Uganda

Peko Pe Stove, Fuels, Charcoal vs Firewood
Paal Wendelbo, Norway, paaw@online.no, June 2008
Peko Pe L and Peko Pe S
Click image to enlarge

AIDUGANDA: Why are these Women Carrying Stoves on their Heads? and Other Images from Uganda and Darfur
Ken Goyer, AidUganda, October 2007

Aiduganda has been installing stoves in Uganda and Darfur. The following are links to images and videos from those activities courtesy of Ken Goyer.

Why are these Women Carrying Stoves on their Heads?

Cooking with the standard pot in Darfur

SixBricks Rocket stoves in Lira Refugee Camps

Improved cookstoves are used for diplaced persons in Ethopia, Darfur, Uganda and for Hurricane or Flood Victims.

World Food Program sets out to start the save stoves initiative. The initiative is focused on refugees and other poor women, and highlights the need for stoves to reduce time spent gathering firewood.

Initiative highlights:
"WFP’s Safe Access to Firewood and Alternative Energy in Humanitarian Settings (SAFE) project will scale up distribution of fuel-efficient and “improved mud” stoves to assist almost 100,000 women in North Darfur. These stoves consume less firewood and lower health risks associated with smoke."

"In Uganda, WFP will focus on refugees and pastoralists in the drought-hit Karamoja region. It will provide more than 35,000 households and 50 schools with fuel-efficient stoves, as well as helping women to find other sources of income."

http://www.wfp.org/stories/wfp-launches-safe-stoves-initiativeMax 90 Winter Sneakerboot

Insights Into Fuel Efficiency and the Dissemination of Mud and Ceramic Stoves in Southern Africa
Peter Scott, Biomass Energy Consultant, December 23, 2007
Lorena 2 Pot 2003Lorena 2 Pot 2003

Shielded One Pot 2003Shielded One Pot 2003
Dear all

I wanted to offer a couple of brief insights into the recent dialogue regarding fuel efficiency and the dissemination of mud and ceramic stoves in southern Africa

First, A little back ground:

I worked with GTZ-EAP in Uganda for 3 weeks in August of 2003 . During that time I built a number of metal and brick stoves - both household and institutional - as well as bread ovens and a number of insulated ceramic combustion chambers . I didn't design the 2 pot Lorena stove but I did offer some suggestions on its design .

When I arrived GTZ had already begun developing prototypes for the two pot 'rocket ' Lorena mud stove as well as a single pot shielded mud stove. I made a number of recommendations: that they insulate the combustion chamber of the 2 pot stove and follow some simple rocket stove principles (shelf under fire, internal rocket elbow geometry, insulation, and proper gaps for optimal heat transfer).

2 pot Rocket Lorenas in Kampala
A number of tests of these stoves were performed by GTZ using the original WBT/PHU testing protocol (GTZ-EAP has the test data and the specific results so Im hoping that Leonard Magerwa might post the test data - Leonard are you out there?) during 2003

From my recollection the results looked something like this:

2 pot 'insulated' Rocket Lorena. Three versions were constructed and tested:
a.. -with pumice combustion chamber
b.. with 50/50 vermiculite c combustion chamber
c.. -with sawdust clay (unfired/non ceramic)

All of these stoves had very similar test results , something like slightly
above 30% PHU

2 pot mud rocket Lorena
a.. This stove performed slightly worse , something like 28% PHU

Single pot shielded fire mud stove
a.. This single pot stove had similar performance to the 'insulated' 2 pot stove. Around 30%. (sorry that's the best picture I have. Leonard , do you have a better one?)

Note: These 'lab' results are from the stove testing site that was set up in Kampala. They were built to exact specifications (stove built around 2 standardized pots and a 1 cm gap around both pots). As Dean and Tom pointed out, the stoves that were tested by USAID were most likely not constructed as per the original specifications nor were they used in the manner they were intended ( i.e. pots not submerged)

a.. The 'Insulated' versions all produced similar results in overall
efficiency even though they offer a spectrum of insulation quality : from
relatively high quality insulative materials such as pumice to a lower
quality insulative material such as unfired clay ceramic model .

a.. There was only a few percentage points of efficiency gained by
insulating the 2 pot stove

a.. Given the similarity of the results of the insulated stoves we could
conclude that in terms of fuel efficiency , the insulation of the
combustion chamber does not have a great impact on overall efficiency ie
reduction in fuel consumption. ( One would imagine that they had an improved
combustion efficiency, Unfortunately emission testing equipment was not
available during these tests but it did appear that the insulated stoves
were producing less visible smoke than the non insulated version)

a.. The un-insulated single pot chimneyless shielded fire proved to have
a similar efficiency as an insulated 2 pot chimney stove

Although these tests obviously aren't definitive they do point in a
certain direction which seem to support what Aprovecho has been saying for some time:

a.. Optimizing Heat transfer is important for reducing fuel consumption.
This means : using a skirt and/or tapering the slope underneath the pot so
that it reduces cross sectional area by .75 X

a.. Insulating the combustion chamber will have a greater impact on
improving combustion efficiency than it will on heat transfer and fuel
efficency

a.. With out standardization we can expect high performance or consistent
results

