By: Right to reply: Arnaud Crétot and SCOP NeoLoco.
I would like to respond here to public accusations made against myself, the SCOP NeoLoco and TELED. These statements were published on March 31, 2025, by Eva Wissenz (Managing Director & Board Director of Lytefire) on Lytefire’s official website, and were then shared on social media (at least on LinkedIn), including via the official company account and that of its CEO, Urs Riggenbach. The article published by Lytefire’s leadership can be found here: https://lytefire.com/lytefire-is-unique-it-is-not-for-activism
First, I want to say that I am sorry for everyone who has had to read this. Through its leadership, Lytefire has chosen to make a public statement that harms the work carried out by NeoLoco and the TELED collective — work done by dozens of people who never asked to be involved in this situation. It is unfair and was done without any regard for the harm such public smear campaign can cause. I am as sorry for the projects I mentioned as I am for the Lytefire project itself, whose leadership is now employing questionable methods.
Now that these attacks have been published — what can be done?
Under the law, there is a three-month window to exercise a right of reply to a public statement. I could have chosen not to respond to the article published by Lytefire, but I have observed that this kind of message has been repeated over the past few months through different channels. This is not an isolated incident.
In this context, I believe it is important to speak up so that no single perspective goes unchallenged. After this legal window, the article could continue to spread without those involved having a chance to present another view of the facts. That is why I have decided to exercise my right of reply today.
I write this response in my own name and as a representative of NeoLoco. I will leave it to the other targeted individuals and representatives of other targeted entities to respond if they wish to do so.
I consider Lytefire’s public letter to be a reflection of a strategic repositioning in how the company engages with its partners and the solar craft ecosystem. This is not about a change in its core mission, but rather a shift in the way it collaborates with others.
NeoLoco and I have been directly affected by this shift, as others were before us. These changes have sometimes resulted in abrupt partnership breaks, the nature of which was difficult to anticipate or understand. In my view, this letter is a continuation of that pattern.
About a year and a half ago, I made the decision to step away from Lytefire and sell my shares. This decision came after repeated disagreements between the management and some of its partners, as well as my own realization that I could no longer contribute effectively in that environment.
I left the company to protect my health. I allowed the management to choose the buyer of my shares in order to ensure continuity under the best possible conditions. I did not make any financial gain with my shares.
I took this approach in the hope of a peaceful departure. However, my experience within the company had prepared me for the possibility of future tensions — something that recent events have unfortunately confirmed.
Today, I am speaking out publicly to respond to accusations that I believe are unjustified, and which also affect others through their association with me. I believe this response is necessary to set the record straight and to protect the integrity of the projects I represent.
I regret that Lytefire’s current leadership has chosen this form of communication. I doubt this strategy serves the company’s long-term interests.
These attacks are all the more unfortunate as they are based on inaccurate information and do not reflect the reality of the projects I represent.
Below, I have listed the specific accusations directed at me or at NeoLoco the entity I represent, and I have pointed out incorrect information, and provided my response to each of them:
“With that in mind, it’s no longer acceptable to stand by and hear what’s being disseminated in France about Lytefire in the conferences given by Loïc Pérochon and Arnaud Crétot.”
My talks cover topics such as energy issues, the TELED method, and the work of NeoLoco. They are not intended to promote Lytefire, and that’s precisely why I am invited to speak.
In these talks, Lytefire is mentioned twice: first, to explain how I came across the company during my research trip to India on energy; and second, when I give a presentation about NeoLoco, mentioning that we use a Lytefire oven. This mention is simply a fact related to my journey and NeoLoco’s story—there is no obligation to include it.
It seems that Lytefire’s management is trying to influence how the users of its products should communicate. However, each user has their own story and should be free to communicate independently, focusing on their core mission.
“Arnaud Crétot was a co-founder, shareholder and CTO with us for a few years. During a tough year, we had to stop his contract and in order to keep engaging with Lytefire, he decided to learn about baking and eventually test Lytefire at home, in France.”
