W orld R ivers R eview...supply power in areas already connected to the grid. A new push for...

Just about any supplier – even thoseenjoying the billions of dollars pumped intonorthern countries’ on-grid programs eachyear – will agree that eventually Africa mustbe an important market. Investment in realgrowth strategies makes sense. Might therebe a better approach to the development ofAfrica’s PV market?

Off-grid OnlyWhile grid-connected PV has dominatedsales in developed countries, in Africa thefocus has remained almost exclusively onsmall off-grid, stand alone systems – espe-cially the 50 Wp solar home system (SHS).PV has much to offer the rural electrificationstrategies of Africa. On a continent whereelectrification rates are typically less than10%, providing any form of power for ruralpeople is of interest.

Since the early ‘90s, international policymakers and energy planners (this writerincluded) promoted PV as a first step to ruralelectrification. But PV was never a substitute

I was struck recently by an industry graphshowing global demand growth for solarphotovoltaics (PV). It revealed sharplyrising sales in Europe, America, Japan

and China – but Africa sales didn’t even regis-ter. In the heady early days of PV marketgrowth, Africa was an important market andthere was much talk about how PV wouldhelp solve the low access to power through-out rural areas of the continent. Today, Africadoes not even feature in PV executives’ world-view and we are no closer to widespread elec-tricity access, PV or otherwise.

In 1995, Africa accounted for about a quar-ter of the annual 75 MW world PV demand.Many of us in the PV sector then thought thatAfrica’s place in the market was secure. Sincethen, world demand for PV has skyrocketed toover 1,500 MW per year, while PV demand inAfrica has remained virtually stagnant. In fact,the demand for off-grid PV systems has notgrown substantially, few national PV programshave taken off and, with the exception of thetelecom sector (which is thriving), the PV sec-tor in Africa has become less and less interest-ing to international players and the privatesector in general.

Why has PV in Africa been such a non-success? Several reasons are proposed below,which have to do with the strategies, poli-cies, multilateral projects and use of incen-tives for PV in Africa. Some of the key deci-sions made by donors and governmentshave held back the PV industry in Africa. Forexample, why has development of PV inAfrica been limited to the off-grid sectoronly? Why have PV initiatives in Africa beenso closely tied to poverty alleviation? Andmost importantly, why have PV subsidiesbeen largely disallowed, when it can beshown that they are the key to growtheverywhere else in the world?

for the grid, and power planners and con-sumers were not as enthusiastic about 50 Wpsystems as were donors, multilaterals andNGOs.

For the most part, permanent secretaries,government ministers and utility CEOsintent on extending wires see little role for12 volt PV systems – for them it is a second-class technology for the rural poor at best.Unaware of the rapid advances on-grid PV ismaking around the world, planners are pre-occupied with the pressing problems ofmanaging decaying national electric grids,using conventional solutions such ashydropower and thermal stations. They donot have enough resources to innovate orfind creative uses of PV.

There are at least 80 million rural familiesoff-grid in rural Africa – a huge market, itwould seem. Nevertheless, in 10 years, thePV industry hasn’t penetrated more than ahalf percent of this market. There are only afew hundred thousand SHS installed in

World Rivers ReviewVolume 21, Number 6 / December 2006

Published by International Rivers Network

Rethinking Africa’s Solar Marketby Mark Hankins

continued on page 10

A PV owner in Mtwara,Tanzania.

Phot

o:M

ark

Han

kins

S p e c i a l F o c u s

Renewable Energy

World Rivers Review December 2006

Volume 21, Number 6

ISSN Number 0890 6211

Editor: Lori Pottinger

Design/Production:Jeanette Madden

Printing:Hunza Graphics

IRNExecutive Director:Patrick McCully

Staff:Monti Aguirre, Karolo Aparicio,Peter Bosshard, Elizabeth Brink,Riam Firouz, Jamie Greenblatt,Terri Hathaway, Inanna Hazel,Aviva Imhof,Tim Kingston, RiverLune, Carl Middleton, LoriPottinger, Elizabeth Sabel,AnnKathrin Schneider, Jonathan Stein,Glenn Switkes

Interns & Volunteers:Selma Barros de Oliveira,Wil Dvorak

Board of Directors:Martha Belcher (Chair), AndréCarothers, Angana Chatterji, GigiCoe, Anne Fitzgerald, Bob Hass,Milan Momirov, David Pellow,Leonard Sklar, Brian Smith, PaulStrasburg, Lori Udall, Jim Waring

Advisory BoardDan Beard, Patricia Chang, PeterCoyote, Chris Desser, Huey D.Johnson, Dorka Keehn, LaurenKlein, Juliette Majot, NionMcEvoy, Sylvia McLaughlin,Mutombo Mpanya, Mayumi Oda,Drummond Pike, Gary Snyder,Lara Truppelli

Contact IRN:1847 Berkeley WayBerkeley, CA 94703 USATel: (510) 848-1155Fax: (510) 848-1008E-mail: [email protected]

Visit IRN’s Website:http://www.irn.orgWRR is indexed in the AlternativePress Index.

