Clean cooking financial impact model
Produced with support from
What this model does: Estimates the financial return of clean cooking technologies for low-income households. It compares fuel costs, time savings, and capital costs to calculate net benefit, ROI, and payback period.
How to use it: Set baseline fuel costs and time burdens to reflect current household conditions. Choose a payment method and adjust financing terms. The "stove stacking" slider accounts for continued use of traditional stoves alongside modern alternatives.
Technology costs
Improved Cookstoves (ICS)
LPG
Solar E-Cooking
Payment method and financing
No deposit required. Household owns asset after completing all payments.
Full cash payment upfront. Lowest total cost, but requires access to lump sum capital.
Best ROI, but highest access barrier for low-income households.
Financing summary by technology
Total cost:
Monthly payment:
Deposit:
✓ Affordability check passed:
Baseline context
Time value and adoption
Time saved by women (per year, at current stacking level)
: hours/year
Collection: -% |
Cooking: -%
Financial comparison: | |
Net annual benefit
Annual ROI
Annual economics breakdown
Annual benefits
Fuel savings:
Time value:
Annual costs
Capital cost:
Total paid (lifetime):
Hours saved per year:
Payback period:
Baseline conditions
Primary fuel: Biomass (wood, charcoal), traditional 3-stone fire
PM2.5 exposure: 695 μg/m³ (hazardous level, 139x WHO guidelines)
Daily time burden: hrs collection + hrs cooking
Annual fuel expenditure: $
Monthly household income: $
Health impact (full adoption, no stacking)
PM2.5: -%
DALYs: /yr
Model assumptions: Equipment lifespans are ICS: 5 years, LPG: 10 years, Solar: 7 years. Financing terms based on rural MFI and PAYG market data from East Africa. Time value only realized when time is reallocated to paid work. Stove stacking reduces all benefits proportionally. LPG economics depend heavily on local fuel prices and supply chain reliability.