Comparative Performance of Gel Fuel Stoves

December 2001

Norman Mhazo Development Technology Centre, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt. Pleasant Harare. ( e-mail: mhazo@agric.uz.ac.zw )

Supported by: ProBEC/GTZ Regional Programme on Biomass Energy Conservation in Zimbabwe RPTES/World Bank Regional Programme on Traditional Energy services

1.0 Background Gel fuel is a compound of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) and organic pulp (cellulose). The two are gelatinised with addition of water forming a clear and transparent compound with a gel like consistency. The composition of the fuel by weight is ethanol (76 %), cellulose (5 %) and water (19 %). The quoted gross calorific value of gel fuel by manufacturers is 22.8 MJ/kg. ( Sibanda, 2000). Small amounts of colouring and flavouring agents are added to enhance the visibility of the flame and to avoid consumption of the gel fuel respectively. Ethanol is a clear, volatile and inflammable liquid prepared from the fermentation of sugars. Triangle Limited, a leading sugar cane and sugar producing company, produces up to 40 million litres of ethanol per year (Triangle Limited). Greenheat Manufacturing ( Pvt/Ltd), a local gel fuel manufacturing company, has potential to consume in the excess of 100 000 litres of ethanol in gel fuel product manufacturing every month. However, only 20 % of the products find market in the local catering and camping services. Insignificant amounts are consumed for cooking purposes at household level (personal communication). A simple gel fuel stove design consists of a one-litre cylindrical metal can into which the fuel is introduced. A supporting frame for the pot should be provided, and one design of such a frame which is in common use is a collapsible tripod metal stand. The top of the tin is covered with a thin sheet of metal with a few (4 or 8) 10mm diameter holes eccentrically placed around a central 60mm diameter hole. The holes facilitate air circulation during burning. Gel fuel needs to be evaporated and mixed with air to form a combustible mixture. The number of holes determines the power of the stove. More holes produce more power than fewer ones. A separate tight-fitting metal lid is used to prevent fuel evaporation after cooking. All the stove components are galvanised to prevent rusting. In Harare, gel fuel is supplied in different-sized plastic containers ranging from 1 to 5 litres. After use, the lid of the container has to be tightly screwed back to avoid loss of fuel due to evaporation. It is important to note the high volatility of gel fuel which results in significant losses if the fuel is left in an unsealed stove or container. 1.1 Gel fuel acceptance tests (1st test) Between November and December 1999, a preliminary gel fuel acceptance test was conducted in the low-income households of Epworth, a peri-urban suburb of Harare. The objectives were to test the technical performance of gel fuel under home conditions, specifically of low-income households, and to assess the possibilities of adopting the fuel as an alternative to paraffin. A group of 50 women participated in the trial, and they were provided with the simple type of stove or burner described above. Gel fuel in two litre containers was supplied to each of them at intervals of about a week. In-situ comparative analyses were made between gel fuel and paraffin. The times to cook various common meals for a household size of 3-5 people were measured. The rates of fuel usage (time

taken to use up 1 litre of fuel) were also monitored. The women were happy with the performance of the gel fuel stoves, and they cited a number of advantages and benefits which include the following: it did not produce smoke hence pots did not soot, it did not produce irritating smell compared to paraffin, the food cooked did not smell, it cooked very fast as long as the tin was full, it was very easy to light and put off, it did not stain linen when used for ironing, there was no danger of explosions. After analysing the data which was collected with the involvement of the women, it was found that there were no statistical differences (at P<0.05) in the performance of the two fuels besides in the preparation of green vegetables where gel fuel cooked in a shorter time than paraffin and in boiling water for tea where paraffin performed better than gel fuel. It was however observed that gel fuel could cook faster than paraffin as long as the fuel level was kept high in the can. At low fuel levels, the distance between the flame and the cooking vessel was increased thereby reducing heating efficiency. There were also possibilities that the supply of oxygen became limited as the fuel level went down resulting in less efficient fuel burning. In order to get good performance, the fuel level had to be kept high all the time. However, this posed fuel storage problems after cooking. A tight-fitting lid for the can was therefore necessary to prevent evaporation of the unused fuel. In the case of paraffin, the level of fuel did not have much effect on the burning efficiency as long as the wick remained dipped in the fuel. Losses of paraffin by evaporation were insignificant. The other problems encountered in the trial were: i) low durability of gel fuel stoves as they easily rusted, ii) difficulties in opening the cans as tight-fitting lids were used to prevent evaporation, iii) difficulties in regulating heat, From the shortcomings that were observed in the preliminary trial it became necessary to develop a more efficient gel fuel stove. Greenheat Manufacturing (Pvt/Ltd) designed a new improved stove with assistance from the Biomass Technology Group (BTG, Netherlands). A second field trial was then conducted with the new stove from mid February to the end of April 2001. To complement the field findings, a laboratory experiment to determine the losses of fuel by evaporation was conducted at the University of Zimbabwe. This report presents the findings of both the field and the laboratory work. 2.0.The new stove design The new stove consisted of a 500 ml. fuel can fitted with a conical flame regulator, a

loosely fitting lid, a box stand (250mm x 220mm x 140mm) with a windshield on three sides and a metal disc for putting out the flame at the end of cooking. The regulator had two sets of circular holes, 4 x 8mm and 8 x 10mm in diameter respectively. The sets could be closed or opened alternately. In the centre of the regulator was a single 50mm diameter fixed hole. All the components were galvanised to prevent rusting.

Figure 1. Improved design of gel fuel burner. (Note the multiple air ports and flame regulator) The stove could offer three distinct power phases: i) high power phase when the larger holes were fully opened ii) medium power phase when the smaller holes were fully opened iii) low power phase when both sets of the regulator holes were closed. 3.0 Objectives of the 2nd field trials 3.1.Overall objective The overall objective of the field trials was to assess the technical performance, suitability and acceptance of gel fuel as an alternative source of energy for cooking, especially for low-income households who traditionally use paraffin. 3.2. Specific objectives of the comparative study The specific objectives of the comparative study were to: determine the time taken to cook common foods/meals such as sadza, rice, meat, green

vegetables, porridge and boiling water for tea for 3-5 people using two different designs of gel fuel stoves, determine the rate of fuel consumption with each stove, determine the losses of fuel by evaporation after cooking, determine preparedness to pay for the fuel, document problems encountered by the users, document comments made by users for improvements, make an assessment of the extent to which the new design of gel fuel helped to resolve the problems encountered by the women during the first test.