I created NeoLoco to continue supporting the emergence of Lytefire and, more broadly, to promote the use of solar concentration. However, NeoLoco is not merely an extension of that commitment. As I share in my talks, NeoLoco also embodies the lessons I learned during my research journey with the Les Vagabonds de l’Energie. I discovered that to drastically reduce our energy dependency, we must rethink organizational, economic, and labor models, and transform skillsets. NeoLoco is a full-scale experiment with these ideas, which has a broader scope than solar concentration itself.
Regarding my employment contract with Lytefire, we mutually decided to end it during a difficult year, well before NeoLoco was founded. After that contract ended, I continued to dedicate more than two years of mostly volunteer work to the company. Even after founding NeoLoco, I continued to offer my time and expertise, often on a voluntary basis.
“On the basis of a single proof of concept built around a prototyped solar oven, the newbie baker part of the group then wrote a book and dozens of media started to take interest in his great self-proclaimed success - which is real for him and nothing in this post aims to diminish all the work he accomplished.”
The portrait presented here is both discriminatory and false. In France, it is mandatory to hold a “CAP” diploma in Bakery to legally produce bread, which I obtained in the summer of 2017. Before that, I undertook training for this diploma and worked with several bakers and farmer-bakers whose practices inspired me. From 2017 to 2019, I baked and sold bread every week to test and refine the techniques best suited for use with a solar oven.
In 2019, I founded NeoLoco, initially as a coffee roasting business. It was only after successful trials with a solar oven loaned by Lytefire that I began baking bread with it, whenever conditions allowed. This approach is far from that of an inexperienced or thoughtless person, contrary to the implication of the term “newbie baker.”
Moreover, the book La Boulangerie Solaire, written in 2022 and published in 2023, is the result of over five years of experience, including three years after the founding of NeoLoco. It reflects the seriousness and rigour of our work—unlike the article published by Lytefire, which seems aimed at damaging our reputation.
I did not “self-proclaim” my success, as the article suggests. On the contrary, I have always been transparent about both the opportunities and the challenges, openly sharing my experience with those interested in exploring it. Writing my book stands as a testament to this rigorous work and to a desire to offer an objective snapshot of the knowledge accumulated at the time of writing.
“Along the way, everything we tried to explain in terms of the African impact of Lytefire was opposed. We saw Lytefire’s innovative approach progressively being cancelled from their storytelling, things being twisted to fit the new story and we had to insist a lot for him to mention our brand with journalists and to tell the truth on his site.”
It is clear that Lytefire’s management has consistently pushed to maximize the visibility of Lytefire in the communication of the users of its products. This insistence on controlling the messaging of NeoLoco and other users of the oven unfortunately reveals a disconnect from the realities on the ground. These artisanal businesses rely on the sale of their products and the value of their craft. What baker could make a living by becoming a spokesperson for their oven manufacturer? NeoLoco and other users are not here to sell ovens, and their approach is not limited to the use of a single tool.
The accusation of erasure is clearly baseless :
- Eva Wissenz was invited to contribute to my book La Boulangerie Solaire, published in 2023, and introduce the Lytefire project in her own words — and she did. How many bakers invite their oven manufacturer to write a few pages in their own book?
- The Lytefire project was prominently featured on the homepage of NeoLoco’s website, with a link to lytefire.com. During the first years of activity, there was even a dedicated section about the oven on the site.
- At the request of Lytefire’s management, the oven’s brand was mentioned in every interview — which NeoLoco and other users did consistently, without any form of compensation, and under the threat of receiving unpleasant emails otherwise.
- I have always facilitated contact between interested journalists and Lytefire.
For those who truly know NeoLoco, this accusation of erasure is difficult to comprehend, given how much the company has contributed to making Lytefire more visible. Media coverage is a distorting mirror, of course. But such situations call for more education and clarity, not more caricature.
“A big prototype has also been made for Arnaud, who proudly announced everywhere that 110 kg of solar baked bread could be made daily. And we all believed it. Yay.”
Lytefire suggests that either I or NeoLoco may have lied about our solar production. What would have been the point? NeoLoco, as an artisanal business, only communicates about its handcrafted production. We are not trying to sell ovens. NeoLoco’s customers are interested in solar production when the weather allows, but they are not focused on the oven itself. Whenever figures have been shared, they have always been accurate. For example, 110 kg is a quantity that can be produced on a day of full sunshine. We have always clearly stated that this was the production on a sunny day, contrary to what is implied in this passage.
