UNEP Bringing Solar Power Into India’s Rural Mainstream
by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada on 09.10.07
For many people living in rural areas in India, clean or renewable energy is something seen as unaffordable and out-of-reach in practical terms – but for the last few years, a project piloted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is attempting to change that perception by bringing solar power into the rural mainstream in India through micro-financing. The project has already reached approximately 100,000 people in the state of Karnataka – saving money in the long-term and transforming the quality of life for many – even if it is just to provide a few extra hours of uninterrupted lighting at night.
Consistent and affordable access to clean energy sources is a big issue in India, especially in rural areas. Local electricity grids are often unreliable, overstressed and at the mercy of sometimes extreme weather conditions (think monsoons, landslides and the like), leading to prolonged power outages (sometimes on a daily basis) or scheduled power cuts to ease the infrastructural burden (sometimes also daily). In total, only an estimated 45 percent of the Indian population is connected to the power grid – leaving the rest of the population on their own and in the dark, energy-wise.
To meet their energy needs, India’s poor have turned to so-called "dirty" sources of energy – whether it’s kerosene or the household stove – all great contributors to carbon emissions. Many walk long distances to buy kerosene, which is relatively costly.
The UNEP estimates that a single wick of kerosene for indoor lighting can burn up to 80 litres (21 gallons) of fuel, emitting more than 250 kilograms (551 pounds) of carbon dioxide per year. Not to mention the fact that in developing countries, 64 percent of deaths and 81 percent of lifelong disabilities in children younger than five years is directly attributed to the use of these inefficient and "dirty" fuels.
It is no surprise then, that the UNEP’s $1.5 million Solar Home Project to distribute solar photovoltaic (PV) kits is such a success. Currently, the greatest obstacle to solar power from getting a foothold in this market has been mostly due to a lack of financing for clean energy in rural communities. However, by initially teaming up with two large Indian banks, the kits were made affordable through low-interest loans of $300-500, to be repaid over five years. In addition to the loans, the banks organized a vendor qualification process that resulted in five solar vendors offering their services competitively and giving customers more flexibility to choose.
"Lack of access to affordable energy produces one of poverty’s most powerful grips," says Eric Usher, director of UNEP’s Renewable Energy and Finance Unit. “This project empowers people to invest and helps free them from reliance on government interventions.”
The project’s success has led to similar, sister initiatives springing up Algeria, China, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, and Mexico, with hopes that this model will continue to empower impoverished communities and bring the idea and use of renewable energy into the mainstream.
::United Nations Environment Program
Via::World Watch Institute
See also ::Solar LEDs Brighten Rural India's Future, ::India Considering Off-Grid Renewable Options for Rural Electrication
Image from: NOAA
Melting Ice Cap Triggering Earthquakes, Endangering Wildlife
|
TH Forums Highlights: Water Heaters, Using Compost + More
|
This is outrageous. Why are India's poor being made to pay a price that the richest people in United States wouldn't pay?
$500 for a 40W lighting system is a whopping $12.5 per Watt. Solar power is available in U.S. for about $8.5 per Watt, installed. This includes cost of inverters, chargers, the actual installation and everything. Agreed that the system in India has additional cost of battery but it's still too much since there's no inverter involved in a small 40W system.
Lets calculate how much it would cost for a California resident to go completely solar at the same cost that a poor Indian is paying in his village under the UNEP program. I choose California because it's an ideal place for solar power. Average American household annual electricity consumption is 10,000 kWh. A resident of San Fransisco would need 7kW panels to generate that much energy annually. At this rate it would cost them a sweet $87,500!!
Naturally, no one would pay that kind of sum in U.S unless it was subsidised. BTW, California residents do enjoy a subsidy up to 50%. No such luck for the poor villagers in India.
So again, someone ought to ask UNEP why are these people being made to pay such exorbitant prices? Solar power is uneconomical. Period. It should be a crime to sell these solar devices at such prices to these people putting them in 5-year long debts.
There are so many better alternatives. For example, they could use human power devices such as this pedal-a-watt generator. A healthy human can generate up to 150W. Just attach it to a bike and you have free energy that can be stored in a battery. An hour of pedaling will take care of lighting needs of a rural household for as much 2 days if they use LED lamps (three 5W power LEDs running for 5 hrs each day). Human power is cheap in the villages. All they have to do is pedal.
