Renewable Energy and the Developing World
It’s the 117th anniversary of the first patent granted for the electric refrigerator, a good time to reflect on how profoundly this invention has improved the quality of our lives, and how deeply its absence causes and perpetuates suffering in developing nations.
Here again is an example of the imperative to bring electrification to the rural villages in Africa and the rest of the third world. Electricity, delivered via microgrids powered by renewable energy resources, will soon result in quantum leaps in the quality of healthcare and nutrition for these billion-or-so people.
It can be argued that, even more importantly, electrification will enable better education, meaning more affluent, stronger, and smaller families. Educated women seldom have 15 children, and educated, productive men are not easily recruited by ISIS and other terrorist groups.
This is why I often claim that every kWh of renewable energy delivered to the developing world is many times more valuable to our environment overall than that same kWh used to offset fossil fuels in the OECD countries.
Even though wind and solar systems are intermittent, they can still greatly improve the quality of lives for people who otherwise would have no electricity. Of course storage is required, but just to operate a couple LED lights in each home, recharge a cell phone, and operate a notebook computer for a limited period of time, does not require much storage. And, considering the limited power needed, solar systems could probably generate enough power on most cloudy days. But refrigerators? Except for clinics needing to refrigerate vaccines, the cost of adequate storage to make refrigerators practical would most likely be excessive for wind and solar systems.
We must not forget that solar and wind power are INTERMITTENT. That greatly limits their usefulness except in situations where no other power is practical and where the limitations are tolerable.
In Fiji, which is a developing country, in remote areas micro hydro systems are being installed and have been found to be quite successful. However, they are able to deliver reliable power CONTINUOUSLY, which solar and wind power cannot do without storage which is far too expensive except when the demand for power is very limited.
Un fortunately, the practicality of micro hydro systems is limited by geography but where they are practical, they are very helpful.
“We must not forget that solar and wind power are INTERMITTENT.” Frank: There’s not much chance of our forgetting that. 🙂
Perhaps people don’t actually forget that wind and solar power are intermittent, but the actions they support often seem to ignore that fact.
Craig @ Frank
I know both of you well enough from your writings to conclude that you are both great people. Caring and compassionate also for sure.
But on this topic, although well intentioned which is evident, you are also a mile off the mark, and those very people you are demonstrating empathy for here would be very disappointed with you both if they every managed to read your comments, which luckily they won’t because they effectively have no or little power and definitely no computer, smart phone or notebook to keep up to date on http://www.2greenenergy.com.
Unwittingly you are coming across like “colonial masters”.
The people with little or no electricity that you are referring to (and this equates to about ¼ of the world’s population) don’t need a little fix to run a couple of LED lights and charge a phone. They need opportunities (through the availability of low cost and abundant energy) to work hard to create everything that you enjoy and have access to!
That is abundant power to drive the development of local modern era businesses, modern era manufacturing, modern era schools, modern era infrastructure development, modern era public service utilities, hospitals and everything else etc etc.
It is 2016. Not just in New York or Sydney or London; it is 2016 everywhere! And the leaders and professionals, the skilled and the privileged of the world (and that would include Craig Frank and me I suspect) need to step up and be bold, visionary and forceful speakers and advocates when given half a chance.
Small thinking BS being tossed around is not an option the world needs any longer. The world needs confronting and bold advocates standing up for the big global issues that need addressing. The world cannot improve and move forward dynamically through the well intentioned armchair originated commentary of privileged small thinkers.
So I invite you both to get out of the armchair on this issue, and have a rethink about it. I hang out with some very underprivileged young teenagers as I go about my privileged professional work installing renewable energy solution, in places like Myanmar and Bangladesh. And you know what; they all tell me the same story about their aspirations to be doctors, engineers and scientists. A couple of LED lights have little appeal in their thinking.
I had this exact discussion in a one on one meeting with the President of Eritrea last December in Beijing. Eritrea is considered one of the poorest nations on earth, and because of some considerable World Bank funding being made available; his government was wrestling with strategies to electrify the country. My contribution which he sought was in part “give your people abundant power to go forward collectively through their own efforts, rather than simply provide adequate power to maintain what little they already have”. He took that advice on-board.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
And where are they supped to get generous amounts of economical power if they live in remote areas?
In some developing countries, such as Fiji, they are fortunate to have hydro power available. That can provide plenty of power at a reasonable cost except for people who are in areas which are too remote. Some live on small islands where hydro power is not available. They commonly have Diesel power with the units being automatically controlled to start at sundown and stop at about 10:30 PM. However, transporting Diesel fuel to remote islands is expensive and the generators are noisy. For them, in spite of its limitations, PV power seems to be the best option.
The Fiji Electric Authority is installing micro hydro systems, where practical, for people in remote areas, but the geography does often does not make that possible.
So, what would you suggest?
Please see: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/08/09/bringing-renewable-electricity-to-the-developing-world/.
You are hung up on the minutiae of energy science Frank. Solution – expand your horizons.
