|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Format for print or mobile
Africa/Global: Making Choices on Climate Future
AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 9, 2016 (160309)
(Reposted from sources cited below)
Editor's Note
The choices for the future of the planet's climate are ever more
stark in 2016. While the "incumbency" fossil-fuel system (as analyst
Jeremy Leggett terms it) remains powerful, the trends favoring a
more rapid transition to renewable energy are building much more
rapidly than almost anyone expected. Coal is clearly on the way out,
with the possible exception of South Africa, which continues to
invest in this outdated and deadly technology. And downward cost
trends in solar, wind, battery storage, and other renewable
technologies continue to accelerate both in developed and in
developing countries.
According to GTM Research, the U.S. solar market is set to grow a
staggering 119 percent this year, while new reports also forecast
rapid growth globally and in Africa for "pico-solar" solutions
reaching those without access to electricity, with major positive
impact on income, health, and the environment. Meanwhile, however,
most countries are also still pursuing an "all-of-the-above" energy
strategy which has not yet abandoned new investment in the most
damaging alternatives such as coal mining and fracking.
[See http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/sa1503.php on South Africa.
And on the United States, in the midst of unresolved policy debates
over energy policy, note the Washington Post editorial passionately
depending fracking against the critique by candidate Bernie Sanders
http://tinyurl.com/zst4oeo).
This AfricaFocus contains (1) excerpts from a report from the
Overseas Development Institute on the rapid advance of off-grid
solar markets in sub-Saharan Africa, (2) a press release from
GroundWork South Africa on the failure of environmental assessment
of a new proposed new coal plant, and (3) an overview by Jeremy
Leggett of global trends moving towards renewable energy and the
looming (if uncertain in timing) death spiral for the economic
viability not only of coal but also of oil and gas.
For an up-to-date global overview of off-grid solar market trends,
see the report by Lighting Global and Bloomberg New Energy Finance,
published March 3, 2016 http://www.lightingglobal.org - direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/ja35yng
For the latest GreenTechMedia Research on the U.S. solar market,
released on March 9, see http://tinyurl.com/hhhmstb
For previous AfricaFocus Bulletin's on climate change and the
environment, visit http://www.africafocus.org/intro-env.php
++++++++++++++++++++++end editor's note+++++++++++++++++
Accelerating access to electricity in Africa with off-grid solar
Andrew Scott, Johanna Diecker, Kat Harrison, Charlie Miller, Ryan
Hogarth and Susie Wheeldon
January 2016
Overseas Development Institute http://www.odi.org - direct URL
http://tinyurl.com/h2oay8f
The reports from this study include an executive summary, excerpted
below, as well as case studies from 13 different African countries
(Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.)
Introduction
Today, more than one person in five lives without access to
electricity; 48% are in Africa. Around 80% of those without access
to modern energy live in rural areas. Given the high cost and slow
pace of grid expansion to rural areas, decentralised options are
often the cheapest and fastest way to extend energy access (IEA,
2014). Solar PV systems are the cheapest source of electricity for
over one-third of Africa's population - a figure that is rapidly
increasing with falling solar prices.
There is now a wide variety of technical options that can provide
off-grid solar electricity to individual households. These solutions
to the challenge of energy access range from pico-solar lanterns
(with a capacity of under 3 watts) to large solar home systems
(above 2kW capacity), which power several lights and electrical
appliances. New models of financing and distribution, as well as the
development of pico-solar lanterns, have been instrumental in
enabling low-income households to gain access to solar energy (Szabó
et al. 2013). This report considers the full range of solar devices,
using terms such as ‘solar households solutions' or ‘solar off-grid
options', except where it specifically refers to solar lanterns or
larger solar home systems (SHS).
This report was prepared for the Department for International
Development in support of preparations for the Energy Africa access
campaign, which aims to accelerate access to electricity in subSaharan
Africa through solar household solutions. It presents
evidence of the impact of solar household systems, reviews the
market in the region and 13 selected countries (listed in Table 1
below), and identifies the key policy measures to enable accelerated
access to electricity through solar household solutions.