So there's no reason why a villager should pay the insane price in the name of green energy or development. Someone should stop this stupidity. This saddens me a great deal. Perhaps I ought to get in touch with the people behind this project.
I'd also urge Treehugger to be more circumspect while writing. It would help if they knew the fundamentals of energy economics.
Mr.Sharma - It seems you are getting a bit too excited & your outburst is a little over the top..!
YES, as on today’s day acquiring & delivering solar power to India's rural is over priced. But this will soon change with several new small scale assembly units coming up all over India.
YES, i agree & second you on highlighting this issue and that request UNEP should acquire & deliver this technology at a better price.
BUT, i totally disagree with you on this silly idea of yours to introduce pedal generators..??
I am not sure what country do you live in..? Majority of the people will prefer to sit without a fan or light, than to go out & pedal their generators.
So let us be practical & let the better part of our brain prevail, which surely knows the benefits of solar tech. Start with one & then add several panels...as it will not be a community effort, which means for additional power, the entire family will be sitting on their individual pedal generators..??
Secondly we want people in the rural India to put in a greater effort in increasing the agri/farm output..!! We don't want to exhaust themselves pedaling their generators..!!
'$500 for a 40W lighting system is a whopping $12.5 per Watt. Solar power is available in U.S. for about $8.5 per Watt, installed. This includes cost of inverters, chargers, the actual installation and everything. Agreed that the system in India has additional cost of battery but it's still too much since there's no inverter involved in a small 40W system.'
---This assessment is misleading. Your assessment that average per watt costs are high in India for this small system compared to large systems in the US is off. This has nothing to do with higher costs in India. It has to do with the fact that these solar renewable energy systems display economies of size. The larger the system, the lower the total average per watt costs will be. I have a 500W PV/1000W wind generator system. If I had a system twice that size, the per watt costs would be lower than those of my current system. Doubling the size does not double the total cost of the system. I can buy a large 150W PV panel for $600 ($4/watt), but I would be lucky to get a 15W panel for $150 ($10/watt). Larger the size, the lower the average per watt price. Economies of size. Same goes for wind turbines. Towers. Inverters. Batteries. LVDs. And practically every other component of a renewable energy system. It has nothing to do with costs being higher in India. It has to do with systems being much larger in the USA. In my opinion, a small 40W system at $500 is a good deal. Could this system be cheaper - possibly, but it seems to me that it would require an extremely efficient production, marketing and distribution system to get these costs even lower. And unfortunately, while India is progressing quickly, its marketing and distribution systems are still far behind, as is much of manufacturing production. Hopefully, India will quickly overcome these hurdles with its current growth and thereby be able to reduce this $500 even more. Currently, the only way to get total per watt costs down even more is to install large systems as opposed to small ones. But if you are complaining that it is ridiculous that a poor farmer has to pay $500, then you will complain even more if they have to pay $10,000 for a much larger system just so that they can get a total average per watt cost of $8.5.
'Solar power is uneconomical. Period.'
---Compared to what? Compared to buying expensive kerosene for lighting which has untold negative side-effects which are not reflected in the price of the kerosene? Compared to that it is economical. Compared to NOT having any electricity, thereby reducing the amount of hours these poor individuals can spend doing something productive such as working a few extra hours or learning new skills so that they can do higher-paying work? Compared to that it is economical. Compared to your bike generator option? Compared to that it is economical. What are you comparing to to be willing to make such a statement?
'There are so many better alternatives. For example, they could use human power devices such as this pedal-a-watt generator.'
---(40W PV panel - $160 at a cheap price. PV mount - $20. Wiring from roof to interior rooms - $20. Decent size and quality deep cycle battery - $200. Decent size and quality regulator, monitor and LVD - at least $50. 4 low voltage DC flourescent lights and fixtures - at least $50. Interest at 5% - $25. Grand total of $500 plus $25.) vs. (Assembled pedal generator - $339, plus shipping - $350. Cheap bike - $25. Wiring from bike to interior rooms - $20. Decent size and quality deep cycle battery - $200. Decent size and quality regulator, monitor and LVD - at least $50. 4 low voltage DC flourescent lights and fixtures - at least $50. Interest at 5% - $35. Grand total of $695 plus $35. Oh, plus you have to tack on the value of the worker's lost time.)
