with the Climate Institute here in Washington. Those were two wonderful presentations and I think they were very valuable and we hope we can link to them in addressing this issue on the climate negotiations and other activity. One of the practical problems has been the whole perception that, you know, we’re shifting blame essentially from the North to the South and so on, even though, in of course the countries are going to be very much win-win beneficiaries. One thing we’re really looking at right now, which might be a way to bridge that in addition to, you know, getting resource flows to these projects which will dramatically reduce health effects and save lives, would be -- U.S. right now actually has a slightly higher, about 5.3 percent of global black carbon emissions in our per capita.

Some of this is coming down because of changes in truck diesel in particular, standards, and fleet turnover, but there’s an area where there’s a large opportunity, essentially Industrial Waste Energy Recycling, where because of very restrictive laws that are set up at the State level, you know, we have only -- we’re in the very low single digits there whereas Netherlands gets about 40 percent of their electricity there. It would seem that if we were to find ways of changing that, knocking down that -- the additional -- the added cost of essentially capturing additional particulate from coke plants, other places in the U.S., over, beyond what would be required by the State implementation plans could be enormous. So what you could find is that the U.S. and other industrial countries could, by hammering down industrial -- by essentially recapturing industrial waste heat and also building on the particulates, capture with that -- could move at the same time. So we’re no longer saying “you folks in the south ought to just do this.” But we’re actually, you know, bringing this forward as well as coming forward with resources for cook stoves and other related activities.

Phil Hopke: Yeah, that’s right, and again we would get the health co-benefits for the reduced emissions and the improved ambient air quality. So yeah, it’s again a local, a U.S. win-win situation although it will cost the industry some additional funds in terms of the capital equipment and operating costs. But again, we’re going to see the PM standard come down by another couple of micrograms per cubic meter, probably when the -- or at least I expect when the administrator makes the announcement in mid-March. So those kinds of things are going to be needed anyway. Yes ma’am?

Janice Bremmen: Hello my name is Janice Bremmen I work across the street over in the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs. I want to talk a little bit -- or ask you a little bit about what you explained was the cook stove vector space -- and with an environmental and a cultural anthropology background I kind of have a little difficulty with that because I think that’s where you’re talking about the cultural and the educational barriers or challenges to this kind of application. And I really want to stress that the women need to be involved because if you make that thing pretty and efficient and colorful and your food will taste better, you don’t need all the scientific hoopla to get it adapted. So that’s just my point, and my question about what exactly are you talking about when you’re talking about vector space?

Phil Hopke: You have to remember that we are professional geeks. We like to think of these things -- the vector -- each axis represents -- one axis represents fuels, one axis represents foods. You know, like you say, people who like meat like it braised. The fact that a solar cooker can raise it to the proper internal temperature is irrelevant. It doesn’t have the flavor, it doesn’t have the preparation. But the vector space includes how long it cooks, whether you’re cooking in pots or planchas or both. I see this -- I didn’t mention this, but if you look at the bottom I see this as the same problem that Homeland Security has. I think the sociologists have this information, I think World Health Organization has this information, I think UN Environmental Program has the information, I think World Bank has the information. Nobody has just put it together to generate design specifications and then count the number of common users and make your investment accordingly. But you’re 100 percent correct and this is, as you noticed, in our research hierarchy, it was number one. You have to go out there and find out what people want and, you know, what they don’t want, and what your intervention is going to add and subtract. So I appreciate that and we hope that you will be answering that solicitation for the social science part. Because I think that information’s there, I think we can get it, you just, it’s like Homeland Security, you got to put it together in the right way to see the picture. But thanks for the question.

Paul Arbison: I’m Paul Arbison with Solar Household Energy, a local nonprofit, and I think we -- I hope you can recognize that solar cookers are not in competition with wood stoves, they’re complementary. In a lot of these poor countries such as ones on your map here, Sub-Saharan Africa, they’re sunny countries. The sun shines most every day. So we have a source of energy that uses no fuel at all. So there’s an elimination, it has -- it addresses the same health issues that you addressed with wood stoves. Plus a lot of additional things, the global warming, all the other solutions -- it’s in the mix. And I think we ought to have a more serious attention focused on the complementary relationship that solar cookers, wood stoves, efficient wood stoves, and some kind of thermal storage system -- together that makes a complete solution for cooking. In most cases now it won’t deal with things like, you know, burned meat, or flavor in some cases. But in a lot of cases where people just need to eat cooked food, this is a solution that needs to be in the mix. And for example last week the Solar Cooking Organization sent a package of [unintelligible] -- of solar cookers down to Haiti where they can be used to pasteurize water. So if you’ve got sun, you’ve got drinkable water, basically. It’s an immediate, quick solution to a lot of those kinds of problems.