3.3 Methodology 3.3.1 Field work Thirty (30) women were selected for the comparative study from the 50 who participated in the preliminary trial. The women were selected on the basis of their dependency on paraffin as the major fuel for cooking, levels of literacy and capability to take down measurements. The participants were trained on how to operate the new stove Each participant was supplied with a new stove, 2 litres of fuel and a fuel usage record sheet. The participants paid for the gel fuel. Fuel usage and fuel burning time were recorded Fuel refills and new record sheets were supplied every two weeks Experience-sharing meetings were held on every refilling time. 3.4. Results and discussion 3.4.1 Comparative Field performance Results from the field comparative trial of the two gel stoves in cooking common meals, i.e. sadza, rice, meat, green vegetables, porridge and boiling water for tea are presented in this section. Each meal was prepared for an average household size of 3-5 people. Table 1 gives the average cooking times for the different meals. The data were analysed using the MSTAT Version. The new stove cooked meat and boiled water for tea in a significantly shorter time than the old one (at P<0.05). However, though the new stove performed better than the old one in cooking the rest of the meals (sadza, rice, green vegetables and porridge), there were no statistical differences in the cooking times. The better performance of the new stove can be attributed to the continuous production of adequate heat energy even when the fuel level went down. The fuel can was shallower hence the flame generated at very low fuel levels could still heat up the cooking vessel. In addition, the inclusion of a flame regular in the new stove design allowed the cook to increase power output when needed. The need to top up the fuel can in the old design affected its overall time performance.

Parameter time taken to cook sadza (minutes) time taken to cook rice ( minutes ) time taken to cook meat (minutes ) time taken to cook green vegetables (minutes ) time taken to cook porridge(minutes ) time taken to boil water for tea (minutes )

Old stove 36.84 34.28 47.96 23.01 35.01 27.3

New stove 30.39 34.02 35.68 18.56 26.75 17.13

Table 1: Comparative Performance of the Old and New Gel Fuel Stove Table 2 shows the rate of fuel consumption/usage (average time taken to use up 1 litre of fuel) with each stove. The figures presented suggest that one litre of gel fuel would be used for a significantly longer time with the old stove than with the new one (at P<0.01). The depicted poor performance of the new stove in this case can be explained in two ways. One explanation is the exposure of residual fuel remaining in the stove after cooking to evaporation. As was noted earlier on, gel fuel is extremely volatile and if the container (or stove) is not properly sealed after use, some of the fuel is lost through evaporation. A laboratory test was carried out to determine the possible losses of fuel due to evaporation, and the results are presented later in the report. Another explanation for the higher fuel consumption by the improved stove is to do with the operator or cook. If the stove is continuously operated at the high power phase throughout the cooking cycle, that is without making appropriate adjustments to the low power phase for simmering, fuel consumption goes up and in fact there is loss to the surrounding. Enhanced awareness of fire management on the part of the user should translate to reduction of fuel losses through this route. Unfortunately the higher consumption of the improved stove was only discovered after the tests were concluded, so the effect of fire management could not be investigated. Nevertheless, a strong recommendation is being made here for suppliers of gel fuel to raise the awareness of gel fuel users on the importance of fire management in order to realise efficiency. Fuel batch 1 2 3 4 Mean time taken to use up 1 litre with the old stove 308 289.2 294.2 272.2 290.9 time taken to use up 1 litre with the new stove 129.6 124.4 108.3 108.6 117.7

Table 2: Gel Fuel Burning Time ( Minutes )

4.0. Laboratory tests An experiment to verify the losses of gel fuel by evaporation was conducted at the University of Zimbabwe. Three stoves were used to heat up water for; i ii iii iv 15 minutes in the morning (10:00hrs) 30 minutes in the afternoon (12:30 hrs) 10 minutes in the late afternoon (15:00 hrs) 45 minutes in the evening (17:00 hrs).

The stoves were operated at the high power phase in all cases. The weight of each store was recorded every time before and after use to determine the amount of fuel burnt in heating up water and that lost in between times of use. Three methods of storing the fuel that remained in the tank were used: i ii iii leaving the stove completely open using a loose- fitting lid (as is the case in the field) using a tight-fitting lid.

The loss of fuel by evaporation in each condition was monitored. Table 3 below shows the average daily fuel consumption levels of the new stove at high power phase. Cooking time (minutes) Fuel used (g) 10 40.5 15 61.4 30 137.3 45 214.6

Table 3: Daily Fuel Consumption at High Power Phase-New Stove Fuel losses by evaporation in storage were estimated as shown in Table 4 below: Fuel burning duration (minutes) Fuel loss by evaporation (g) Stove with tight lid 10:15hrs - 12:30hrs(135) 13:00hrs - 15:00hrs (120) 1.4 2.3 stove with loose lid 3.2 1.5 stove without lid 6.8 10.2

15:10hrs - 1700 hrs(110) 17:45hrs - 10:00hrs(975) TOTAL

1.6 1.9 7.2

3.2 10.9 18.8

16.7 15.7 49.4

Table 4: Gel Fuel Loss by Evaporation The results obtained in the experiment indicate that losses of gel fuel in storage can be quite significant if the fuel tank is not properly closed after use. A loss of up to 4% was deduced. But this alone cannot account for the high consmption of fuel by the new stove. End-user practices are suggested as another source or loss. 5.0 Constraints encountered with the new stove The new gel stove design was well accepted by the participants as it cooked much faster than the original design. Besides the significantly higher loss of fuel due to evaporation, in comparison with the old design, it was also noted that the flame was difficult to put off at the end of cooking as the device meant for this purpose tended to deform with heat. 6.0 Conclusion and recommendations 6.1 Specific Conclusion and recommendations based on the test The field tests served do demonstrate that gel fuel is a viable energy option for households who are presently dependent on paraffin as a major cooking fuel. The following are seen as major advantages: A litre of gel fuel can cook a smilar number of meals to that of paraffin, that is for a given size of family, a given volume of gel fuel will last more or less the same period as that of paraffin. During the period of the 2nd testing, the price per litre of gel fuel was very much comparable to that of paraffin, which made it affordable to low-income households. Compared to paraffin, gel fuel has a number of advantages which make it a superior fuel. For example: o Because gel fuel is gelatinous, it does not flow easily or spill, which makes it 100% safer to use. o It burns cleanly and leaves only minimal traces of soot on the cooking pot. Because of this, women particularly liked to use it for heating laundry irons. Unlike paraffin, gel fuel emits no obnoxious fumes when burning. However, having noted the above merits of gel fuel, there is nevertheless still room for improvement of the whole technology. Going by the results of the test, this is especially so with regards to the cooking appliance. The improved design of the gel fuel stove has a number of good features which make it more efficient and convenient to use, but more design works is still required. For example, the storage of the fuel that remains in the can after cooking is a new problem that needs to be addressed. The results obtained in the laboratory experiment indicate that losses of fuel in storage can be quite significant if the fuel tank is not properly closed after use. The new stove design had a loose-fitting lid to

