energy consumption, saving potential and policies in domestic cooking in developing countries

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


2/17


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


3/17


Global consumption of different cooking fuels

Coal7%

Wood 3-stone48%

Wood stove6%Root

1%

Dung8%

Charcoal1%

Electricity

3%Kerosene

1%LPG1%

Crop rs24%


4/17


Global GHG emissions by different cooking

fuels

Wood 3-stone45%

Coal16%

Crop rs10%

Dung3%

Charcoal2%

Wood stove6%Root

2%

LPG3% Kerosene4%

Electricity9%


5/17


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).


6/17


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


7/17


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)


8/17


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)


9/17


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


10/17


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.


11/17


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.


12/17


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


13/17


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 ?


14/17


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)


15/17


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 ?


16/17


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


17/17


energy consumption, saving potential and policies in domestic cooking in developing countries

Documents