Everything that is possible in this topic does not have to be neatly laid out before you in fine detail for your analysis today or else it isn’t worth referring to in discussions. If this is how you feel about scientific endeavor and technological discourse, you are not a true student of recent history but merely a helpless spectator on the sidelines incapable of digesting anything beyond the latest media sound bite. You are much better than that though.
And before you scoff at this, I remind you that lateral and visionary concept thinking is all around us, it’s responsible for everything you see around you. Its real, it’s not witchcraft or zombie logic, and it applies very much to the energy science industry. So develop comfort in open-mindedness and keep it alive and fresh.
Most of the stuff I read in energy forums tells me that the authors think we are at the end of the clean energy technologies development cycle? I think unfortunately that Craig and some of his supporters may be in that camp. Well I’ve got news for them; the industry is just beginning to sprout, so I for one am not prepared to jump into bed with any closed minded commentators at all.
I prefer to niggle, agitate and explore the realities beyond the obsolescent technologies we all enjoy today, and focus on what happens to be exciting the world’s best and brightest scientists, researchers and engineers at the moment. And so should you.
History clearly tells us that a nation’s development and growth is reflected in its GDP which also mirrors closely its energy consumption trend line. A society’s evolution and development and increasing prosperity is axiomatically linked to its energy resources and energy consumption.
Understanding this is not rocket science and indeed it is a well-documented fact going back to about year 1 AD and reported in other ways well prior to that.
I often hear people say how great it is that some communities are experiencing a decline in energy consumption for a whole host of reasons, this is a furphy, and more often merely a metaphor for declining local productivity and enterprise across all sectors. Would anybody seriously suggest that a nation or society or community that has very low energy consumption per capita (due to lack of available energy) is a healthy one that should be applauded because it must imply that superior energy conservation policies by the community are being practiced? Nonsense.
Frank the world needs “affordable low cost and clean power” to be locally generated in huge quantity and consumed – not less. The key phrase here is “locally generated in huge quantity and consumed”. We all need to come to terms with this global imperative.
At least 1/3 of the world’s people are what I label “energy refugees”. And “energy refugees” lives are strangulated; their aspirations are meaningless without power; productivity approaches zero, new industries cannot be started, and the knock on effects are crippling.
We are all to blame for this appalling “starved of energy” world around us, but some of us are more to blame than others, but this dilemma on one hand, presents some of us with an astonishing opportunity on the other, to not only redress the issue but go forth and create a new paradigm in human history.
What surprises me most is the United States lack of interest in grasping this once in a lifetime opportunity to seize control of the subject on a global scale and run with it. There may never be a more opportune moment in history, for a nation equipped to do so like the US, to stand up and mobilise their best and brightest scientists, researchers and engineers, to take control of “low cost and abundant clean energy for all people” science, and in doing so totally reshape the technological and industrial capabilities and enterprise landscape of the US and her workforce.
But no so far not a word has been said in this vein.
So Frank that answer to your question is this; it may not spell out precisely what you think the answer should be, but it is more poignant than that. As an echo from the past, it remains as relevant for the US today (or even more-so) as it was then. It transcends your interest in energy technology minutia Frank and goes straight for the jugular with audacious effect:
…………………………………….
Replace the word “space” – with “energy science”.
President John Kennedy – “Urgent National Needs Speech” 1961
“………we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides – time for a great new American enterprise – time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, what in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.
I believe we possess all the resources and all the talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals or an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to ensure their fulfillment.
I therefore ask the Congress to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:
I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.”
………………………………………………
There you go Frank, that’s my answer and it should of course be your answer also.
Mission accomplished – and goodbye global greenhouse gasses as well.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
I am fully aware that a comfortable and long life requires economical and plentiful energy. I am not one to assert that in all cases energy usage must decline or that people who live as cheaply as possible are in some way morally superior. However, there are often things we can do to reduce the use of energy simply by using it more efficiently; that need not lower our standard of living. For example, buildings which are better require less energy to keep the temperature within a comfortable range. More modern lighting technology reduces the energy requirements to maintain an adequate level of lighting.
On the other hand, people living in areas where the amount of available energy is very limited can improve their standard of living if more energy is made available at prices which they can easily afford. That would enable them to live more comfortably and longer. However, we must be realistic. With currently available technology, it would be impossible for many people living in small villages in remote areas to have abundant and economical energy unless they are fortunate to have mini hydro power systems. If not, they will simply have to make do with less energy such as solar power with battery storage. Some of them will choose to move to areas where plentiful energy is available which is one of the reasons that in developing countries there is a drift from remote areas to cities.
Much more effort should go into developing better nuclear power technologies. But until that has produced results, we should be expanding nuclear power as rapidly as possible. It may be that very small nuclear power generating system will be developed making in practical for people in remote small villages to have plentiful and economical energy, but right now that is not possible. Also, one could question the wisdom of having a large number of very small nuclear reactors in remote places.
Again, I am well aware of the advantages of plentiful and economical energy and, unlike some environmentalists, I do not believe that everyone should return to living the way our ancestors lived 200 years ago.
