Difference between revisions of "Cost Competitiveness of Rural Electrification Solutions"
From energypedia
***** (***** | *****) (Created page with "{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" width="90%" border="1" |- | '''Titel''' | '''Comment''' | '''WebLink''' |- | *SEFI / UNEP: [http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/...") |
***** (***** | *****) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [ | + | [[Portal:Financing and Funding|► Back to Financing and Funding Portal]]<br/> |
| − | + | = Overview = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | In developing economies, large areas lack access to the electricity grid. Low density, low electricity tariffs and long distances also hinder utilities from investing in grid extension to remote areas. The use of diesel generators in these areas depends on the increasing costs of fuel. Furthermore, usage of kerosene lamps in theses rural areas also causes negative externalities like greenhouse gas emissions and fumes<ref name="NORPLAN, 2013. NORPLAN Study: Cost Competitiveness of Rural Electrification Solutions">NORPLAN, 2013. NORPLAN Study: Cost Competitiveness of Rural Electrification SolutionsfckLR</ref>.<br/> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <br/>When the costs and benefits of various solutions to rural electrification are compared, studies indicate that distributed '''renewable energy (RE)''' solutions are increasingly more attractive than grid-based solutions. The more swiftly that policy-makers, regulators, financiers, developers and donors can fully accept and act upon this new energy reality, then rural areas in sub-saharan Africa can benefit from improved energy services<ref name="NORPLAN, 2013. NORPLAN Study: Cost Competitiveness of Rural Electrification Solutions">NORPLAN, 2013. NORPLAN Study: Cost Competitiveness of Rural Electrification SolutionsfckLR</ref>.<br/> | |
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | = Benefits of Rural Electrification = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | *Lighting; education and communication (e.g. radio/TV/Internet); | |
| + | *Health and hygiene (e.g. avoided fumes from kerosene lamps and improved medical storage); | ||
| + | *Environmental benefits (e.g. avoided fumes and less greenhouse gas emissions); | ||
| + | *Time use; and productive uses (e.g. local industry and micro enterprise). | ||
| + | *The willingness to pay for electrification is currently US $ 0.10-0.40 per kilowatt hour (kWh) for lighting and TV only, and US $ 1.0-1.5 per kWh for complete electrification<ref name="World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, 2008. The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits">World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, 2008. The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits</ref>. | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | = Solar PV Potential = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | + | = Biomass Potential = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | = Geothermal Potential = | |
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | = Micro Hydro Potential = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | + | = Further Information = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | *[[Portal:Financing_and_Funding|Financing and Funding Portal]]<br/> | |
| − | |- | + | *[[Electrification Challenge in Rural Areas|Electrification Challenge in Rural Areas]]<br/> |
| − | | | + | *[[Business Models for Solar-Based Rural Electrification|Business Models for Solar-Based Rural Electrification]]<br/> |
| − | + | *[[Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) Nepal - Report|Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) Nepal - Report]]<br/> | |
| + | *[[Indicator Rural Electrification and Stoves|Indicator Rural Electrification and Stoves]]<br/> | ||
| + | *[[Rural Electrification|Rural Electrification]]<br/> | ||
| + | *[[Rural Electrification - Minimum Safety Standards for Household Connection|Rural Electrification - Minimum Safety Standards for Household Connection]]<br/> | ||
| + | *[[Small Hydropower Promotion Projects Contribution for Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) in Nepal|Small Hydropower Promotion Projects Contribution for Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) in Nepal]]<br/> | ||
| − | + | <br/> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | = References = | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <references /><br/> | |
| − | + | [[Category:Financing_and_Funding]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Rural_Electrification]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Financing_Solar]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Financing_Hydropower]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Financing_Biogas]] | |
| − | + | [[Category:Impacts]] | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 07:58, 16 May 2019
► Back to Financing and Funding Portal
Overview
In developing economies, large areas lack access to the electricity grid. Low density, low electricity tariffs and long distances also hinder utilities from investing in grid extension to remote areas. The use of diesel generators in these areas depends on the increasing costs of fuel. Furthermore, usage of kerosene lamps in theses rural areas also causes negative externalities like greenhouse gas emissions and fumes[1].
When the costs and benefits of various solutions to rural electrification are compared, studies indicate that distributed renewable energy (RE) solutions are increasingly more attractive than grid-based solutions. The more swiftly that policy-makers, regulators, financiers, developers and donors can fully accept and act upon this new energy reality, then rural areas in sub-saharan Africa can benefit from improved energy services[1].
Benefits of Rural Electrification
- Lighting; education and communication (e.g. radio/TV/Internet);
- Health and hygiene (e.g. avoided fumes from kerosene lamps and improved medical storage);
- Environmental benefits (e.g. avoided fumes and less greenhouse gas emissions);
- Time use; and productive uses (e.g. local industry and micro enterprise).
- The willingness to pay for electrification is currently US $ 0.10-0.40 per kilowatt hour (kWh) for lighting and TV only, and US $ 1.0-1.5 per kWh for complete electrification[2].
Solar PV Potential
Biomass Potential
Geothermal Potential
Micro Hydro Potential
Further Information
- Financing and Funding Portal
- Electrification Challenge in Rural Areas
- Business Models for Solar-Based Rural Electrification
- Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) Nepal - Report
- Indicator Rural Electrification and Stoves
- Rural Electrification
- Rural Electrification - Minimum Safety Standards for Household Connection
- Small Hydropower Promotion Projects Contribution for Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) in Nepal