The impact of solar household solutions
Impact on household finances
Poor households tend to spend a higher fraction of their income on
energy, often for vastly inferior levels of energy services. Rural
families across Africa spend ~10% of household income for 4 hours of
light at night using kerosene, torches or candles. Families with a
solar light save over $60 a year, spending just 2% of their
household income on lighting (SolarAid, 2012-15). Lighting Africa
(2010) reported that replacing kerosene lamps with solar lights
could offer returns on investment of 15-45 times the cost of the
light. The Africa Progress Panel (2015) reported that halving the
cost of inefficient lighting sources would save $50 billion for
people living below $2.50 per day. It estimated that these monetary
saving would be sufficient to reduce poverty by 16-26 million
people.
Moreover, households with access to a solar product that charges a
mobile phone can save money on charging fees. Off-grid households in
Africa spend on average $0.66 a week charging mobile phones, and
travel 28 minutes one- way to the nearest charging station
(SolarAid, 2012-15).
Impact on quality of lighting
Beyond financial savings, solar users benefit from extra lighting
hours and better quality and more reliable lighting. A SolarAid
(2012-15) survey found after purchasing a pico-solar light,
households increased the amount of time that they light their home
from 3.8 to 5 hours per night.
Impact on income generation
Improved quality and quantity of lighting can create opportunities
for income-generating activities by increasing the time available
for productive work. A number of studies found the availability of
solar lighting after sunset increased the likelihood that
enterprises will generate additional income by extending their
working hours. Solar products that enable energy services beyond
lighting create further income generating opportunities. Mobile
phone charging businesses are particularly common. Solar- powered
pumps also offer an increasingly attractive option for small-scale
irrigation systems, but often with capital costs that are too high
for low-income households.
Impact on health
By replacing kerosene lanterns, solar systems can help reduce
household air pollution. The fine particulates emitted by keroseneusing
devices exceed WHO guidelines. They impair lung function and
increase infectious illness (including tuberculosis), asthma, and
cancer risks. Poor lighting from kerosene lanterns is also
associated with compromised visual health (UNICEF, 2015).
Epidemiological evidence on the morbidity and mortality associated
with kerosene lighting is currently inconclusive.
Solar household systems can also keep families and communities safer
by replacing the use of flame-based lighting, thereby reducing
burns, accidents and fires. Poisoning often occurs as kerosene is
commonly sold in soda bottles and it can be mistaken for soda.
UNICEF (2015) reported that the primary cause of child poisoning in
developing countries is accidental kerosene ingestion, and burns are
identified as one of the leading causes of child injury. One third
of SolarAid (2014-15) customers interviewed in Uganda had
experienced fires, burns and/or poisoning from kerosene.
Beyond improving health through safe household lighting, larger
solar PV systems can improve the functioning of rural health
facilities by enabling better lighting, ICT for administration,
information, and aftercare services; laboratory equipment and
refrigeration for the storage of vaccines, blood and other medical
supplies. Over 30% of all health facilities in sub-Saharan African,
serving approximately 255 million people, lack access to electricity
(Practical Action, 2013).
Impact on education
There is clear evidence that better access to lighting provides
children with opportunities to increase the quality and time of
their study/homework. SolarAid (2012-15) found that school children
in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia rated limited lighting as
their main barrier to learning and do homework. After obtaining a
solar light, children increased their study time on average from 1.7
to 3.2 hours each night. Other studies found similar improvements,
but to differing degrees. Larger solar PV systems can also provide
rural schools with electricity. Practical Action (2013) estimated
that 65% of primary schools in sub-Saharan Africa, representing 90
million pupils, lack electricity.
Impact on the environment
Worldwide, kerosene lamps emit an estimated 270,000 tonnes of black
carbon per year, causing a climate warming equivalent of close to
240 million tonnes of CO 2 , a magnitude similar to the annual
emissions of Vietnam (Lam et al., 2012; WRI, 2015). Alstone et al.