World Rivers ReviewPower to the People

Printed on Re:Vision 10% tree free kenaf/90% recycled pcw

T he renewable energy technologies featured in this issue have many virtues: theyproduce clean energy, can be better scaled to meet demand than large dams, reducedependence on problematic energy sources such as fossil fuels and large hydro, andcan be used in rural areas far from the grid, where most of the world’s un-electrified

communities are located. Renewables create more jobs, and more localized jobs. As the articleon page 7 reveals, Nepali activists campaigned against a large dam in the 1990s mostly fromthe standpoint that they wanted to use local experts to design, build and maintain energyprojects – something that wasn’t possible with the huge Arun Dam then being considered bythe World Bank. Today, micro-hydro, biogas, solar installations, and efficient cooking stovesare bringing power to the people.

These technologies fit well into national rural electrification plans, but they can also helpsupply power in areas already connected to the grid. A new push for decentralizing energysupply systems calls into question the “bigger is better” mantra that has been the norm forenergy planners and utilities the world over for more than a century – ever since ThomasEdison lost the battle of direct current (which requires power plants every mile or so) to analternating-current grid system at the turn of the 19th century. Books reviewed on page 14explain the many advantages of decentralizing our energy supply, not the least of which isreducing the terrible waste that results from transporting electrons over long-disance wires.

Except for rural electrification, where the prohibitive cost of extending the grid givesrenewables a price-edge, many renewable technologies cannot yet boast of low cost (wind isclose to reaching parity, and in some cases is already cheaper than fossil fuels). Solar PV –one of the most costly of renewables – is now starting to take off in many richer countriesbecause incentives are being offered by governments like Germany and Japan, which haveput a value on PV’s clean energy and ability to reduce demand on overburdened nationalgrids. Yet Africa – the world’s sunniest, and least electrified, continent – is getting virtuallynowhere with solar. Our cover story describes some of the reasons for this lag, and urges anew approach for bringing solar PV to African nations. Incentives tops the list of neededchanges. Will the world’s richer nations come forth to help pay for this kind of green-ener-gy kickstart for Africa? Reports out of the recent climate change meeting in Nairobi revealthat thus far, Africa has been left out of the benefits from carbon funds intended to rewardgreen energy.

Clearly, the cost of renewables depends on what you account for, and generally the costof traditional energy has not included the cost of “externalities” such as pollution or theindirect subsidies given it, such as roads and railroads to transport oil and coal. In the US –one of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases – we have had our heads in the sandwhen it comes to accounting for the environmental and economic impacts of our highenergy consumption and our contribution to climate change. In the article beginning onpage 8, energy expert Dan Kammen describes what is needed to substantially de-carbonizethe US economy. The status quo – the US is now de-carbonizing at just 1% a year, primarilydue to energy efficiency – can be increased significantly with an increase in research anddevelopment. Kammen is calling for a “Manhattan Project” (based on the crash programthat led to the development of nuclear weapons in the 1940s) to improve existing technolo-gies and find new ones.

The chances of this happening are so close, yet so far. Voters in California (a bellweatherstate on energy issues) recently rejected a proposal to raise $4 billion for renewables R&Dthrough a tax on the oil industry, yet California also has one of the most progressive subsidyprograms for solar, and a groundbreaking new law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ACalifornia group called Vote Solar (interviewed on page 12) is lobbying for statewide initia-tives to promote solar, with the idea that by creating a large enough market for solar panels,their cost will drop to the point that solar is competitive with conventional energy. If theysucceed, the nation’s energy future could look sunny indeed.

Lori Pottinger

ed at up to 45,000 MW, which is expected toincrease with improved technology.

The policy also kick-started the develop-ment of an indigenous industry. Indianmanufacturers of towers, blades, generatorsand gear boxes have full order-books. Toattract customers, manufacturers offer turn-key projects and complete after-sales servicesand management. All the big players –including Enercon, Vestas, GE Wind – nowhave at least a foothold in India, and mostof them are expanding their productionfacilities. The Indian company Suzlon is nowone of the top 10 manufacturers in theworld, setting up offices and productionfacilities in China and elsewhere.

Challenges and ConcernsAlthough wind energy is much less problem-atic than thermal, big hydro and nuclearenergy, it also has some drawbacks in India.First, the power actually generated is limitedby periods of low wind speeds. In Maharash-tra, for example, the windy season is mainlyrestricted to the monsoon, from mid-May tomid-September. In Tamil Nadu, wind energyaccounts for 26% of installed capacity, yetcontributes only 5% to generation.