'Someone should stop this stupidity. This saddens me a great deal. Perhaps I ought to get in touch with the people behind this project.'
---The project is well thought-out and implemented and makes a lot of sense. If it didn't, the UNEP's wouldn't be pushing it and it wouldn't be the success it is. And it wouldn't have won the Energy Globe's 'World Award for Sustainability'. If it was so stupid and so bad for poor rural Indians, it would have been discontinued. And it most definitely wouldn't be expanding into other areas of India and into other countries. It seems to me like you are the one making 'stupid' comments, and this saddens me a great deal. Perhaps you should get in touch with those people so that they can straighten out your misconceptions and lack of understanding of these issues.
'I'd also urge Treehugger to be more circumspect while writing. It would help if they knew the fundamentals of energy economics.'
---First of all, this article is simply a condensed version of a World Watch Institute article. And the World Watch Institute article is basically a paraphrased version of a UNEP article. Please address your comments to the correct individuals. If you disapprove of this article, contact the UNEP and show your displeasure. At the same time, they can straighten you out. Second, it takes a lot of nerve for someone to claim that TH (or, more correctly said, the United Nations) doesn't have a grasp of the fundamentals of energy economics and then use an example to prove such a point (e.g. bike generator) which shows that you yourself clearly don't have a grasp of the fundamentals of energy economics. It adds insult to injury. Like a mentally retarded individual calling Einstein an idiot. If you are going to be arrogant, make sure you are correct in your statements. At the minimum, make sure it doesn't take anyone two minutes to run some calculations that prove your statements incorrect.
The education are working together to implement the USAID-sponsored South Asia Regional Initiative for Energy Cooperation and Development (SARI/Energy) Small Grants Program, and are seeking proposals for projects that encourage regional cooperation in South Asia on issues of mutual regional concern in the energy sector.
This is a rebuttal to the marathon comment by a person called "Houston" above in response to my first comment. I just saw "Houston's" comment.
"Houston": "The larger the system, the lower the total average per watt costs will be..."
I understand economies of scale quite well. Surely UNEP didn't purchase one panel at a time? Naturally, it must have been a bulk purchase which is why the high end cost all the more surprising.
The fact remains that RETAIL price of solar PV modules in US has been under $5/Watt for quite some time - as tracked by a market research firm. These villagers were made to pay $12.5/Watt without any subsidy which is enjoyed by many US residents. Something is obviously grossly unjust there.
"Houston": "Solar power is uneconomical compared to what?"
Compared to ALL other renewable energy generation technologies - as mentioned in UNDP's World Energy Assessment report, 2004 Update. See energy costs in Table 7.
Solar photovoltaic 25-160 ¢/kWh
Solar thermal 12-34 ¢/kWh
Large hydropower 2-10 ¢/kWh)
Small hydropower 2-12 ¢/kWh
Biomass 3-12 ¢/kWh
Geothermal 2-10 ¢/kWh
"Houston": "Assembled pedal generator - $339, plus shipping - $350"
The pedal power generator I linked above can be made in India for under $50.
"Houston": "The project is well thought-out and implemented and makes a lot of sense. If it didn't, the UNEP's wouldn't be pushing it and it wouldn't be the success it is."
If success is determined merely by unit sales, then I agree. But it's a big failure if we ask whether the poor villagers' hard earned money was utilised effectively and whether the technology being deployed is the best solution for the given circumstances.
"Houston": "this article is simply a condensed version of a World Watch Institute article."
This is a blog post, not an article. Blog posts such as these are generally reviews and commentary on mainstream articles. They are certainly not summaries or "condensed versions." Blogs are supposed to question, clarify and point to current news items. Treehugger posts have never been unquestioning summaries. The first qualification to become a Treehugger correspondent is to be knowledgeable. Their ad specifically asks for the person to be a "sensitive BS detector". Which is precisely what I said - be more circumspect.
Note to "Houston": If you're replying, please keep the response concise and cite your sources where possible. Thanks.