(2015) estimated doing that, when black carbon is accounted, the
climate forcing from households using kerosene lighting is nearly 10
times as high as that of the typical grid-connected households in
Kenya. Harrison & Lam (2015) found that switching from kerosene to
solar can reduce annual household emissions by as much as 555kg CO 2
e.
An outcome of the growth in sales of solar household systems will be
the associated increase in electronic waste. Recycling and
electronic waste facilities are uncommon in Africa and there is a
low level of awareness of the risks, of battery disposal for
example. Some organisations have started recycling trials.
Impact on quality of life
SHSs can have significant positive impacts on quality of life. In
Bangladesh, 82% of SHS users agreed that their system had increased
their social status, stating that neighbours and relatives from
other villages visited their houses more often to enjoy the clean
lighting. Their SHS increased the amount of time that they engaged
in social activities (Urmee & Harries, 2011). In Africa, 85% of
pico- solar users said their solar light affected the activities
they were able to do at night (SolarAid, 2012-15).
Impact on communications and access to information
Solar household systems that offer more than just lighting can
significantly improve communications and access to information. In
Uganda, 80% of phone owners charged their phones using solar
systems, suggesting that access to SHS enables telecommunication in
non-electrified areas (Harsdorff et al., 2009). Access to reliable
and affordable charging for mobile phones can also facilitate access
to financial services such as mobile money; allowing rural and/or
unbanked populations to be served. In Bangladesh, 95% of SHS users
reported improved access to information through mobile phone, TV or
radio. Many agreed that by watching TV or listening to the radio
they had greater access to information and were more informed about
general news, health-related issues, weather and natural disasters
(Urmee & Harries, 2011).
Impact on livelihoods: through solar supply chain
The development of
the solar market creates jobs and income-generation opportunities
throughout the supply chain. In Bangladesh, the Africa Progress
Panel (2015) found 114,000 jobs in solar panel assembly were created
in the last 10 years. Up to 15,000 new jobs have been created in
sub-Saharan Africa through the distribution of off-grid lighting
UNEP, 2014).
The market for solar household solutions
The market for quality-certified solar products has grown rapidly
over the past five years, reaching almost 3.5 million units in 2014.
This market grew by 165% between 2011 and 2012, and by 204% between
2012 and 2013. The rate of increase fell to 27% between 2013 and
2014, and it may have declined in the first half of 2015.
Good market information about non-certified products is unavailable,
but Lighting Africa estimated that they had a 57% share of the total
market in 2012 (Lighting Africa, 2012). If non-certified products
are taken into account, the growth in the overall market may be
continuing.
Three countries - Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia - accounted for 78%
of the sales in 2014, reaching a market penetration of 15-20% of
off-grid households. These countries have a comparatively supportive
policy environment for solar household solutions. For the region as
a whole, market penetration is estimated to be around 3%.
The development of pay-as-you-go business models, which aim for high
customer density, and the growth trend of existing companies,
suggest that markets are likely to expand outward from their
existing location.
...
The main current trend is the emergence of the pay- as-you-go (PAYG)
model, under which ownership of the solar product is transferred to
the consumer after a limited payment period. The PAYG market is very
dynamic, with new approaches appearing quickly, companies changing
their approach, and others disappearing from the market. A recent
survey found that 60% of PAYG companies use mobile payments to
collect revenue (Lighting Global, 2015).
...
A simple model was therefore developed for the study, to understand
what it would take to achieve universal access to electricity under
three scenarios: Business as Usual, Sustainable Energy for All, and
Power for All. These scenarios assume universal access is achieved
by 2080, 2030 and 2025, respectively. The model under these
scenarios was applied to market in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole and
to the market in 13 selected countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya,
Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
GroundWork And SDCEA Appeal Colenso Environmental Authorisation
groundWork (Friends of the South Africa)
South Durban Community Environmental Alliance
Media Advisory
March 3, 2016
http://www.groundwork.org.za - direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/jsh7qrh
Durban & Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, 3 March 2016 - groundWork
and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA),
represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights, on 1 March
2016 launched an appeal to the Minister of Environmental Affairs
against the environmental authorisation granted to Colenso Power
(Pty) Ltd for its proposed coal-fired power station near the town of
Colenso.