avoid the difficulty in opening the fuel can that was experienced with the old stove. However, this has brought up fuel storage problems. In a day 4 % of the total fuel used is lost by evaporation in-between cooking sessions. This is equivalent to about 25 ml of gel fuel. More fuel is lost as the storage period is extended. Total losses in the field could have been higher as most households tended to spread the use of 1 litre of fuel over a week. There are a few options that can be pursued to reduce the fuel loss: designing a screw-on tight-fitting lid that would prevent fuel evaporation. using the right quantities of fuel for preparing each particular meal. Fuel loss by evaporation only happens because more than enough fuel would have been put in the can. If the amount of fuel required to cook a meal is known then just the right quantity is put in the can and nothing remains at the end of cooking. Educating and providing instruction on the proper operation and use of the gel fuel and stove. Considering the target market for this test, it is recognised that the design process poses a challenge to strike a balance between materials which resist corrosion on the one hand, and a product which low-income households can afford on the other. As can be imagined, this complicates the problem. Stove design should therefore be regarded as an iterative process between the manufacturer and the end user. This process has already started. 6.2 General Observations and Recommendations As the acceptance test of gel fuel were proceeding in Epworth, developments which are of relevance to this subject were noted at a level not restricted to the one geographical location. These are discussed below: Cooking food for very large families or groups of people is also possible with gel fuel. Figure 2 shows caterers preparing food for about 30 people using gel fuel. Due to an adverse economic climate characterised by critical shortages of foreign exchange in the country, the access of households to paraffin has been severely hit by supply shortages. This has persisted over the last two years. Now given that the major raw material of gel fuel (ethanol) is locally produced, it becomes a very interesting and more economic option as a substitute for the imported paraffin. For this to be a reality, government policy intervention is necessary so that gel fuel is not less favoured than paraffin which today enjoys hefty subsidies from government. The envisaged widespread use of gel fuel presupposes a much more expanded production base of the fuel and appliances. Already it was observed during the test period that a number of other producers of gel fuel have entered the local market. With this development the question of product quality, especially as it relates to energy value, safety and health becomes crucial. The safety aspect refers to both the stove and the fuel. A gel fuel which is not sufficiently gelatinous poses the same problem of spillage and burns, just like paraffin. It is also of interest to find out the health impact of fumes from burning gel fuel, something that has not been done as yet. All these are pertinent issues for following up, and a starting point in addressing them could be to bring all stakeholders together and develop a standard for the gel fuel, stove and related accessories. Expansion in the production of gel fuel in turn implies a concomitant expansion in the production of not only ethanol, but of sugar cane from which the bulk of ethanol is

obtained in this country. This calls for more investment into the sector, as well as favourable policy from government. Information exchange and joint efforts, especially with other SADC countries on the subject of gel fuel promotion should be encouraged.

On the whole, the gel fuel field test yielded useful results which should be of interest to manufacturers, government level policy makers, researchers, sponsors and the consumers themselves. However much more work still needs to done as shown in the recommendation above, but it is pleasing to note that a start has been made

Figure 2: Food for up to thirty people being prepared using the gel fuel (note the two-pot gel fuel stove)

10

7.0 References 1 2 Sibanda, G. ( 2000 ). Possible Use of Gelfuel as Domestic Fuel. Industrial attachment report submitted to the MSc. Renewable Energy Engineering Degree Programme Triangle limited. Brief Notes on the Production of Ethanol

11

ANNEX I

COMPARATIVE TEST OF GEL FUEL AND PARAFFIN IN LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OF ZIMBABWE

A Report submitted to ProBEC - Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation in Southern Africa and RPTES Regional Program for Traditional Energy Sector

March 2000
Prepared by : Norman Mhazo - Development Technology Centre, University of Zimbabwe, P.O.Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant Harare

12

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary . 1 Background 1 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Cooking energy in Zimbabwe and sub-Saharan Africa ... 1.2 Paraffin use .. 1.3 The gel fuel ... 1.4 The gel fuel stove . 2 Objectives of the comparative tests 2 3 3 4

.. 4

2.1 Overall objective 4 2.2 Specific objectives of the paraffin use survey 4 2.3 Specific objectives of the gel fuel field test . 4 3 Methodology . 5 3.1 The paraffin use survey 5 3.2 The gel fuel field test 5 . 4 Results and discussion . 5

4.1 The survey . 5 4.1.1 Social issues 5 4.1.2 Economic issues .. 6 4.1.3 Technical issues .. 6 4.1.4 Other uses of paraffin .... 9 4.1.5 Constraints in using paraffin . 9 4.2 The gel fuel field test .. 10 4.2.1 Fuel performance . 10 4.2.2 Gel fuel acceptance evaluation . 13 4.2.2.1 Advantages of gel fuel over paraffin .. 14 4.2.2.2 Constraints and solutions . 14 4.2.2.3 Fuel performance ranking ..15 4.2.2.4 Market opportunities of the gel fuel ..15 5 6 7 Conclusion 15 Recommendations .. 16 Bibliography .. 16

13

Annex I: Annex II: Annex III:

Assessment of Wick non-pressurised Paraffin Stoves .. 17 Gel Fuel Record Sheet ..19 Assessment of the acceptance of Gel Fuel by Low-income households 20

