Overcoming energy poverty and inequality in Asia and Africa

French-Norwegian workshop on “Globalization, inequality and energy,” Oslo, Norway, June 11-12, 2018

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D

Director, Center for Energy Technologies, Denmark

Professor of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

Professor of Energy Policy, University of Sussex

Director of the Center on Innovation and Energy Demand, United Kingdom

Data sources

• Sovacool, BK. “The Political Economy of Energy Poverty: A Review of Key Challenges,”

Energy for Sustainable Development 16(3) (September, 2012), pp. 272-282

• Sovacool, BK. “Deploying Off-Grid Technology to Eradicate Energy Poverty,” Science 338

(October 5, 2012), pp. 47-48.

• Sovacool, BK. “Design Principles for Renewable Energy Programs in Developing

Countries,” Energy & Environmental Science 5(11) (November, 2012), pp. 9157-9162.

• Sovacool, BK. “A Qualitative Factor Analysis of Renewable Energy and Sustainable

Energy for All (SE4ALL) in the Asia-Pacific,” Energy Policy 59 (August, 2013), pp. 393-

403.

• An introduction to energy poverty

• (Social science) research methods for a major

project

• Four Findings

• Technologies

• Business models

• Best practices

• Paradigms

Roadmap

Two traditional ways of measuring energy poverty:Number of people lacking

access to electricity (millions)

Number of people

relying on the

traditional use of

biomass for

cooking (millions)

Africa 587 657

Sub-Saharan

Africa

585 653

Asia 799 1,937

China 8 423

India 404 855

Other Asia 387 659

South America 31 85

World 1,441 2,679

Countries with the largest

population without access to

electricity, 2015

Countries with the largest

population relying on

traditional use of biomass for

cooking, 2015

Why it’s a poverty issue

Modern Energy Services and Income Generating Opportunities

Energy service New income opportunities Improvement of existing

activities

Opportunity cost saving

Lighting Street lighting enables

nighttime stalls and

entertainment

Later opening of restaurants,

cafés and shops

Creating opportunity for night-

time activities in increased

safety

Cooking Sales and distribution of

commercial modern fuels and

stoves

Cleaner and more cost-

effective cooking

Time saved in wood collection

and pot cleaning

Cooking Selling ice, ice-cream, etc.

New markets for refrigerated

products, e.g. milk

Less waste of agricultural and

fishery products, creating more

income

Reduced time and energy

spent keeping goods fresh or

felling intensively in a short

period

Heating Process heat for new industrial

processes

Improves comfort in hotels and

cafés

Time saved in collecting wood

for heating

ICTs Internet cafés, mobile phone

charging, radio stations

Finding best prices at various

markets

Reduced travel time

associated with

communication

Irrigation Growing new kinds of crops Better yields on existing land

compared with rain-fed

agriculture

Less time spent mutually

watering crops

Agro-processing Adding value by refining

agricultural products

Increasing throughput and

lowering costs

Less time spent manually

grinding/pounding etc.

Manufacturing Welding and metalwork

enables

Improved quality and speed of

carpentry

Time saved by mechanisation

of repetitive designs

Why it’s an environmental issue

Burden of Disease Attributable to 20 Leading

Risk Factors in 20 for Both Sexes (percent of

Disability Adjusted Life Years)

Why it’s a health

issue

Why it’s a public health issue:

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Malaria Tuberculosis Indoor airpollution

HIV/AIDS

Mil

lio

ns

2008

2030

Annual Deaths Worldwide by Cause, 2008 and 2030

Why it’s a “justice” or “equity” issue:

Why it’s a gender and empowerment issue:

Annual Differences Between Women and Men in Tanzania for Chores and

Hauling Items

Why it’s a gender and empowerment issue:

Why it’s an educational issue

Source: Sovacool, BK and SE Ryan. “The Geography of Energy and Education: Leaders,

Laggards, and Lessons for Achieving Primary and Secondary School Electrification,”

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (May, 2016), pp. 107-123.

Research methods and

case (technology)

selection

Project really centered on asking:

› Within renewable energy access and development programs what works, what doesn’t, what are the best practices that transcend geography?

