energy consumption, saving potential and policies in domestic cooking in developing countries
Post on 30-May-2018
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
1/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 1
Energy consumption, savingpotential and policies in domesticcooking in Developing Countries
Michael Grupp, Synopsis
Lodve, France
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
2/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 2
Table of contents
Status quo: the different cooking fuels -consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
Focus on cooking in developing countries
Discussion of fuel options: how to reduceemissions and save costs
Impact monitoring and use-based incentiveschemes
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
3/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 3
Global consumption of different cooking fuels
Coal7%
Wood 3-stone48%
Wood stove6%Root
1%
Dung8%
Charcoal1%
Electricity
3%Kerosene
1%LPG1%
Crop rs24%
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
4/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 4
Global GHG emissions by different cooking
fuels
Wood 3-stone45%
Coal16%
Crop rs10%
Dung3%
Charcoal2%
Wood stove6%Root
2%
LPG3% Kerosene4%
Electricity9%
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
5/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 5
Cooking: the GHG facts
Cooking contributes around 5% of global GHG
Most emissions are caused by biomass in
developing countries (non-sustainable wood, lowefficiency cooking appliances, high number of users - but potential for low-cost improvement)
Cooking in industrialised countries emits lessGHG (less users, cleaner fuels, more efficientappliances).
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
6/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 6
Option 1: Gas fuels (traditional and renewable)
Pros: clean, cheaper thanelectricity, lower start-upinvestment
Cons: safety reputation,
traditional gas fuels needcentralised production anddistribution chain
Traditional gas can be
replaced by bio-gas orhydrogen.
Prototype hydrogen cooker
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
7/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 7
Option 2: Liquid fuels (Kerosene and biofuels)
Plant oil cooker (U. of Hohenheim)
Option 2: Liquid fuels (Kerosene and biofuels)
Pros of Kerosene: cheaper thanelectricity, lower start-up investmentfor supplier, extremely low start-upinvestment for user, can be marketedin small lots
Cons of Kerosene: smell, safety (fireand toxicity), needs centralisedproduction and distribution chain,needs minimum consumption density
Kerosene can be replaced by bio-fuels(no smell or toxicity problems)
Plant oil cooker (U. of Hohenheim)
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
8/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 8
Option 3: Solid fuels (3-stone fires, coal,charcoal and biomass stoves)
Pros: free, respectivelycheaper than electricity,high acceptance for
traditional stoves
Cons: massive contributionto GHG and indoor airpollution, local
deforestation for wood. Improved wood stove (Vesto)
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
9/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 9
Option 4: No-fuel stoves (solar)
Pros: zero GHG emission,convenient if used right
Cons: needs change of cookinghabits, no stand-alone system,initial investment, stoves needproduct development andefficient low-costproduction/distribution/after
sales organisation
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
10/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 10
Option 5: traditional grid / electric cooking
Pros : locally clean, polyvalent, convenient, highuser acceptance
Cons : high GHG emissions, expensive for user and
utility (traditional grid), very low overallefficiency, lack of generating capacity in DC, lowreturn on investment (poor clients)
Conclusion : electric cooking will remain limited to
wealthy, high user density situations.
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
11/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 11
Satellite grids
Many users in Developing Countries will never beconnected to the traditional grid. Their electricity needs- except for heating and cooking - can be met byDistributed Generation and local grids
Intelligent grid functions such as data transfer, intelligentmetering and two-way billing could be provided for bylocal mini-grids
Satellite grids: local grids could be synchronised by satlink in order to become active parts of an external grid -at acceptable cost.
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
12/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 12
User acceptance - the critical issue
New cooking techniques have a poor acceptancerecord (coal vs wood, microwave, solar)
Acceptance is a complex issue (tradition,convenience, cost, supply, safety, image, )
Acceptance can be improved by incentives
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
13/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 13
Incentives to boost user acceptance
Incentives must be directly related to impact - hence toclean cooker use rate
Incentives must be directed in priority at the user (incontradiction to usual practice), not at the professional
Collateral effects, e.g. by subsidising fuels instead of use, must be avoided
Use rate must be metered for impact assessment - but
how ?
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
14/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 14
The clean cooker use incentive scheme
Cooking with low GHGheat sources is recorded online and converted viacarbon value
Users get paid for GHGreduction by free local gridelectricity (pre-paid meter)
Pros: acceptance; adapted
to low density locations.
Clean cooker
Other clean appliances
Electricity meter
Use meter
Local grid
Electricity use
Emission counter
Sat link (option)
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
15/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 15
Open questions
Technical, financial and user related feasibility of localand satellite grids
The dynamics of small grids - are they stable ?
The technical characteristics and cost potential of tamper-proof use meters
The institutional reaction to the concept
Will the user give it a try ?
Will the concept work in the real world ?
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
16/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 16
Cooking in Developing Countries causes important GHGemissions and high costs
The market for clean RE cookers is still immature
User acceptance is still poor - and hard to establish
Efficient incentives must be based on actual use rates
Use rates can be metered and rewarded via an avoided-emission-for-electricity scheme, on a prepaid meter basis
Local grids run either by utilities, investors or users can besynchronised to the traditional grid by satellite control(satellite grids) which keeps all future options open.
Conclusions
-
8/9/2019 Energy Consumption, Saving Potential and Policies in Domestic Cooking in Developing Countries
17/17
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 17
top related