India’s wind boom has also done little tobring energy to the rural poor. Power fromthe big wind farms flows into the grid andon to cities and industries. The millions ofpoor now without modern electricity ser-vices would benefit from decentralized mini-grids fed by a mix of renewable, locallyavailable energy sources like biomass, smallwindmills, solar and micro-hydro. It is to behoped that the central government’s propos-al for such a program will be as successful asthe wind energy development program,though it is hard to imagine it will be ade-quately fueled by the private sector’s profitmotive, which is the model for the windprogram.

Another problem is the availability ofsuitable locations. Areas with sufficient windspeeds and easy access are becoming scarce.Land prices are skyrocketing – in TamilNadu, for example, land costs have increased20 times and more in the last few years.Poorer communities like toddy tappers,herdsmen, or marginal farmers have beenfurther marginalized, losing access to landand other means of livelihood. This pressureon land and prices will increase when thedemand for investment opportunities by pri-vate capital and manufacturers, who have tooffer locations to their clients, increases fur-

ther. More farmers will be tempted to sellvaluable agricultural land to the more pro-ductive use of harvesting the wind.

Finally, in spite of a ministry devoted tonon-conventional energies and some welllaid-out policies and economic incentives tofoster wind energy as an attractive commer-cial renewable, there has hardly been a turn-around in the energy policy. Of the planned62,000 MW in additional conventional ener-gy sources to be added by 2012, 38,000 MWwould come from coal-based projects, 16,000MW from hydro, 6,000 MW from gas/LNGand 3,000 MW from nuclear, according tothe Business Standard (Feb. 27, 2006). By comparison, the aim of increasing renewables to 12,000 MW by 2012 palesin significance.

Compared to the subsidies and publicinvestments into thermal, hydro andnuclear, the success of wind energy has comeat a low price for the public exchequer.Direct subsidies and fiscal incentives areslowly being reduced. G.M. Pillai, director-general of the Maharashtra Energy Develop-ment Agency, said two years ago, “Windpower should be fully viable in the nextthree to four years. In fact it might be cheap-er than other sources,” because of fallingcapital costs and improving efficiency withadvancing technology.

If India wants to establish itself as a cleanenergy leader, it will need to shift thesenumbers so that wind and other renewablesare a larger slice of the pie, with a commen-surate shrinking in the coal and large-hydrosegments. !


I ndia’s first Prime Minister, JawaharlalNehru, once called big dams the “Tem-ples of modern India.” If he were alivetoday, he might call India’s numerous

wind parks the wings for India’s future.Economically as well as ecologically, a

new energy policy for India is needed. Indiahas a peak shortage of 12% in spite of bil-lions of rupees pumped into the state-ownedpower sector, and economic growth ofaround 8% is adding new pressure everyyear. Demand is rising from a growing mid-dle class and flourishing industries. In 2002,the New Delhi central governmentannounced the ambitious target of nearlydoubling the presently installed capacity ofabout 118,000 MW by 2012.

With more than half of India’s energycoming from dirty coal, the nation hasbecome one of the world’s big climate killersand now ranks fourth in greenhouse gasemissions. The decision by the governmentin 1992 to set up a Ministry for Non-conven-tional Energy (MNES) to strengthen renew-ables was hailed by many environmentalistsas the breakthrough toward a safe, clean andgreen energy future. Various subsidies andincentives were offered to kickstart a windrevolution, especially for private-sectorinvestors.

The states of Maharashtra and TamilNadu pioneered wind energy, and todayboast of the biggest wind parks. Both bene-fitted from wind-friendly terrain – vastareas with strong winds during the mon-soon – and from a well-developed infra-structure. Tamil Nadu’s Muppandal region,for example, near the southern tip of thesubcontinent, has several thousand turbineswith an aggregate wind power capacity of540 MW in an area covering 60,000 acres.Maharashtra introduced special tariffs for“green energy,” determined by the Regula-tory Commission and guaranteeinginvestors a 16% return on equity. Indepen-dent Power Producers (IPP) and manufac-turers of equipment have started to runwindparks for private investors.

As a result, installed capacity increasedtremendously. In 2005 alone it grew by near-ly 50%, to 4,434 MW, more than half of it inTamil Nadu alone. India became the fourthlargest wind energy power after Germany,Spain and the US. Wind energy has overtak-en India’s nuclear power generation, whichaccording to the Nuclear Power Corporationwebsite has a capacity of 2,710 MW. Thenation’s wind potential is currently estimat-

India’s Wind-Energy Sector Soarsby Uwe Hoering


Interview

the electricity company and are proud tomake some money while at the same timeproducing “green” energy. Micro-hydro andother renewables got a real boost after theGerman government passed a renewableenergy law a few years back. By law, electrici-ty companies have to buy the energy pro-duced by renewables and have to pay anationwide fixed tariff, depending on thekind of renewable energy source and itsenvironmental status.