14

COMPARATIVE TEST OF GEL FUEL AND PARAFFIN IN LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS OF ZIMBABWE Summary Gel fuel is a compound of alcohol and organic pulp which can be used in place of paraffin as a source of energy for cooking. In April 1999, the Regional Program for the Traditional Energy Sector (RPTES) of the World Bank and Greenheat Manufacturing (Pvt./Ltd) launched a Millennium Gelfuel Initiative in Zimbabwe. In September 1999, a collaboration agreement was established between the Millennium Gelfuel Initiative team and the Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation in Southern Africa (ProBEC) to test consumer adaptability of the gel fuel in Zimbabwe. In November and December 1999, the gel fuel was introduced in Epworth, a peri-urban settlement close to Harare, for comparative tests with paraffin. The main objectives were to test the technical performance of gel fuel under field conditions and to establish the possibilities of adopting gel fuel as an alternative to paraffin in households that rely on paraffin as the main fuel for cooking. Basing on one litre equivalence, there were no significant differences in the performance of gel fuel and paraffin save for a few cases when either performed better than the other. The gel fuel had advantages over paraffin in that it produced smokeless burning and no irritating smells. However, unlike paraffin, the burning strength of gel fuel tended to gradually decrease as fuel level in the tin went down. Ways of improving the burning efficiency have already been developed. This report constitutes a draft interim report including only the findings of the first round of consumer adaptability testing. A new high efficiency burner will be tested during a second round of field tests. Background ProBEC, the Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation in Southern Africa, is a regional programme in six SADC countries (Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe) which enhances planning and implementation of integrated biomass energy conservation programmes. ProBEC is a joint programme between SADC (Southern African Development Community), the European Commission and the German Government. The Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH is commissioned to implement ProBEC. The Regional Program for the Traditional Energy Sector (RPTES) of the World Bank assists the governments of Sub-Saharan Africa in the planning and development of the traditional energy sector. Besides facilitating policy review, horizontal cooperation, exchange of experiences, RPTES supports high impact Research and Development (R&D) activities on traditional energy issues. Greenheat Manufacturing (Pvt./Ltd.) is a private company based in Zimbabwe which is producing and marketing the gel fuel. RPTES and Greenheat Manufacturing launched the "Millennium Gelfuel Initiative" in Zimbabwe in April 1999. In June 1999 the RPTES Program was authorized by the Dutch International Development Cooperation (DGIS) to mobilize its trust funds to support some key pre-feasibility R&D activities for the initiative. In September 1999 a 15

collaboration agreement between ProBEC and the Millennium Gelfuel Initiative team was established to test consumer adaptability of the gel fuel in Zimbabwe, with ProBEC becoming responsible for the design and supervision of the testing activities. In November and December 1999, the gel fuel was introduced to low-income households of Epworth for comparative tests with paraffin. Epworth is a peri-urban settlement located some 15 kilometres in the south-eastern side of the city of Harare. Residents in the area depend on the city for household fuel requirements, income and markets. Over the years there was an increase in the influx of people into Epworth as rentals and demand for residential stands in the city of Harare increased. The continued invasion of the area by outsiders resulted in more and more competition for communal resources such as water and firewood. As a result natural wood resources have been heavily depleted. Most households in the area rely on paraffin as a main source of energy for cooking. This report constitute a draft interim report including only the findings of the first round of consumer adaptability testing of the Millennium Gelfuel with base-line end-use technology. A new high efficiency burner designed with assistance from the Biomass Technology Group (BTG, Netherlands) is now available and will be tested during a second round of field tests. A final report will be prepared by the consultant team with the results of both testing rounds once the field work is completed.

1 1.1

Introduction

Cooking energy status in Zimbabwe and sub-Saharan Africa

Most low-income African families prepare their food over an open wood fire. This method of cooking is increasingly threatening the natural forests. Indigenous forests in Zimbabwe and in other African countries in the region are being depleted much faster than they are restored. In Zimbabwe forests are depleted at a rate of 1.5 % per annum as people both in rural and urban areas cut down trees as they open new lands for agricultural activities and in search of wood fuel and timber for construction and craftwork. About 80% of households in Zimbabwes communal and resettlement areas rely on wood as a primary source of energy for cooking, brick making, beer brewing, tobacco curing and heating (Gondo, 1999). Uncontrolled veld fires and overgrazing also contribute to natural forest degradation. In some areas the shortage of woodfuel is so severe that some families have resorted to burning cow dung and crop residues to meet the cooking energy requirements. In Lesotho, crop residues and animal waste account for up to 20 % of the total energy in the rural sector (Gondo, 1999). In areas where trees are sparse, the time spent in collecting firewood can be as long as six hours. Fuelwood consumption in Zimbabwe is estimated at 3 tonnes per household per year depending on household size and composition and fuelwood availability (Vermeulen et. al. 1999). In urban and peri-urban settlements, low-income families either buy firewood from the informal market places or make use of paraffin. Firewood prices in 16

Zimbabwe have generally gone up, though not at pace with the overall rate of inflation, and of late there has been a shortage of paraffin in the country. Substantial Research and Development work has been conducted to resolve the cooking energy problems. In the 1970s woodfuel substitutes such as briquettes and biogas were developed but never really took off. In the 1980s wood conserving stoves (tsotso) were developed but were never significantly adopted. The tsotso stoves did not work well under the socio-economic and cultural conditions of rural communities. From the mid 1980s into the 1990s solar cooking technologies were brought on board still meeting low adoption. The rural afforestation programme introduced in the early 1980's was meant to enhance wood supply for energy purposes. Lessons learnt from this initiative demonstrated the need to go beyond the narrow focus on fuel wood and consider a broader approach that takes care of other tree related needs in the communities (Campbell, 1999). However, there is a new opportunity for Zimbabwe to convert ethanol into a safe and clean fuel for cooking. Ethanol (Ethyle Alcohol) is a clear, volatile and inflammable liquid prepared from the fermentation of sugars. Triangle (Ltd), a leading sugar cane and sugar-producing company, produces up to 40 million litres of ethanol per season (1996). Most of the ethanol is used for blending petrol leaving a small percentage for other uses (e.g. beer brewing, vinegar production). Greenheat Manufacturing (Pvt./Ltd) has a capacity to consume 100 000 litres of ethanol in gel fuel manufacturing every month. Whilst Triangle (Ltd) can meet Greenheat Manufacturings current ethanol demands, contingency measures have been put in place to import ethanol from Mozambique, South Africa and Mauritius when it becomes necessary. 1.2 Paraffin use