Technology Characteristics Typical Production Costs

(U.S. cents/kWh)

Mini-hydro 100 to 1,000 kW 5-12

Micro-hydro 1 to 100 kW 7-30

Pico-hydro 0.1 to 1 kW 20-40

Biogas digester 6 to 8 cubic meters 3-14

Biomass gasifier 20 to 5,000 kW 8-12

Small wind turbine 3 to 100 kW 15-25

Household wind turbine 0.1 to 3 kW 15-35

Village-scale mini-grid 10 to 1,000 kW 25-100

Solar home system 20 to 100 Wp 40-60

Improved cookstove - -

Why renewable energy? Better LCOE compared to

existing technologies (sometimes the grid, sometimes

candles or kerosene):

Type Mitigation Benefits Adaptation Benefits Social and economic

development benefits

Biomass Reduced use of charcoal and

fuelwood, less pressure on

natural resources

Reduces the likelihood of

deforestation and

desertification

Creation of jobs and livelihood

opportunities, reduced

drudgery, reduction of

incidents related to indoor air

pollution and respiratory

infections

Wind Decreased dependence on

wood and biomass,

avoidance of carbon dioxide

emissions

Greater resilience through

reduced vulnerability to water

scarcity, more adaptation

choices through irrigated

agriculture

Greater prospects for income

generation, improved quality

of life, reduced risks of vector

born diseases, improved

water supply and food

security, reduced migratory

fluxes, improved school

attendance (especially for

girls)

Biogas plants Reduced use of pesticides

and fertilizers

Adapting to soil erosion,

aridity, and environmental

degradation

Better prospectus for

agricultural productivity and

income generation

Solar home systems Reduced consumption of

fuelwood, kerosene, and

batteries, improved local air

quality

Improved education through

illuminated studying and

access to information and

communication technology

Improved quality of life as well

as better health and

sanitation through streetlights

and boiled water

Microhydro Reduced greenhouse gases,

protection of land cover

Improved social resilience Improved health, greater

school attendance

To say nothing of other positive externalities:

Microhydro dams

22

22

23

Solar home systems

24

24

Biogas digesters

Small-scale wind turbines

28

Improved or clean cookstoves

30

30

Case selection (from 1000+ to 10):

• 441 research interviews and meetings with 189 institutions over the course of

four years, anonymous • Government agencies such as the Nepal Ministry of Energy, Indonesian Ministry of

Finance, Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Chinese Ministry of Science

and Technology, or Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority;

• Intergovernmental organizations such as the South Asian Association for Regional

Cooperation, the Global Environment Facility, and the United Nations Development

Programme;

• International civil society organizations or think tanks, including Conservation

International, Friends of the Earth, Transparency International, and the Stockholm

Environmental Institute;

• Local civil society organizations or think tanks, including Grameen Shakti, Yayasan

Pelangi Indonesia, and Pragati Pratishthan;

• Electricity suppliers including the Nepal Electricity Authority, Tenaga Nasional Berhad in

Malaysia, Ceylon Electricity Board in Sri Lanka, and Papua New Guinea Power Limited;

• Manufacturers, industry groups, and commercial retailers such as Alstrom Hydro,

Barefoot Power Systems, Sime Darby, Siemens, and Sunlabob;

• Financiers and bilateral development donors including Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Technische Zusammenarbeit, United States Agency for International Development, the

Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank Group; and

• Universities and research institutes including the International Center for Integrated

Mountain Development, University of Dhaka, University of Papua New Guinea, and the

Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Data collection process

• Supplemented with 90 renewable

energy site facilities in the ten

countries

• Variety of sources, systems,

sizes, and capacities

• Research laboratories

• Testing centers

• Factories

• Assembly lines

• Public and private

• Plus focus group discussions with

almost 800 community members

• Households

• Village leaders

• Political representatives

• Triangulated with a second, in-

depth literature review of peer-

reviewed and internet sources

(especially project documents)

Data collection process

Finding (1): A

complexity of optimal

technologies and energy

services

35

Economic Competitiveness of Wind, Biomass, and Small Hydropower in India

Source: World Bank. The economic costs of generation include all capital, operational,

and financial expenses and exclude all taxes and subsidies

Finding (2): Policy

mechanisms or

business models can be

just as important as

technology

Model Description Example

Technology improvement and market development

A sort of “supply push” structure where

the PPP develops a renewable energy technology to reduce costs

China’s Renewable Energy Development Program

End-user microfinance A sort of “demand pull” which gives loans

to energy users to that they can purchase renewable energy equipment

Grameen Shakti in Bangladesh

Project finance Where small- and medium-scale projects

are supported with loans and financial assistance from commercial banks

Energy Services Delivery Project in Sri Lanka

Cooperative Where communities own renewable energy systems themselves

Cinta Mekar Microhydro Project in Indonesia

Community mobilization fund Where revenues from renewable

electricity or energy production are invested back into local communities

Microhydro Village

Electrification Scheme in Nepal

Energy services company (ESCO) “fee-for-service”