GTZ-EAP for a number of reasons - that they could elaborate upon - decided to promote the 2 pot Rocket Lorena ( my understanding is that the insulated version is promoted where possible, but due to poor access to materials,
it is the un-insulated version that is often produced in the field

When the stoves were designed it was recognized that they would face some significant dissemination challenges:

a.. Design drift. without proper tools and training the local producers
would not be able to produce the stove to the exact specifications of the
stove

a.. Material substitution. Many owners would not be able to afford the
metal chimney that was needed for optimal use of the stove. Instead local
producers often made shorter chimneys out of mud that were difficult or
impossible to clean and very slow to generate draft due to their higher
mass .

a.. User 'error' Users using different size pots and not submerging the
pot into the stove. This would obviously decrease heat transfer , increase
fuel consumption and lead to increased smoke in the kitchen ie not produce
similar tests results as those produced at the Kampala test site.

The 2 pot sunken pot Rocket stove has been a meaningful experiment ( I would like to acknowledge The staff at GTZ_EAP (Phillipe Simonis, John Kutesakwe and Leonard Magerwa ) have worked very hard to produce a large quantity of stoves in a relatively short time period ( 50,000+ in 3 years)

Way forward?

Any household stove project is going to be faced with many challenges. How do we bring fuel efficient stoves to the people who can least afford them but need them the most?. How do we bring standardized stoves , which require technical ability , accurate tools and perhaps even advanced materials to these users. Who is going to pay for them if the users cant? It seems that that CDM mechanisms and factory production are one option for delivering
stoves to the poorest.

Of course, one avenue that has not been fully explore din Africa is dissemination of the single sunken pot shielded fire mud stove. Given the results of the testing done in Kampala in 2003 , it seems that there is potential for this stove to save fuel . Of course there is still plenty of opportunity for that stove to be poorly built and used.. Although given that it doesn't require two pots for it to work , nor an expensive chimney there is the chance that it could fill a certain niche in the stove world.

I can envision multiple shielded fire stoves being constructed in and outside of the house . Each stove sized to a specific pot. Since the stoves would be very low cost , the users could build many stoves as needed.

Its is an exciting time in the household stove world. We still have not come up with a fuel efficient stove and dissemination strategy to bring stoves to poor households in Africa. Its going to take a lot of trial and error , and
fumbling around in the dark to work out how to do this.

Fuel Efficient Stove Programs in IDP Settings - Summary Evaluation Report, Uganda
Academy for Educational Development for USAID, September 2007

Introduction: Evaluation Objectives

Around the world, conflict and natural disasters have displaced millions of people. Displaced populations fleeing to settlement camps and seeking safety in host villages often put great stress on natural resources, leading to environmental degradation and conflict with local populations. One of the greatest needs of all people affected by crisis, be they displaced, settled or on the move, is firewood or other types of fuel to heat their homes, cook their food, and treat water for drinking and food preparation. The risks endured (especially by women and children) collecting sometimes scarce wood resources constitute some of the most challenging and serious protection concerns both in IDP camps and in villages where the conflict over resources is high.

USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) has been one of the key US Government funders of humanitarian agencies implementing fuel-efficient stove (FES) programs in IDP settings. The FES programs are intended to help the agencies accomplish various goals, such as improve food security or decrease deforestation, by reducing fuel consumption. However, the large number of implementers, their varying motives and degrees of expertise, and differing conditions within and among IDP communities have made it difficult for OFDA to determine the relative efficacy of the FES interventions and provide guidelines for USAID-funded entities working in IDP settings.

Therefore, OFDA enlisted the assistance of the USAID Energy Team to undertake a multi-phase evaluation in order to derive “best practices” for future FES interventions. While the primary purpose of this evaluation is to provide guidance to USAID-funded organizations, USAID hopes to inform the broader humanitarian community by sharing the results of the evaluation with them as well. Eventually, the best practices will be developed into a series of recommendations and toolkits for use by NGOs, donors, and other groups operating FES programs in IDP settings.

Institutional Barrel Stoves in Northern Uganda: Theory vs. Reality
Damon Ogle, Aprovecho Research Center, February-March 2007
FredaFredaPerforms Controlled Cooking Tests

From Richard Stanley Legacy Foundation to Steve Amodio in Burkina Faso on Presses December 14, 2006
Subject: response to your report on Burkina Faso...

Richard:Steve,
This is in response to your email sent earlier, below in which several issues are presented.

Steve: We set out to build three pressed I had designed during our initial month of talks. We were grossly inefficient in 
spending, but we produced three presses to try out in three villages.

Richard:The press you designed is clever. Thought I'd share a few other designs with you too.

1) A hinged base with a miniature ladder arrangement, the rungs of which provide a multi position pivot for the lever, from Mozambique Keith and Alberto of the SPARK association outside Maputo: Shown is Alberto with bqs in hand lever leaning against cylinder. with mini ladder welded on ot top end of cylinder. I think it hinges at base to open for briquette release.
Contact: ketoooo@fastmail.fm

Pages

Subscribe to Uganda