A survey to establish the technical, social and economic performance of paraffin as a source of energy for cooking was conducted in Epworth in early November, 1999. Epworth was identified as a potential site for the survey following a wide media coverage about the suffering of people in that area during the paraffin crisis period. Due to the shortage of woodfuel and the high costs of electricity and liquid petroleum gas (LPG), most households in Epworth rely on wick nonpressurised paraffin stoves for cooking family meals and heating water for washing infants. 1.3 The gel fuel

Gel fuel is a compound of ethanol and organic pulp, which can be used in place of conventional fuels for cooking purposes. A local Zimbabwean private company, Greenheat Manufacturing (Pvt./Ltd.), is well advanced in the research, production and marketing of gel fuel products. About 80% of the products are exported to Europe and North America for camping and catering purposes. Locally, the gel fuels are used for up-market cooking, warming foods and lighting barbecues. Greenheat currently produces 1.2 million litres of gel fuel per year at production costs of Z$ 25 (US$ 0.67) per litre. Whilst at such production costs 17

gel fuel is not competitive with LPG and paraffin which are heavily subsidized, its organic nature makes it a rational choice in the interest of the environment and the national economy. 1.4 The gel fuel stove

The gel fuel stove consists of a cylindrical metal tin (127mm diameter and 95mm depth) and a collapsible tripod metal stand that holds the cooking vessel. The effective fuel capacity of the tin is one litre. The top of the tin is covered with a perforated sheet metal. The holes in the cover facilitate air circulation during burning. A separate tight fitting metal lid protects the fuel from evaporation when not in use.

2 2.1

Objectives of the comparative tests

Overall objective

In Zimbabwe, gel fuel is not yet competitive with conventional household fuels such as LPG, paraffin and woodfuel. The general aim of the paraffin survey and the gel fuel field test was to ascertain the acceptance and technical performance of gel fuel for cooking by low-income peri-urban households who used paraffin as a primary source of energy for cooking. 2.2 Specific objectives of the paraffin use survey

The specific objectives of the survey were to: 2.3 determine household income levels as these affected access to energy resources, establish the durability of paraffin stoves, find out whether paraffin met the household daily energy requirements, determine the efficiencies of paraffin in cooking various dishes, identify constraints faced by paraffin stove users. Specific objectives of the gel fuel field test

The objectives of the gel fuel field test were to specifically investigate: Time taken to prepare various meals with gel fuel, Time taken to burn out 1 litre of gel fuel, Problems encountered by users in cooking with gel fuel, The users recommendations for improvement, Comparative performance of gel and paraffin.

18

Methodology 3.1 The paraffin use survey A peri-urban settlement with a reasonable number of households who used paraffin as the main fuel for cooking was identified. A sample of 100 low- income households who used paraffin as a primary source of energy for cooking was selected from the area. From each selected household a representative with a reasonable level of literacy and numeracy was identified to participate in completing the questionnaire (Annex I). The representatives were met in small groups for general energy problem discussions and to complete the questionnaire. The gel fuel field test Fifty of the 100 participants who took part in the paraffin survey were selected to take part in the gel fuel test. The selection of the 50 participants was done in such a way as to ensure that the whole range of household income levels in the community were represented. The 50 participants were trained on how to use the gel fuel and keep performance records. Each participant was supplied with a 1 litre gel fuel cooker and a record sheet (Annex II). Fuel usage and fuel burning time were recorded . Fifteen of the 50 participants made similar records for paraffin using wick non-pressurised stoves so as to make a comparison with gel fuel. One litre fuel refills were supplied with a record sheet every week. Experience sharing discussions were held every refilling time After participants had used six litres of gel fuel each they were asked to complete an evaluation questionnaire (Annex III).

3.2

Results and discussion 4.1 The survey

4.1.1 Social issues: The survey sample population comprised women of age groups ranging from below 20 to more than 55 years. 69% of the women were married and a few were divorced, widowed or single parents. A majority of the married women (86%) were not gainfully employed, they depended on income from their husbands who were mostly engaged in informal trading. The other 14% was either formally employed in the civil service or running self-help projects such as weaving and dressmaking. The household sizes ranged from two(2) to 12 with an average of five (5). However, it was only 5% of the households with more than 10 people as shown in Table 1.

19

Table 1: No of individuals per HH % HH 5 and below 63

Household sizes 6 - 10 32 More than 10 5

4.1.2

Economic issues 80% of the households were represented by housewives who relied on income from third parties. Household incomes were very low (Table 2) making it difficult for most women to meet the costs of most household needs including fuel. 66% of the households earned less than Z$ 1500 (US$ 41) per month. Table 2: Monthly household income 1500-2500 2500-3500 3500-4500 4500-5000

Income. range (Z$) %HH

0-1000

1000-1500

41

25

21

4.1.3

Technical issues The sample population had a wide range of experience in using paraffin stoves. The majority of women (68%) had used paraffin stoves for more than 10 years (Table 3). Table 3: Experience in using paraffin stoves 5 10 20 10 - 15 25 15 - 20 15 more than 20 28

Years of experience %population

Less than 5 12

From the womens experiences over the years, a paraffin stove could last up to 10 years depending on the level of use otherwise there was need for replacement every two and a half years. The majority of households owned one paraffin stove. However, there were some households with more than two stoves (Table 4). Table 4: No of stoves One Number of stoves per household Two Three Four

20

/hh %HH 73 24 2 1

Most of the households with one or two stoves, though some stoves were double plated, could not completely rely on paraffin for their everyday cooking. As a result, other sources of energy such. as firewood, coal, gas, tsotso stoves and solar cookers were used as complements. Where there was a choice of other energy resources, paraffin would only be used to prepare light meals such as vegetables, meat and at times sadza. Wood and coal stoves were preferred for cooking hard foods such as dried beans, green mealies, dried meat, trotters, bambara nuts, samp and for baking bread. Those who had solar cookers mainly used them for cooking rice, potatoes, fish and baking cakes. Whilst the women were happy with most complementary energy sources a few issues were raised against some of them: firewood was scarce and women had to walk long distances to fetch it, women risked getting arrested if caught cutting down trees in the neighbouring farms, firewood was very expensive on the market, supplies of coal were erratic, coal was very expensive, gas was expensive and had a lot of risk in using it, solar cookers are very slow and only usable on sunny days.