Where private sector enterprises

purchase technology and then charge

consumers only for the renewable energy “service” that results

Zambia’s PV-ESCO Project

Hybrid (cross-subsidization and ESCO)

Where tariffs on one type of electricity are

then funneled into a fund to support renewable energy

The Rural Electrification Project in Laos

Hybrid (end-user microfinance and ESCO “fee-for-service”)

Where private sector enterprises

purchase technology and then charge

consumers only for the renewable energy “service” that results

India’s Solar Lantern Project

Finding (3): Best

practices or design

principles do exist

Lesson Factor Ban

glad

esh

China Laos Mongolia Nepal Sri

Lanka

India Indonesi

a

Malaysia Papua

New

Guinea

Appropriate

Technology

Feasibility studies X X X X X X

Scaling up X X X

Service rather

than technology

orientation

X X X X X X

Technical

standards and

certification

X X X

Cultural sensitivity X X X X X X

Community

Commitme

nt

Community

ownership/operati

on/participation

X X X X X X

Minority/gender

empowerment

X X X

Monetary

contributions

(cash, savings,

collateral)

X X X X

Non-monetary

contributions

(time, labor, land,

materials)

X X

Lesson Factor Ban

glad

esh

China Laos Mongoli

a

Nepal Sri

Lanka

India Indonesi

a

Malaysia Papua

New

Guinea

Awareness

Raising

Marketing and

promotion

X X X X X X X X X

Demonstration X X X X X

After-sales

Service

Product

guarantees/warra

nties/buy back

X X X

Training/funds for

maintenance

X X X X X X

Income

Generatio

n

Classes in

productive end-

use

X X X X X X X X

Scholarships X

Institution

al

Diversity

Involvement of

non-state-

actors/private

sector

X X X X X X X X X

Polycentricity X X X X X X

Cost sharing X X X X X X

Avoidance of

corruption

X

Lesson Factor Bangla

desh

China Laos Mongoli

a

Nepal Sri

Lanka

India Indonesi

a

Malaysia Papua

New

Guinea

Affordability Provision of

credit/microcre

dit/ ESCO “fee-

for-service”

model

X X X X X X X X X

Revenue

collection

X X X X

Support for

manufacturing/

industry

X X

Lower

programmatic

costs

X X X

Capacity

Building

Institution

building

X X X X X X

Outsourcing X

Improved

business

practices

(accounting,

auditing,

revenue

collection,

marketing)

X X X X

Self-sufficiency X X X X X

Lesson Factor Ban

glad

esh

China Laos Mongoli

a

Nepal Sri

Lanka

India Indonesi

a

Malaysi

a

Papua

New

Guinea

Flexibility Diversity of eligible

technologies

X X X X X X

Follow-up project X X X X

Promotion of both

grid/off-grid systems

X X X X

Adjusted

targets/extended

deadline

X X X X X X X X

Evaluatio

n and

Monitorin

g

Independent

evaluator

X X X X X X X X X

Penalties for

noncompliance

X X X X X

Political

Support

Policy integration X X X X X X X

Dedicated or

experienced

implementing agency

X X X X X X

Project

champion/political

leadership

X X X X X X

Finding (4): Consider a

new paradigm of energy

access

A newer “paradigm” of energy access and development

seems to work best

• Multi-scalar: involving households,

neighborhoods, and city/village councils as well as

state planners, national regulators, and

international donors

• Multi-institutional: not just a single type of actor

(consumer or supplier), but faith based groups,

environmental think tanks, renewable energy

suppliers, inventors and innovators, etc.

• Multi-sectoral: electricity and energy as well as

agriculture, education, public health, and gender

equity (to name a few)

• Multi-dimensional: a variety of energy end-use

services (see next slide)

In sum: energy access is:

Not until the creation and maintenance of

decent conditions of life for all people are

recognized and accepted as a common

obligation of all people and all countries—

not until then shall we, with a certain

degree of justification, be able to speak of

mankind as civilized.