采用和更换炉灶对节省薪材的影响

N. Johnson, K. Bryden
{"title":"采用和更换炉灶对节省薪材的影响","authors":"N. Johnson, K. Bryden","doi":"10.1109/GHTC.2012.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cookstove adoption and cookstove use are two conditions that are not commonly considered when comparing the cost and benefit of rural energy options. This study uses field data on improved cookstoves implemented in a rural West African village to estimate the impact of alternative cooking options prevalent today. Because approximately one-half of women own more than one cookstove, and use each of the stoves, it is unlikely that any single cookstove option will replace the three-stone fire. If current cooking trends are maintained, the fuelwood savings of village-wide implementation would thus be a mere 6.4% of the rated cookstove savings for a small single-burner cookstove that is partially adopted and only used for some cooking tasks. Even if the small single-burner cookstove was used for all meals less than the observed maximum cooking capacity of 18 kg, this village-wide savings would only amount to one-third of the rated cookstove fuelwood savings. The derated fuelwood savings based on stove stacking is expected to more closely approximate the realized fuelwood savings of a cookstove program rather than the idealized case of 100% adoption and 100% replacement. Additional discussion on investment impact-fuelwood displaced per dollar invested-is provided for four cookstove options. The high investment impact of the artisan improved cookstove and the next generation single-pot cookstove suggests they be chosen for implementation, yet the long lifetime of the institutional cookstove may be an attractive option for onetime funders.","PeriodicalId":265555,"journal":{"name":"2012 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Cookstove Adoption and Replacement on Fuelwood Savings\",\"authors\":\"N. Johnson, K. Bryden\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/GHTC.2012.56\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cookstove adoption and cookstove use are two conditions that are not commonly considered when comparing the cost and benefit of rural energy options. This study uses field data on improved cookstoves implemented in a rural West African village to estimate the impact of alternative cooking options prevalent today. Because approximately one-half of women own more than one cookstove, and use each of the stoves, it is unlikely that any single cookstove option will replace the three-stone fire. If current cooking trends are maintained, the fuelwood savings of village-wide implementation would thus be a mere 6.4% of the rated cookstove savings for a small single-burner cookstove that is partially adopted and only used for some cooking tasks. Even if the small single-burner cookstove was used for all meals less than the observed maximum cooking capacity of 18 kg, this village-wide savings would only amount to one-third of the rated cookstove fuelwood savings. The derated fuelwood savings based on stove stacking is expected to more closely approximate the realized fuelwood savings of a cookstove program rather than the idealized case of 100% adoption and 100% replacement. Additional discussion on investment impact-fuelwood displaced per dollar invested-is provided for four cookstove options. The high investment impact of the artisan improved cookstove and the next generation single-pot cookstove suggests they be chosen for implementation, yet the long lifetime of the institutional cookstove may be an attractive option for onetime funders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":265555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2012 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2012 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2012.56\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2012.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在比较农村能源选择的成本和收益时,采用炉灶和使用炉灶是通常不考虑的两个条件。本研究利用在西非一个农村村庄实施的改进炉灶的实地数据来估计当今流行的替代烹饪选择的影响。因为大约有一半的妇女拥有一个以上的炉灶,并且使用每一个炉灶,所以任何一个炉灶都不太可能取代三石炉。如果维持目前的烹饪趋势,那么在全村范围内实施所节省的薪材仅为部分采用且仅用于某些烹饪任务的小型单燃烧器炉灶额定节余量的6.4%。即使所有的饭菜都使用小型单炉炉灶,而所观察到的最大烹饪能力为18公斤,这种全村范围的节省也只相当于炉灶所节省的薪材的三分之一。基于炉子堆叠的降额薪材节约预计将更接近于炉灶计划实现的薪材节约,而不是100%采用和100%更换的理想情况。关于投资影响的进一步讨论- -每投资1美元所取代的薪材- -提供了四种炉灶选择。工匠改良炉灶和下一代单锅炉灶的高投资影响表明,它们被选择用于实施,但机构炉灶的长寿命可能是一个有吸引力的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Cookstove Adoption and Replacement on Fuelwood Savings
Cookstove adoption and cookstove use are two conditions that are not commonly considered when comparing the cost and benefit of rural energy options. This study uses field data on improved cookstoves implemented in a rural West African village to estimate the impact of alternative cooking options prevalent today. Because approximately one-half of women own more than one cookstove, and use each of the stoves, it is unlikely that any single cookstove option will replace the three-stone fire. If current cooking trends are maintained, the fuelwood savings of village-wide implementation would thus be a mere 6.4% of the rated cookstove savings for a small single-burner cookstove that is partially adopted and only used for some cooking tasks. Even if the small single-burner cookstove was used for all meals less than the observed maximum cooking capacity of 18 kg, this village-wide savings would only amount to one-third of the rated cookstove fuelwood savings. The derated fuelwood savings based on stove stacking is expected to more closely approximate the realized fuelwood savings of a cookstove program rather than the idealized case of 100% adoption and 100% replacement. Additional discussion on investment impact-fuelwood displaced per dollar invested-is provided for four cookstove options. The high investment impact of the artisan improved cookstove and the next generation single-pot cookstove suggests they be chosen for implementation, yet the long lifetime of the institutional cookstove may be an attractive option for onetime funders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信