A variety of paraffin stove designs were identified. Most of the stoves were the locally made ones with a few designs imported from South Africa and Botswana. The cost of the stoves changed over the years and varied among shops. The average price at the time of the survey was Z$150 (US$4) for a single plate paraffin stove. Most of the stoves in use at the time of the study were bought between 1996 and 1999 hence were considered relatively new. Some households still used stoves that were bought as far back as 1980 (Table 5). Despite the outcry from the health sector concerning the accidents caused by paraffin stoves, still there were no warning signs or instructions put in place by manufacturers to save the users.

Table 5: Date Bought %HH 1980 1985 10

Ages of paraffin stoves 1986 1990 5 1991 1995 10 After 1996 75

The re-current fuel price increases and the paraffin crisis experienced in the first half of 1999 have forced most households to economise on the use of fuel for cooking. Whilst a bigger percentage still used paraffin stoves to prepare breakfast, lunch and supper some had resorted to only one or two meals a day to save the fuel. Paraffin 21

consumption varied between 2 and 25 litres per household per week depending on household size and composition and frequency of fuel use. On average each household used eight (8) litres per week. Households had a tendency of buying paraffin in little quantities at a time due to cash flow and storage problems. Most women (55%) bought paraffin in 5 litre quantities, with some buying as little as 750 ml and some as much as 25 litres at a time (Table 6). The price of paraffin depended on where one bought the commodity. Some shops and tuckshops in Epworth charged as much as three times the fuel station pump price of Z$2.50 (US$0.07) per litre. Most people bought the inflated fuel to avoid transport costs to town. Table 6: Quantities and prices of paraffin bought at a time %HHs Average price (Z$)

Quantity bought at a time (litre) 0.75 2 5 10 15 20 25

4 4 55 13 2 9 13

4.63 15.13 19.20 39.94 55.00 67.43 95.40

Where firewood was still affordable, women preferred only to use paraffin in preparing tender foods such as vegetables, porridge and potatoes. However, more often than not the stoves were used to cook almost every meal. Table 7 shows the average estimated times taken to cook various foods with a paraffin stove.

Table 7:

Average time to cook various meals with a paraffin stove Average time (minutes) 36 64 128 19 150 23 20 20

Type of Meal Sadza Meat dried beans Vegetables Bambara nuts Rice Potatoes Porridge

22

Trotters Tea

180 15

4.1.4

Other uses of paraffin Besides cooking, paraffin was used for other purposes such as: heating up pressing irons when doing laundry, boiling water for washing infants, melting wax when making floor polish, warming the house, lighting the rooms.

4.1.5

Constraints in using paraffin Whilst paraffin was well appreciated by women in situations where other sources of energy were not available, there were a number of issues raised against them: the paraffin stoves easily developed leaks which could cause fire so one needed to be attentive every time, paraffin produced a lot of smoke which caused eye irritations, got into the lungs and stained walls of the kitchen, the smell of paraffin spoiled the food and polluted the immediate environment, too much soot developed on the pots, paraffin was too slow in cooking hard foods such as dried beans and tripe, the paraffin stoves were not user friendly to young children, the durability of the paraffin stoves was very low.

4.2

The gel fuel field test Gel Fuel was used to cook foods normally cooked with paraffin. The fuel was also used for other activities such as ironing, warming the rooms and melting wax when making floor polish just as with paraffin. 4.2.1 Fuel performance

Tables 8 and 9 show the average time taken to prepare various meals for different numbers of people with 1 litre of gel fuel and 1 litre of paraffin respectively. The frequency of cases where a particular meal was prepared for a given number of people varied greatly among households as indicated by the 23

sample sizes. In all cases there were more counts in the 3 - 5 number of people category than in the extremes. Statistical analysis was conducted on the data for 3-5 number of people per category. Fewer than five (5) counts were not considered in the analysis as they were regarded too low to give reasonable indications. There were fewer than five entries in which food was prepared for more than eight people in all cases. The data analysis carried out using the MSTAT Version showed no significant difference in times taken to prepare sadza, meat and porridge for 3-5 people between the gel fuel and paraffin (at p<0.05). However, paraffin was significantly faster in preparing green vegetables (at p<0.05) and tea (at p<0.01). Table 8: Performance of gel fuel in preparing various meals in relation to number of people (basis: 1 litre) Average time taken to prepare ( minutes )

Number of people fed

sadza Rice

Potatoe s 31.5 (n=16) 31.0 (n=25) 42.2 (n=23 )

Porridg e 25.8 (n=31) 34.5 (n=28) 43.0 (n=5)

Meat

Dried beans 145.3 (n=4) 179.7 (n=11) 185.5 (n=11)

Green vegetabl es 21.7 (n=16) 22.8 (n=76) 25.6 (n=37)

Tea

Fish

Chicken

12 35 68

37.7 (n=27) 38.3 (n=133) 45.2 (n=44)

17.3 (n=9) 35.1 (n=32) 57.3 (n=15)

34.8 (n=9) 48.8 (n=56) 61.7 (n=40)

18.2 (n=90) 28.1 (n=124) 29.3 (n=56)

25.5 (n=2) 38.6 (n=12) 35.4 (n=5)

32.5 (n=2) 46.8 (n=19) 70.1 (n=8)

Table 9:

Performance of paraffin stoves in preparing various meals in relation to number of people (basis: 1 litre) Average time taken to prepare (minutes)

Number of people fed

Sadza Rice

Potatoes

Porridge

Meat

Dried beans 80 (n=4)

Green vegetable s 14.8 (n=16)

Tea

Chicken

12

27.0 (n=6)

20.0 (n=1)

26.0 (n=3)

28.0 (n=8)

15.0 (n=4)

14.5 (n=13)

24

35 68

34.5 (n=39) 39.3 (n=15)

28.3 (n=4) 71.0 (n=4)

34.7 (n=4) 30.5 (n=4)

27.8 (n=13) 32.6 (n=5)

48.0 (n=12) 49.3 (n=6)

130 (n=2) _

26.7 (n=7) _

18.5 (n=33) 28.6 (n=11)

31.0 (n==3) 77.5 (n=2)

Dashes indicate no counts.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TIME TAKEN TO PREPARE SADZA SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 1 170 171 SS 443 38556 MS 443 227 F 1.95 P 0.164