The entire Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process was
conducted within just a few months, in keeping with the severelyrestricted
timeframes in the latest EIA Regulations. groundWork and
SDCEA argue that these timeframes fail to provide an adequate
opportunity to assess the significant negative impacts the power
station is set to have on people and their ability to live in a
clean, healthy environment, or for interested and affected parties
to participate meaningfully in the EIA process.
"The DEA has not applied its mind to this environmental
authorisation, but instead pushed through the authorisation without
adequately considering critical impacts that the power station will
have on water, air quality, human health and climate change", said
Bobby Peek, Director of groundWork, which is based in
Pietermaritzburg.
The appeal states that the Chief Director (as the relevant
Department of Environmental Affairs' (DEA) decision-maker) failed,
in granting the authorisation, to give adequate consideration to,
for example: The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)
Principles, the NEMA s24O factors, the need for and desirability of
the station and whether the application for the authorisation
included an assessment of all the impacts, including cumulative
impacts, of the proposed coal-fired power station. This is so
because the environmental impact report (EIR) for the power station:
- neglects to provide information which is crucial for purposes of
adequately assessing the proposed station's impacts - for example,
the report does not state where and how the power station will
obtain two-thirds of the coal it will need to operate;
- contains incorrect information (for example, estimations of the
power station's greenhouse gas emissions and total water
requirements which are significantly below the true extent of these
emissions and the actual quantities of water required); and
- fails to assess adequately the impacts that the power station will
have on, for example, climate change, air quality, water, and human
health.
The appeal also emphasises the impact of the current drought in
KwaZulu Natal. The failure to give this any consideration in
assessing the water impacts that the power station will have -
particularly on the Thukela river, and the communities and other
users that already depend on it is another ground on which the
authorisation should be set aside.
The Chief Director cannot be said to have met the NEMA requirements
or considered the impacts of the proposed power station, in
circumstances where the EIR is incorrect and lacks fundamental
information and assessments. In addition, the conditions and
mitigation measures proposed in the authorisation are vague. They
lack the necessary detail and rigour to limit harm to the
environment and human health once the power station starts
operating.
By granting this appeal, the DEA is setting the standard for one of
the first Coal Baseload Independent Power Producers to use 198m3 of
water per day - a conservative amount given by the EIR - in a
country where one million people already do not have access to the
minimum quota of 25 litres of potable water per day. Colenso Power
is looking to the Tugela River Catchment to source its water,
despite the country being in the midst of a severe drought.
If the declaration of the Highveld Air Priority Area has shown us
anything, it is that coal-fired power stations have a severely
detrimental effect on the health and well-being of people living in
their vicinity. Yet, and despite groundWork calling upon it to do
so, Colenso Power neglected to conduct a health study as part of
their EIA.
According to Desmond D'sa, Coordinator of the SDCEA, "The model of
development which has rested on the myth of mining as a source of
wealth for all, is slowly crumbling in the public sphere. Mine
workers across the country are disgruntled with indecent conditions
and low wages for risky work. Those that live next to mines and
power stations, but are without employment, are realising that such
'development' has largely been made up of empty promises."
Contacts
Bobby Peek
groundWork, Director
Tel (w): +27 (0) 33 342 5662
Tel (m): +27 (0) 82 464 1383
Email: bobby@groundwork.org.za
Desmond D'sa
Coordinator, South Durban Community Environmental Alliance
Tel (w): +27 (0) 31 461 1991
Tel (m): +27 (0) 83 982 6939
Email: desmond@sdceango.co.za
State of The Transition, February: "Most fossil fuel companies face
a future in which they might not have the capital to expand even if
they still want to."
Jeremy Leggett, March 1, 2016
http://www.jeremyleggett.net - direct URL:
http://tinyurl.com/zuykvoh
[Excerpts. For full article see link above.]