Phil Hopke: Right, it gets us back to the anthropological issues of acceptance and acceptability, how you tailor some part of the cooking to that kind of heat input versus the traditional solid fuel combustion driven heating and so that’s part of why we saw getting that cooking space, that household energy use space better defined so that one could see how one could look at a full set of tradeoffs.

Paul Arbison: [Inaudible] research involved in that, and it needs to begin with the user, with the woman that’s doing the cooking basically.

Phil Hopke: Exactly. Yes sir.

Jake Palley: Thank you both for coming. My name is Jake Palley, I’m here with the Office of Environmental Policy, and I wish I had heard this talk about five years ago because I was in Peace Corps in Paraguay and actually built 38 wood burning stoves with my community. And hopefully they were more efficient, but I don’t know after hearing this talk. But just a couple of questions then, are you working in the Peace Corps at all? Or in the organizations that are similar, who are on the ground working with communities and trying to find solutions like these?

Steven Garrett: We haven’t directly worked with -- the agencies we’ve worked with so far have been much more on the technological side, EPA, DOE, and then State and AID because of our presence here last year. I mean certainly Peace Corps would be a potential player in the scale up and distribution but we haven’t gotten that far in the game yet to look at where we could bring in other U.S. government agencies into play.

Jake Palley: I guess the other question is, a volunteer who was there before me -- she was a year ahead of me I guess -- she did a wood burning stove project. And I think about by the time she left, not everybody was actually using the stoves because they weren’t efficient, or -- I don’t know what the reasons were, but what are the major benefits or incentives that you see that could be promoted to people in the developing world? How could you convince them to switch from a three stone fire to something that is a substantial investment but might yield substantial benefits at the same time?

Phil Hopke: Okay, again, you are asking the wrong people. We’re techno geeks. We like it because it works better and it’s technologically improved and all that kind of good stuff. That’s really why we’ve got to have much more of the anthropological inputs to figure out what it is that’s going to have customer appeal. And that’s why we need the commercial people who are actually trying to make a living --

Steven Garrett: Aspirational products is their --

Phil Hopke: Yeah, trying to make a living selling these things because, you know, their neck’s on the line, ours isn’t. What we see at the moment that we can contribute is a better understanding to what goes into it in a sensible way that lets other people then use that understanding to make something that’s better, but in a way that is going to have that customer acceptability. Our initial view is that one of the things that we can do is, again, because of the value of electricity we see in a lot of the places, if we could have this thing produce enough power to run lights at night so that kids can read, the woman can weave baskets, the husband can make furniture -- that’s an advantage which should help acceptability. Now whether that’s the case or not or whether that’s just our deluded rantings is an entire question entirely.

Steven Garrett:

There was a technical question in there and I just always have to hop on them; I think the problem with those stoves, those artisan built stoves in South America, is that you build them out of a large amount of mud brick. And the heat capacity is so high that by the time you get the stove up to temperature, you’re tired of waiting to cook. So one of the nice things about these manufacturer’s stoves -- particularly the Envirofit or the Stove Tech -- is that they are very, very low mass and very, very good insulation. So they get up there really quickly. And the artisan built stoves, we see a lot of that in Central America and South America, you know you just have too much material sucking the heat away from where it’s supposed to be warming food.

Phil Hopke: I mean again, acceptability might be --

Jake Palley: We bought 10,000 bricks for 38 stoves, and it was a lot more --

Phil Hopke: You know, if you can cook faster, easier, less fuel -- that seems like something people are going to want.

Steven Garrett: I’ve never met anybody who have said they wanted to spend more time cooking. Yes sir.