FWIW, I don’t think we’ve exhausted the course of technological improvement in renewable energy; that would be seriously stupid, something I assiduously try to avoid. 🙂
Each of the 14 chapters in my most recent book speaks to where things are going in wind, solar, the other flavors of renewables, storage, efficiency, electric transportation, smart grid, utility re-regulation, climate change mitigation, etc. http://www.2greenenergy.com/bullish-on-renewable-energy/
Of course it is possible that significant advances could be made with solar systems. However, collecting energy from the sun will always and forever continue to be intermittent regardless of improvements in collecting energy from the sun.
A “smart grid” is not magic. It can only improve how the available power is managed. Without exceedingly huge amounts of economical energy storage, renewables cannot provide large amounts of uninterrupted power. And, there is no proof that such storage will ever become available, especially soon enough to mitigate a disaster.
We do know that nuclear systems can generate reliable power at all times with an availability factor slightly exceeding 90%. So, until or unless changes in renewable technology become available, we should be expanding nuclear power as rapidly as possible. The risks of waiting for technical improvements in renewable systems are too great to be acceptable.
Frank and Craig
Unfortunately most energy oriented commentators seem to have totally lost sight of what the actual problem is that all people face which is greenhouse gas emissions largely (but not entirely) from fossil fuels use. And this is the issue to focus on, rather than constant quibbling about small T technologies that have about zero impact on greenhouse gas emissions, but nevertheless quite useful in their own right in many other ways.
There are two separate subjects at play here. One important one seems to have been shunted to the background and that happens to be the critical one that will rise up and bite us all most severely probably within 25 – 40 years if it is not fully ameliorated by technological endeavors that should by now be seen as maturing projects coming to fruition worldwide.
I don’t think it is beyond any reasonable persons comprehension to conclude that if the world’s best and brightest physicists, researchers, scientists and engineers were collectively (or even nationally) mobilised urgently, guided and emboldened by visionary global political leadership and demanding policy initiatives, the world would end up the beneficiaries of remarkable technological outcomes within 20 years for sure. And that 20 years of foresightedness and effort would be rewarded with new age energy generation technologies that would displace fossil fuel generation, and be able to satisfy fully the critical global energy imperative that we must aspire to which is: “low cost and abundant clean energy for all people”.
The by-products would include:
1. A permanent reversal of global gas emissions (forever and never to return);
2. A dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use to insignificant proportions;
3. A permanent and enduring (possibly forever) technological platform for producing and making available for use everywhere “low cost and abundant clean energy for all people” to power community growth and prosperity in all of its forms and in particular to power new age energy intensive industries and technologies the world must embrace.
Please keep the green-house gas emissions issue on centre stage; it is the main game yet being drowned out of the conversation.
If we focus on this point and succeed, all the other stuff that everyone is getting excited about is well and truly taken care of. If we just focus on the near hysteria with renewable energy technologies in their current formats alone, greenhouse gasses keep piling up without any opposition whatsoever, and make no mistake, the worsening negative outcomes will bite us badly.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
Yes, the issue IS CO2 emissions. And I agree that some of the things being pushed will have only a rather small effect, such is more efficient lighting. However, they can be justified on an economic basis and they at least do have some effect.
Regardless of how much we can increase the efficiency with which we use power, by far most of the reduction in CO2 emissions will have to be achieved by reducing fossil fuel usage to little more than zero. That really should be obvious since the world’s use of energy will have to increase by aboutFOUR TIMES as poor countries strive to lift their people out of poverty.
There is still the problem of providing adequate electricity to people living in places too remote to be connected to the grid. Unless there are marked improvements in technology, they will simply have to tolerate the limitations of renewable systems. For example, there are people living in communities of less than 100 people where the grid is more than 25 miles away. There are small villages on remote islands.
I remain convinced that the best course of action is to expand as rapidly as possible the best nuclear power technology that is currently available while working to develop a better nuclear technology. Considering that it is really an emergency situation, we cannot wait for better nuclear technologies. Attempting to solve the CO2 emissions problems by expanding renewables which, with currently available technology, cannot do the job, would be increasing the risks faced by billions of the world’s people.
Because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, which have an availability factor of perhaps 25%, they would have to be overbuilt by a factor of somewhere around four even if unlimited energy storage capacity were available. So, even if unlimited and free storage were available, it would take far longer to expand wind and solar enough to do the job. But, in fact, currently no adequate storage technology exists and we cannot afford to wait to see whether it will become available.
The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor has passive emergency cooling that does not require power for its operation. That would be a suitable reactor to expand nuclear generating capacity as quickly as possible while doing R & D to make better nuclear technologies available. Small modular reactors look promising and could be ready for prime time within a very few years. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), which is a subset of metallic salt reactors, looks very promising. It could use the waste from pressurized water reactors as fuel.
What ever risks nuclear power has are tiny compared with the practically certain problems of global warming. Global warning could destroy civilization as we know it.