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TIME TAKEN TO PREPARE PORRIDGE SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 1 39 40 SS 389 5089 MS 389 130 F 2.98 P 0.092

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TIME TAKEN TO PREPARE MEAT SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 1 66 67 SS 7 20686 20693 MS 7 313 F 0.02 P 0.882

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TIME TAKEN TO PREPARE GREEN VEGETABLES SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 1 90 91 SS 866 10413 11279 MS 866 116 F 7.48 P 0.008

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TIME TAKEN TO PREPARE TEA SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 1 155 156 SS 2386 26863 29248 MS 2386 173 F 13.77 P 0.000

Table 10 gives a comparison of gel fuel and paraffin. Basing on these figures, the two fuels performed equally well in most functions besides in the preparation of green vegetables where gel fuel performed significantly better than paraffin and in the preparation of tea where paraffin performed significantly better than the gel fuel. It was however observed that the gel fuel cooked faster than paraffin as long as the fuel level was high in the tin. The gel fuel became gradually slower as the fuel level dropped resulting in increased cooking time. At low fuel levels the distance between the flame and the cooking vessel is increased thereby reducing heating efficiency. There are also possibilities that the supply of oxygen gets limited as the level reaches the bottom of the tin hence poor fuel burning. Burning of paraffin is not affected in a similar way as the fuel is sucked up the wick as it burns. Table 10: Comparative performance of gel and paraffin

25

Parameter 1 litre burning time ( minutes ) time to cook sadza for 3-5 people (minutes ) time taken to cook meat for 3-5 people ( minutes ) time taken to cook green vegetables for 3-5 people (mins). time taken to cook porridge for 3-5 people ( minutes ) time taken to prepare tea for 3-5 people ( minutes )

gel fuel 288.5 38.3 48.8 22.8 34.5 28.1

Paraffin 290.5 34.5 48.0 26.7 27.8 18.5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 1 LITRE BURNING TIME ( gel batches & paraffin ) SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 6 221 227 SS 58755 3582394 3641149 MS 9793 16210 F 0.60 P 0.727

Table 11 shows the average burning time of 1 litre of gel fuel. Each fuel batch was analysed separately to check on the changes in performance as users gained experience. However, there were no significant differences in performance among fuel batches (at p<0.05). One litre of gel fuel last 3.5 days in a family of 3-5 people, 2.5 days in a family of 6-8 people and less than a day in larger families depending on types of food and number of meals prepared per day. The use of gel fuel for heating up pressing irons when doing laundry was quite prevalent. On average 26 % of the gel fuel burning time was used for ironing as compared to 17 % with paraffin. Gel fuel was significantly preferred for ironing than paraffin (at P<0.05). The major reason for preferring gel fuel was the fact that it did not stain linen. Table 11: Fuel batch number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gel fuel burning time (minutes) Average time taken to completely burn 1 litre. 309.0 278.8 306.0 263.0 285.6 303.8 Percentage ironing time 19.5 34.5 24.0 27.8 27.2 24.2

26

Mean

288.5

26.2

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PERCENTAGE IRONING TIME ( gel batches & paraffin ) SOURCE FACTOR ERROR TOTAL DF 6 12 18 SS 582.98 386.36 969.34 MS 97.164 32.197 F 3.02 P 0.0489

The manufactures specifications state that 1 litre of gel fuel cooks for 600 minutes. The field burning time fell below 50% of the factory recommendations. Some of the observed factors that could have contributed to the short burning times were: the stoves had no flame regulators resulting in unnecessary heat loss, the stoves were used for ironing, A lot of heat was lost as the stoves were left to continuously burn throughout the ironing process. 4.2.2 Gel fuel acceptance evaluation

At the beginning of January, 2000, the participating households completed an evaluation questionnaire (Annex III). The questionnaire was meant to establish the gel fuel users experiences and expectations pertaining to: advantages of gel fuel, constraints encountered and possible improvements, performance ranking of gel fuel among other energy sources, market opportunities of the gel fuel.

4.2.2.1

Advantages of gel fuel over paraffin

The gel fuel was well accepted by the Epworth households. Being a novel technology, during a fuel crisis period, the fuel field test generated a lot of excitement. Users took part in the test with a lot of interest and enthusiasm. The following advantages of the gel fuel were noted: it did not produce smoke hence pots did not soot, it did not produce irritating smell compared to paraffin, the food cooked did not smell, it cooked very fast as long as the tin was full, it was very easy to light and put off, it did not stain linen when used for ironing, there was no danger of explosions.

4.2.2.2 Constraints and solutions

27

Whilst the gel fuel was well appreciated there were a few constraints encountered by the users. Table 12 below presents the observed constraints alongside the users perceived solutions: Table 12: Constraint *slow cooking when fuel gets low, at times it does not burn when too low Gel Fuel Constraints and solutions Solution *develop a mechanism of pushing up fuel * reduce tin height *make a wider and shallow tin *reduce stand height *increase burning strength *supply fuel regularly for frequent refilling *increase fuel strength *reduce smell *use stronger and non-corrosive material for making tins *improve on opening and closing mechanism by using screw-on lids

*fuel not burning continuously *the initial smell gives a headache *stoves easily get damaged *tins difficult to open *gel does not easily flow out of the tube *difficulties in reducing heat especially when cooking rice

*develop a flame regulator

4.2.2.3

Performance ranking

Users were asked to rank the gel fuel among firewood, paraffin, solar and coal/charcoal according to performance in cooking. Table 13 summarises the results: Table 13: Fuel Firewood Paraffin Gel Solar Coal/Charcoal 1 2 3 4 5 Relative Performance of Gel Fuel Rank

28

4.2.2.4

Market opportunities of the gel fuel

Households in Epworth indicated willingness to buy gel fuel when made available on the market. When asked how much they would be willing to pay for a litre of gel fuel, offers ranged from as little as Z$2.00 to as much as Z$40.00 with an average of Z$10.88. There was no relationship between the household income level and the suggested price offer. Such price offers were expected considering that the fuel was initially introduced at no cost. Also in these days of economic hardships everyone would bargain for as low prices as possible no matter how ridiculous the offer would be. The users preferred the fuel to be sold from fuel stations, shops and tuckshops in 5 litre quantities or more. 5 Conclusion Considering the current shortage of fuel in the country, the rate at which traditional forests are being depleted and the escalating costs of electricity, gel fuel is well placed to penetrate as a low-income household fuel for cooking. A smokeless and smell-free cooking environment that is created when using gel fuel makes it more user friendly compared to paraffin and firewood. However, in Zimbabwe the gel fuel is unlikely to penetrate the low-income markets as long as the price is not competitive with that of paraffin which is heavily subsidised. However, higher income households are likely to take up gel fuel for use on emergency days when there is electricity black-up.