We continue to share this information whenever possible, and many journalists have witnessed solar baking firsthand. Is Lytefire’s management accusing them as well of spreading false information?
The real issue here is the need for proper guidance to explain that 110 kg represents the maximum output under optimal sunlight conditions. This is similar to the challenge faced by professionals in solar thermal or photovoltaic energy, who speak in terms of peak kilowatt capacity (as in wind energy). When referring to the capacity of a variable energy system, you must give the maximum capacity and explain how to manage production variability. Solar concentration is no exception. Since the beginning of NeoLoco, I have made this educational work a priority—and the book has greatly contributed to that.
The fact that Lytefire’s management is writing things in this way raises serious concerns about their ability to communicate this information properly. Guidance is crucial in this field. I personally supported the first five solar artisans installed in France, as part of a partnership under the name Solar Fire France. That’s probably why these artisans chose roasting over baking: because I provided all the necessary insights throughout the project. It’s not that solar baking isn’t possible—it’s just much more demanding.
Once the SFF (now called Lytefire) partnership ended, I was largely excluded from further oven-related projects. And today, it is unfair to accuse NeoLoco of having misled Lytefire. The truth is that Lytefire failed to create the conditions for proper user support in the aftermath.
“After that, surfing on this buzz in Normandie, NeoLoco, CPM and the consultants joined forces to create La Belle Tech, and then the TELED methodology to adapt the industrial sector to the limitations of solar, a.k.a. intermittent energy. They got financial support from French agencies to create things related to low-tech, and proposed to organize the production around the limitation of intermittent solar energy, and received lots of recognition.”
TELED is a collective of professionals brought together under a brand that is currently owned by the workers cooperative (“SCOP”) NeoLoco, a Social and Solidarity Economy enterprise. This brand is intended to be transferred to an association or a cooperative society (SCIC). It is false to claim that TELED received public funding to develop its methodology. From 2017 to 2023, NeoLoco developed without any public subsidies (€0). People are often surprised when we say this, but NeoLoco received no public funding at its inception. We may have been considered too innovative to receive support from public authorities. This claim by Lytefire’s management is simply aimed at damaging our reputation without justification.
In 2023, we decided to create the SCOP NeoLoco because the team had grown to three full-time members (until then, the NeoLoco project had been hosted by the Business and Employment Cooperative SCOP 276). Upon the creation of this SCOP—recognized as part of the Social and Solidarity Economy—we received support from the Normandy Region. This automatic support is tied to the creation of an SSE structure, and not to the use of a solar oven or the development of a methodology like TELED.
It is therefore entirely false to suggest that TELED capitalized on a solar oven “buzz” to obtain public funding. This claim is not only incorrect—it is also defamatory toward the public agencies involved, which do not allocate funding based on trends or media hype.
This attack on TELED undermines a serious, innovative, and inspiring body of work carried out by many people, aimed at rethinking how organizations function so they can operate within the limits of variable access to energy and resources.
TELED seeks to build knowledge through the accumulation of empirical experimentation. No “buzz” ever helped develop a methodology capable of making a real impact—by lowering the barriers to adapting economic models to energy and resource variability.
“NeoLoco bakes only 30% with solar, the rest is wood.”
This is not new information. I have been sharing this information openly from the start as it emerged. Regarding the figures, it’s important to note that it’s still too early to give a definitive number—averages over 10 or 20 years would provide a clearer picture. These are basic facts for any professional in the solar field, though they require proper education to convey. NeoLoco is not in the business of claiming success or overhyping our achievements. We are committed to transparently sharing our process as we learn and grow.
“Only one type of bread is baked, and it’s a farmer’s bread that is not to everyone’s taste but luckily there was no competition in the region so this is never mentioned as a limitation. According to them, it’s a success.”