John Boright: John Boright at the Academies. Phil you started on the question I was going to ask -- your point about the value of electricity is huge and of course even more components to that than you’d imagined, so the attractiveness and the value is very high. Have you done a -- looked at, in rough terms even, the comparison between a completely independent electricity focused solution and integrating it into this? You mentioned, sort of tentatively, an expensive joint generation option and I’d be interested in whether you’ve taken a serious look at that. And just as a comment, by the way, we have this year networks of academies in the world, in Latin America and in Africa in particular that are going to be focusing on this, I’ll probably get back to you and pester you with some more questions but, the electricity one is a very interesting one.

Phil Hopke: Yeah, it’s very interesting.

John Boright: It has communication and health and other benefits that you didn’t --

Phil Hopke: The answer is look, yes; analyze, no. Obviously you know we’ve looked at this, there are other strategies. Dean Kamen who is the Segway guy in the Insulin Pump guy has a sterling engine. It’s very, very complex, it runs with helium at 10,000 PSI, a very high-tech thing that produces about a kilowatt for the village, and about a kilowatt for vapor compression, water purification, which he’s pushing. That’s one alternative. Creating electricity from wasting in cook stoves, particularly for running the fan or in places where they’re using them for heating, it seems to us to be a no-brainer. We have a design for a surrogate pot when you’re not cooking, put this thing on and charge your battery.

John Boright: Specifically, I understand there are big programs for lighting specifically which are PV which charge up a battery and give you X hours in the evening for, you know, reading or communication or whatever. That’s one of the competitors, presumably.

Phil Hopke: Right although, again, PV is expensive and there’s problems of durability. And we can anticipate, you know, with the efforts going in to improve PV systems that they will become cheaper, more durable. I mean, you know, there’s going to be, again, lots of different things. This is not a one size fits all because you’ve got urban areas where you could think about other mechanisms for electrification, rural areas which I mean, you know -- India envisions even after a lot of development of additional power there’s still going to be 400 450 million people not on grid. So, you know, there’s a lot of opportunity for multiple solutions to try and get people to the point where they can live more comfortably.

Steven Garrett: I’d like to follow up because, you know, PV’s dirty little secret is that it has to run for five years to pay back the energy it took to make the PV. It’s not a very good way to go and in fact --

John Boright: It’s silicone.

Steven Garrett: It’s silicone, yes. And when it comes to solar I’d much rather see a solar concentrator run a small heat engine that would charge a battery so that you could run your cook stove and have coffee in the morning. Because you’re not going to get the sun to warm your coffee. So there -- you have to open the space, you can’t constrain yourself to what works in, you know, along a roadside in an urban freeway for powering a phone, and what is going to work in, particularly my region Southeast Asia. You know, you’ve got monsoons four, five months out of the year. You can put all the PV out there you want you’re not going to generate any electricity.

John Michael Cross: Hello, John-Michael Cross from the Climate Institute. I had a question about -- you mentioned you want to achieve further reductions of particulate, and you mentioned 90 percent. Is that number for particulate matter generally or for black carbon specifically? And if we’re looking at improving these stoves, what’s the tradeoff of whether it’s managing air flow or changing materials in order to -- the tradeoff between particulate matter, and then black carbon specifically which we want to target? And then, how far are we away? Because if we’re going to be talking about scaling up production, do we need to wait for an improved stove? Or should we go ahead with the now and change as we go along?

Phil Hopke: Okay. A couple of good questions. One is, remember that there will always be particulate matter, even if you’ve got very efficient -- all of the carbon gets converted into CO2. I mean one of the things, one of my projects at Clarkson at the moment is we’re investigating some high efficiency gasification pellet burners. Where we’re getting, you know, 90 percent thermal efficiency, there’s virtually no carbon in the affluent stream other than the CO2. There’s virtually no carbon in the affluent stream other than CO2, but there still is a significant amount of particulate because there is inorganic salts. So, we’re looking at, you know, 90 percent is really a starting point. Where we really want to get to is down to the point where we’ve only got those inorganic salts, that would mean we need a reduction of something like 97 or 98 percent. That’s where we’d like to be because, you know, those kinds of things, potassium and sodium oxides and things are not going to be particularly health active.