Recommendations

The results of the gel fuel field test have given indications of the performance of the fuel under the target group environment. For a more detailed understanding of the performance of the gel fuel, there is need to conduct elaborate laboratory tests where field variables such as degrees to which food is cooked, food quality and quantity are controlled. On the other hand, for the gel fuel to be fully accepted by low-income households there is need for the government and the private sector to work out means of reducing the cost of the fuel. The private sector would need to identify possible ways of reducing the cost of production. On the other hand the government may need to consider reducing or completely removing subsidies on petroleum fuels for the gel price to become competitive. The experience gained in Epworth is worth an immediate follow-up by introducing gel fuel and gel stoves in the local shops and monitoring the sales. It is only after putting the product on the commercial market with the necessary support services for one to conclusively judge the levels of acceptance.

29

Bibliography 1. CAMPBELL, B. Use of Biomass Energy in Rural and Urban Areas of Zimbabwe. 2. GONDO, P. Forestry Biomass Production Programmes in Zimbabwe 3. VERMEULEN, S.J., CAMPBELL, B.M. and MANGONO, J.J. Shifting Patterns of Fuel and Wood Use by Households in Rural Zimbabwe.

30

Annex I ASSESSMENT OF WICK NON-PRESSURISED PARAFFIN STOVES This questionnaire seeks to generate technical, social and economic information about the performance of wick nonpressurised paraffin stoves. The information will be used in developing research activities for further improvement of the stove. Please fill in the blank spaces with as much information as you can. Leave items blank if questions are not applicable to the respondent or the answer is not known. GENERAL INFORMATION. 0. Date of survey ............................................................................................................. .. Name of surveyor ....................................................................................................... Name and address of ................................................................................ respondent

1. 2.

..................................................................................................................................... 3. 4. How many are you in your ......................................................................... How long have you stayed in this ................................................... area? household? (Years)

PARAFFIN STOVES 5. 6. 7. How many paraffin stoves do you have ......................................... Are the stoves adequate for the ........................... household in your household? (YES/NO)

requirements?

If not, what alternative energy sources for cooking are available to you?

....................................................................................................................................... . ........................................................................................................................................ . ....................................................................................................................................... . 8. What is your comment about the alternative energy sources? .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................... When and from where did you buy ............................................................. the stoves?

9.

......................................................................................................................................... .. 10. How much was each ........................................................................................... stove?

.........................................................................................................................................

31

11. 12.

Were you trained how to use (YES/NO)............... If yes, who trained you to use the stove?

the

stove?

......................................................................................................................................... .. ........................................................................................................................................ 13. For how long do you use a stove .................................................... before replacing it?

........................................................................................................................................ . 14. What meals do you cook with ....................................................................... the stove?

........................................................................................................................................ . 15. 16. 17. How many meals do you cook with .............................................. your stove a each per day? week? meal?

How much paraffin do you use ........................................................................ How much paraffin do you use to .................................................. prepare

......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... 18. In what quantities do you normally buy ................................ paraffin and at how much?

........................................................................................................................................ . 19. Where do you buy paraffin .................................................................................. from?

......................................................................................................................................... 20. Besides cooking what are the other uses .................................................. of the stove?

......................................................................................................................................... 21. Who repairs your stove when it .............................................................. breaks down?

......................................................................................................................................... 22. What problems do you face with using ......................................... the paraffin stoves?

........................................................................................................................................

32

. .............................................................................................................................................. .. ............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................. ... ............................................................................................................................................. 23. Any other comments:. .............................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................

33

Annex II GEL FUEL RECORD SHEET DATE TYPE OF FOOD PREPARED TIME Start End NO OF PEOPLE FED COMMENTS

Name: ........................................................................ Address: .................................................................... ..................................................................................

34

Annex III ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF GEL FUEL BY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. This questionnaire seeks to generate technical, social and economic information about the performance of a gel fuel in low-income households. The information will assist the fuel manufacturers in identifying the possibilities of introducing the fuel on the local market. Please fill in the blank spaces with as much information as you can. Leave items blank if a question does not apply to you. GENERAL INFORMATION: 0. 1. 2. Date of survey ............................................................................................................. Name of respondent ..................................................................................................... Address ......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................ 3. 4. 5. Age of respondent .......................................................................................................... Profession ....................................................................................................................... How many are you in your household? ......................................................................... GEL FUEL 6. 7. How many litres of gel fuel have you used so far? ........................................................ What meals cooked best with gel fuel?.............................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................ 8. 9. How many days, on average, did it take you to finish a litre of gel?........................... Besides cooking, what else did you use the gel fuel for? .............................................. ........................................................................................................................................ 10. What problems did you encounter in using gel fuel? .................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... 11. What could be done to solve the problems? .............................................................. .................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................... 12. Give four major advantages of using the gel fuel: ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... 13. Give four major disadvantages of using the gel fuel? ......................................................................................................................................... .........................................................................................................................................

35

14.

Rank the following fuels according to performance in cooking (firewood, paraffin, coal/charcoal, gel fuel, solar) (No 1 being the best and No 2 being the worst). 1 ........................2 ........................3 ..........................4 ................... 5 ........................... If the gel fuel is put on the market will you buy it? (YES/NO) How would you like the fuel to be packed? (Packs smaller than 1 litre, 1 litre bottles, 5 litre bottles etc) From where would you prefer to buy the fuel? (Local tuckshops, fuel station etc ..............................................) How much (maximum) will you be comfortable to pay for a litre of gel fuel? Z$.......... How much income do you get in your household? $1 000 - $1 500 $1 500 - $2 500 $2 500 - $3 500 $4 500 - $ 5 000 Above $5 000

15a). b) c) d) 16.

$0 - $1 000

17.

Any other comment about the gel fuel: .......................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... ...........................................................................................................................................

36