Difference between revisions of "Cost Competitiveness of Rural Electrification Solutions"
From energypedia
***** (***** | *****) m |
***** (***** | *****) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= Overview = | = 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 | + | 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/> |
| − | </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 | + | <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>. |
| − | </ref>. | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 10: | ||
= Benefits of Rural Electrification = | = Benefits of Rural Electrification = | ||
| − | *Lighting; education and communication (e.g. radio/TV/Internet); | + | *Lighting; education and communication (e.g. radio/TV/Internet); |
*Health and hygiene (e.g. avoided fumes from kerosene lamps and improved medical storage); | *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); | + | *Environmental benefits (e.g. avoided fumes and less greenhouse gas emissions); |
*Time use; and productive uses (e.g. local industry and micro enterprise). | *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: | + | *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/> | <br/> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
| − | = Potential of | + | = Potential of Biomass = |
| + | |||
| + | <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Potential of Geothermal = | ||
| + | |||
| + | <br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Potential of Micro Hadro = | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
= Further Information = | = Further Information = | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[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_-_Questionnaire|Rural Electrification - Questionnaire]]<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/> | <br/> | ||
| Line 36: | Line 51: | ||
<references /><br/> | <references /><br/> | ||
| + | [[Category:Impacts]] | ||
[[Category:Financing_and_Funding]] | [[Category:Financing_and_Funding]] | ||
| − | |||
Revision as of 08:48, 12 July 2013
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].
Potential of Solar PV
Potential of Biomass
Potential of Geothermal
Potential of Micro Hadro
Further Information
- 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 - Questionnaire
- Rural Electrification minimum safety standards for household connection
- Small Hydropower Promotion Projects Contribution for Community Rural Electrification Programme (CREP) in Nepal