NeoLoco and I have always clearly stated that we produce nourishing, wholesome bread. Hundreds of farmer-bakers in France make similar sourdough breads. It is also false to claim that there is no competition in the region. Around Rouen, there are about fifteen bakeries offering sourdough breads similar to ours—and that number increases regularly. In our own town, there are three other bakeries, and neighboring villages have theirs as well. So people do not buy NeoLoco’s bread out of a lack of options.
We serve all kinds of customers, and we bake five different types of bread each week.
I hesitated for a long time before exercising this right of reply, but I cannot let these falsehoods continue to circulate.
“Since then we spoke to several “real” French bakers who simply explained to us the way their working day is organized and why things happen like this and like that around and inside their ovens. This confirmed our initial intuition that Lytefire Deluxe in the French context cannot be considered a professional tool per se.”
Let us remember that Lytefire is writing from abroad, and one would truly need to be unfamiliar with the bakery sector in France to make such claims. There are as many ways to make bread as there are bakers. From the very beginning, it has been clear that this oven is not for everyone. What surprises me most is that Lytefire’s management claims to have only recently discovered this reality, when in fact, it has been part of our message from the start.
Moreover, I have consistently emphasized that using a solar oven requires transforming one’s skills, organizational methods, and much more. Accusing NeoLoco of claiming that this oven could be used by traditional bakeries without adaptation shows a lack of seriousness in these accusations. A simple reading of my book is enough to demonstrate that I do not, in any way, advocate for a traditional bakery model when it comes to using a solar oven.
Recently, I had the opportunity to present our work to the French trade union for foodservice equipment manufacturers. This conference brought together producers of traditional bakery equipment—electric ovens, mechanical mixers, and so on. My presentation aimed to highlight the kinds of adaptations in organizational models, economic frameworks, and technical skills that are required in light of the energy challenges facing the sector. There was no ambiguity about the transformations made at NeoLoco, nor about what could and could not be applied to traditional bakeries. I did not feel I lacked credibility in front of these professionals. The discussions were of a high standard.
The same goes for the many professionals—including representatives from chambers of trades and crafts—who have visited NeoLoco to get information directly from the source.
“Deluxe Solar roasting:
Here the results have been much more encouraging in the French context. This is where things could have really been interesting in France and still could be. We do not have much data about it in Africa but it has been tested several times. And so it seems that this is where the Lytefire can be a great tool and provide real income, opening a new sector to small-scale local food transformation in France.”
I completely agree. It’s important to recall that the French team — of which I was a part for the sale of the first five Lytefire ovens in France — sold those ovens exclusively for roasting purposes. The reason is simple: baking bread is more complex, as I have consistently emphasized.
Moreover, the ovens sold in France were 5m² models. At NeoLoco, we built an 11m² oven, which is more powerful in order to meet the needs of a bakery operation. That doesn’t mean you can’t bake bread in a 5m² oven — quite the contrary — but naturally, you can bake less at a time.
When Lytefire took back control of oven sales, bakers started receiving ovens without the support that had initially been provided. At the same time, the construction of 11m² ovens was discontinued (the only one that exists to date is NeoLoco’s).
NeoLoco and I have always shared our results in good faith. We’ve always done everything we could to keep our operations open — as much as possible — so that people could come and see for themselves. Had we closed our activity, we would have been criticized for that too. Had we not tried to offer the kind of support we initially provided through SFF (now called Lytefire), it would have been a missed opportunity.
However, I cannot accept being blamed for the consequences of a shift in strategy led by Lytefire — a shift I did not choose.
“NeoLoco makes most of its profit from their solar roasting activity because the solar roasted products are lasting longer than the bread, which allows better production planning when the activity is based on intermittent solar energy.”
This is again totally false. Where does it come from? Both activities, bakery and roasting are profitable.
“To enhance this storytelling, Arnaud is also misrepresenting his role in our company everywhere. For example, in a conference with APCC (Association des Professionnels en Climat Energie et Environnement), he showed a big Lytefire prototype made in India (picture below). Other team members were working on this project at Mr Desai’s Gandhian factory and the prototype was already completed when Arnaud visited. At that time, his contribution was a series of long discussions on the factory’s roof where our first prototype of that size was standing. He used the footage and concepts he captured to support his documentary film about sustainable energy solutions.”
