Equipping 50 percent of households that burn biomass with improved stoves by 2015 would cost about $2 billion upfront but would almost immediately yield $37 billion in fuel savings, leaving a net gain to the world’s energy poor of some $35 billion.
Over a ten year period this would generate an economic return of U$105 billion.
These gains would come from savings in health related costs and productivity gains, according to a 2006 World Health Organization study sent to us by Dr. Eva A. Rehfuess, a co-author on the report and now with the University of Munich. (Dr. Rehfuess, your work makes you our hero of the day!)
The study, entitled Evaluation of the cost and benefit of household energy and health interventions at global and regional levels (see the WHO web page here) concludes that the gains in health and productivity far outweigh the overall cost of the interventions.
A single stove option was modeled in this global study due to data constraints and the complexities of attempting to reflect different stove options in different parts of the world.
Costs and benefits were modelled under three specific interventions: 
Scenario I: reducing by 50% the population without access to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) by 2015
Scenario II: reducing by 50% the population without access to biofuel (ethanol) by 2015
Scenario III: reducing by 50% the population without access to chimney-less “rocket” stoves by 2015
The study reveals that making improved stoves available to all those still burning biomass fuels and coal on traditional stoves would result in a negative intervention cost of US$ 34 billion and generate an economic return of US$ 105 billion a year over a ten-year period.
The net present value, shown in Table 6 (above), is the estimated annual economic surplus, and is calculated by subtracting net costs from economic benefits. The results show that the scenarios lead to net economic benefits of between US$ 77 billion and US$ 139 billion per year at global level. A significant proportion of these benefits is seen in WPR-B. Globally, the net present value tends to be higher in urban areas than in rural areas.
This study shows that health and productivity gains make household energy interventions potentially good value for money.
Missing from the study are the financial co-benefits associated with reduction of black carbon from burning biomass more efficiently and the potential for income generation from carbon credits generated by these stove projects.
Does anyone have any idea what the financial potential for these are?
We’re thrilled to finally see some numbers attached to a cost benefit of improved cookstoves!
English 
French 