The top ten stories from the drama of the Paris Climate Summit in
December and its aftermath through to end February are, I think, as
follows, as things stand. Key policymakers are now serious about
climate risk. Civil society has awoken in critical mass. Regulators
are beginning to regulate climate risk. Disruption is moving faster
than most people think. Utilities are racing to escape a death
spiral. The shale boom is going bust. The oil and gas industry faces
the prospect of a death spiral too. Divestment from the energy
incumbency threatens to snowball. Investor engagement with the
incumbency, in concert with unfavourable economics, will soon
threaten most capital expenditure on fossil-fuel expansion. The
legal system is fast becoming a driver for the global energy
transition.
...
3. Regulators are beginning to regulate climate risk
Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg were key players in Paris. Carney,
the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chairman of the
Financial Stability Board, is the man most responsible for the
stability of the global capital markets. He intends to ensure
investors are provided with the right information so that they can
respond to the risks of climate change, and the threat of stranded
assets, by switching capital from fossil fuels to clean energy.
Bloomberg agreed in Paris to Chair an elite committee of business
leaders, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures,
that will make that happen. Behind closed doors, their deliberations
are already underway. Investors are waiting, sensitised to the need
for major change in the way the capital markets approach climate
change. This will be a vital drama to follow this year and next.
Expect significant diversion of capital away from fossil fuels as a
consequence.
4. Disruption is moving faster than most people think
Meanwhile, exciting news continues to flow for both renewables and
storage. Renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of new US
generating capacity in 2015, we learned in February: 3,500 times
more than coal. Almost 8 gigawatts of new wind was installed, and
more than 2 gigawatts of solar. Storage is heading for a
breakthrough year globally in 2016, industry analyses suggest.
Batteries lead the way, with an average price reduction of 35% in
2015.
...
6. The shale boom is going bust
We entered February with the low oil price accelerating the
mothballing of active oil and gas drilling rigs in the US shale
regions. The rig count is now down 70% from the peak in October
2014. Four of America’s shale gas regions had become void of all
drilling. We left the month with junk-rated debt accumulated by oil
companies in excess of $250bn, and debt issuance to the oil industry
grinding to a halt. One estimate, by Morningstar, suggests that
globally oil has to reach $65 a barrel to cover the average cost of
supply. Brent crude in February averaged little above $30 and on two
days averaged below $30. The IEA warned in February that the global
glut is such that the oil price would stay low for some time.
...
7. The oil and gas industry faces the prospect of a death spiral too
Bankruptcy is not just a concern for shale drillers. The low oil
price has meant that some $400bn of expected investment has been
cancelled or delayed, to date. Morgan Stanley calculates that out of
more than 230 projects ready to go this year, only nine are now
realistic. And if you are not drilling for new oil and gas, and
depleting existing reserves, how do you grow and generate cash in
the future? Especially if, as we have seen, explosive growth of cars
that need no oil is assaulting your market.
...
8. Divestment from the energy incumbency threatens to snowball
Institutions with well over $3 trillion of funds under management
are now divested or pledged to do so, and the movement is growing.
If anyone felt inclined to suggest that this isn’t a significant
threat to the oil industry, it became more difficult for them to do
so on February 25th, when Ali Al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of
Petroleum & Mineral Resources, exhorted his industry to combat
divestment. “We must not ignore the misguided campaign to ‘keep it
in the ground’ and hope it will go away”, he said.
...
9. Investor engagement with the incumbency, in concert with
unfavouable economics, will soon threaten most capital expenditure
on fossil-fuel expansion
[Even] Investors who don’t divest give no free pass to oil and gas
companies. The lesson of coal is there for all to see, and many
investors have been badly burned by it. Share prices have collapsed
spectacularly. Banks including Goldman Sachs have concluded that the
coal industry is in structural decline. The bankruptcies to date
include America’s second biggest miner, Arch Coal. Pressure is
inevitably extending to the oil and gas industry. Executives are
seeing previously unchallenged assertions and business models
interrogated as never before. Given everything summarised above, how
can this be expected to do anything but worsen in 2016?
AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.
AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org
|