This image comes from a slide I use in my conferences, related to my energy study trip. As indicated on the right side of the slide, this is the moment when I talk about my encounter with Lytefire in India. I do not mention any specific role in that particular project. This photo simply serves to illustrate the link with the Lytefire initiative, a project I later worked on for nearly 10 years — which also explains why we are still using two of these ovens at NeoLoco today.
For clarity, I completed a two-month internship on this oven, which was still in development at the time. Numerous photos document that period. Reducing this experience to mere rooftop discussions is inaccurate.
I would also add that Eva Wissenz, who made these claims, was not present in India during that time.
And contrary to what has been claimed elsewhere, the photo in question does not belong to Lytefire. Lytefire was one of 60 energy projects documented during this year-long study trip. All the photos on this slide are credited to Les Vagabonds de l’Énergie and come from projects visited during that study journey.
“Looking back, we notice the absence of any technical improvements by this former CTO during his job with us.”
The accusations made against me are not based on solid facts.
For several years, I contributed voluntarily to the project, driven by a strong belief in its value. Very few people would have committed to such an extent. On numerous occasions, Lytefire’s leadership personally expressed their appreciation for the skills I brought to the project. It is unfortunate that some of the challenges the company is currently facing are being blamed on former collaborators rather than being addressed responsibly.
The article published by Lytefire suggests that French partners who collaborated with the company acted against its core mission: to develop tools for artisans in developing countries, particularly in Africa.
This claim is inaccurate. The activities conducted in France were always part of the company’s overall strategy and were approved by its leadership. Lytefire itself endorsed these two complementary approaches — which made sense: developing solutions in Europe does not undermine efforts in Africa, quite the opposite. It fosters valuable exchanges of practices — exchanges I have personally experienced, which have benefited all involved, both in Africa and in France.
To now claim that Lytefire never aimed for anything beyond African artisan use, and that the project was misappropriated by some for personal gain amounts to rewriting history. The company, for example, developed two solar saunas for a ski resort in Switzerland — to my knowledge, without involvement from French actors. This clearly shows that Lytefire was also exploring other markets independently of local French initiatives.
Accusing people of misusing a tool is not only unfair, but counterproductive. We share the same challenges, the same planet, and the same sun. We must act wherever we can, with the resources we have, without opposing regions or commitments.
“To repeat, Lytefire is neither low-tech nor is it open source. We would like to be credited and referred to properly or not mentioned at all (and if you chose to not mention us, we ask us not to show us by picture or drawing without credits).”
After years of trying to handle tense situations constructively, I’ve decided to follow this advice: when possible, I will no longer ention the Lytefire brand.
I have done everything I could to meet Lytefire’s expectations. Those who know the full story understand the level of effort I put into maintaining that relationship — probably too much. Yet, it never seemed to be enough.
Lytefire might appreciate having its oven users constantly talk about the brand, but there’s a gap between that expectation and the reality on the ground. A bakery needs to focus on communicating about its own work, values, and mission — not about the brand of the tools it uses.
The Low Tech movement offers a meaningful approach to addressing the challenges of our time. It involves simplifying our tools so they are more robust, repairable, and accessible. This naturally requires rethinking how we produce, work, and organize ourselves.
Is perfectly acceptable to disagree with this vision. But that does not justify the hostility I’ve been subjected to, nor the attempts to silence those who express different views.
Lytefire is free to shape its own communication. However, this should not come at the expense of the users of its own technology. One may disagree with the deep changes we have implemented at NeoLoco. Yet, in the medium term, these transformations are likely to become necessary — whether by choice or by necessity.
As for me, I am among those working to prepare for this shift, alongside many others involved in the Low Tech movement in France. And others too.
Is that a reason for public disparagement? I don’t believe so.
Many initiatives identifying with Low Tech do so with the intent to move forward collectively — to share ideas, tools, and know-how. They do not deserve to be judged negatively.
Today, Low Tech has moved beyond amateurism. There are real, smart, and reliable solutions. Lytefire has every right to reposition its image. But there is no need to damage others’ reputations in the process.
Submitted by Arnaud Crétot