And we get the -- and we also get the CO reductions and methane reductions. In terms of the scale up, we’re envisioning a set of parallel paths. If we’re going to set in place, over say 10 or 15 years industry that creates a 100 to 125 million stoves a year we’re not going to do that overnight. These stoves are going to last, I mean, even this one which is warrantied for five years is going to need to be replaced. The key then is, can it be replaced by a much better stove, and a much better stove, and a much better stove? And so, within 10 or 15 years we’re up at that 98 percent reduction -- 95, 98 percent reductions in CO and methane. And now we’ve got -- and, you know, 50 percent increase in fuel efficiency or something like that. Now we’ve really, really achieved something, and we have the infrastructure in place to take those technological improvements and incorporate them into an evolving product.

Steven Garrett: I’d like to hop in for two reasons; one, I think you guys just put out a 16 page newsletter on black carbon that was excellent. You really did a fine job. I want to put some numbers to Phil’s answer and he’ll probably correct me and unfortunately Jake Moss from EPA just left, but a typical cook stove today produces unimproved or an open fire, 6,000 micrograms per cubic meter. Phil tell me, it’s about 10 micrograms per cubic meter in the United States is the upper limit?

Phil Hopke: Well, no, the current standard’s 15.

Steven Garrett: 15.

Phil Hopke: It’ll go down to 12 or 13.

Steven Garrett: It’ll go down to 12. So even if you have a cook stove like the Envirofit stove, that’ll take you down from 6,000 to maybe 1,000, or just under. That’s a major improvement, but it’s nowhere near the end of the line. So that’s sort of -- those numbers will sort of give you a context. Those levels are out there even if you do something that’s as big an improvement as the Envirofit stove don’t get you where you want to be, don’t even get you close, you got to add a fan. That’s the only way people have done that.

Najmedin Meshkati: Hi again I’m Naj Meshkati I’m one of the Jefferson Fellows this year I am a professor of engineering at USC. We’ve talked before, but since the lady over here and the gentleman they ask about topological factors which are very important, let me tell you my dear engineering professor Carliss -- again, I am an engineer, I’m with you in that, but I have good news and bad news for us. I’ve done another work for the last 30 years with UNIDO, with the Natural Labor Office, and there is a center in a Swedish University called Center for Economics of Developing Countries in Lulio I taught a couple of courses over there. The bad news is this, at the end of the day what will determine the success of the cook stove is not heat transfer characteristics or its equation that has gone to its simulation, finite element analysis and this and that. It’s really the user acceptance. I can give you from my 30 years in this world [inaudible] the book for ILO which has been translated into 14 languages on user interfaces on human systems integration. It’s really the usability of it. What I’m talking about here is a concept called User Center Design. We look at the user based on his or her physical and psychological needs, limitations, and capability and design the technology. And the good news is that there is a lot that should be done and can be done to improve this in order to make a successful project.

There are tons of examples of technology transfer by USAID, UNDP, and others of the white elephants that they don’t work, are not being used, accepted, and really pulls down to the factors in addition to anthropological issues, something that deals with the physical and psychological aspects of the issues, like anthropometric issues. For example this study, some design of the new tools, which was developed by Atlas Cook Co., and they were transferred to some developing countries. Some of them worked, some of them didn’t but part of that was they did not look at the anthropometric factor of the female user in the factories. That’s why they didn’t use them. That’s why my good news for you is there is a body of science which is called Human Factors and Economics of Human Systems Integration. The sooner it being used with the cook stove, the better it will be. And again among all the technologies that I worked in the last 30 years starting from refineries all the way to rikshaws for Bangladesh, this technology needs more human factors more than anyone else, because this is something that there is no interface between this and the end user. This is the interface. Thank you.

Phil Hopke: Yeah, we agree. I mean the key, again though is to get scale up and get sustainability this is going to have to become commercial products. This is going to develop an industry that companies who are going to make that effort to make a good human interface, to understand what the customer is, is going to be the key to functioning. We can provide critical understanding to design their product better, governments can help in terms of encouragement subsidies, other kinds of things, there’s clearly some different kinds of questions when you get to refugees and internally displaced people who are in different circumstances. But there’s going to need to be for the bulk of the people, the development of a commercial industry, people making money out of it, and that’s going to come because they’re selling a pot that people want to buy. Thank you all.