Nepal: This mountain kingdom has along history of micro-hydro. There are atpresent an estimated 20,000 traditionalwater mills (“ghattas”) and around 1,200micro-hydro power plants using turbines.These plants are usually mechanically drivenmills for grinding grains, rice huskers and oilpresses. But more and more, generators areadded to produce electricity at least at night,when no milling is done. All the turbines aremanufactured in the country – at one timethere were nine manufacturing workshopsearlier (there are fewer now).

A long-standing program based on the pro-vision of subsidies to micro-hydro through theAgricultural Development Bank of Nepal hasbeen key to success. A significant part of thesector (especially turbines for milling grain) isfinancially self-sustaining, and receives nosubsidized support. The strategy, driven byNGOs, combined building up the capacity oflocal turbine manufacturers with the develop-ment of a number of technical improvements.

Lessons LearnedMicro-hydro projects and programs in somecountries in Africa, Asia and Latin Americahave been evaluated and some lessons havebeen learned. The following issues are key:

Financing: The capital cost of decentral-ized rural electrification is best met in themedium term from a mixture of local equitycapital (community or private), and a loancomponent from a bank or other conven-tional credit organization, at commercialrates backed if necessary by loan guaranteefunds. Subsidies should ideally only be usedwhere there is a possibility of their beingphased out.

Institutional Support: Successful decentral-ized rural electrification requires a coordinat-ed institutional approach with an enablingpolicy environment created by government,and suitable local organizations supportedby a regional or national intermediary body,which is charged with a variety of coordinat-ing functions.

Energy management: It is most importantto provide a framework which will allowrural users to articulate their own demandpatterns and to decide how these can best bemet from a range of energy supply options.

Don’t try to compete with an establishedelectric grid. When considering a micro-hydro installation, always make sure that thegrid is not too close (say, more than 3 km)and there are no plans to extend the grid to

continued opposite

Micro-Hydro’s Big Potentialby Hans Hartung

D ecentralized micro-hydropower is an excellent way to supply elec-tricity to rural populations inhilly areas of the world. Micro

hydro is one of the most environmentallyfriendly power resources presently known. In addition, its advantages include:! It opens opportunities for income genera-

tion by supplying energy to small indus-tries such as grain milling, oil expelling,battery charging and lumber milling;

! It supports education by allowing electriclights for studying;

! It has health benefits by supplying powerto health centers;

! There are many examples where a micro-hydro project has assisted in strengthen-ing the village organization.Micro-hydro ranges from a few hundred

watts (for example, for battery charging) toup to 100 kW (for a village or rural industry).

This article looks at some of the lessonslearned from microhydro hotspots – andpotential hotspots – around the globe.

Bolivia: Wolfgang Buchner, a Boliviannational of German origin, helped kick-startthe use of micro-hydro on the east side ofthe Andes in Bolivia. He trained a craftsmanin the area to build cross-flow turbines; thisperson now makes his living building andinstalling turbines in local villages. Each sys-tem supplies up to 100 families with electric-ity, mostly for lighting, a few fridges, TVsand some commercial work during the day(for tools to work wood and metal). Interest-ed villages have to form an association andcollect money for the investment. Peoplebuy shares for their village electricity stationand get a cheaper rate for their electricityconsumption later. A typical installationcosts around US$10,000 for materials(including the turbine and generator) andcan produce up to 8 kW. These are very sim-ple systems and the villages do all construc-tion work. Many villages have built a villagehall from the surplus electricity revenues, orother civic improvements.

Germany: An estimated 100,000 watermills and micro-hydro plants were in usesome 80 years ago in Germany. The nation’sindustrialization started with smallhydropower as the main source of energy.Only 10,000 are left today. But increasingly,citizen-owned plants are coming on-stream,where people get together to form an associ-ation in order to rehabilitate or build amicro-hydro plant. They sell the energy to

Phot

o:Te

rri H

atha

way

Building a community micro-hydro plant in Cameroon.


near where the micro-hydro power plant isto supply electricity. The investment cost formicro-hydro will in almost all cases be high-er than extending the grid by a distance of 1-2 km and the price for micro-hydro elec-tricity might be higher than grid electricity.

Community participation, while complex, iscritical. Community participation in planningfor electrification is likely to lead to more suc-cessful and sustainable schemes. Carefulpreparation is needed and locally appropriateguidelines prepared, and an external facilitatoris recommended. As far as actually managingthe project, community management of a rel-atively complex system such as a micro-hydroplant is difficult but can succeed when someof these elements are considered:! Cash contributions in addition to in-kind

contributions will help people take moreinterest in the plant in which they haveinvested so much.

! Local leaders (traditional, religious) shouldbe engaged, to ensure they help promote

the system.! Have a contract between main actors

(local industries, each household willingto get connected, the equipment manufac-turer, project builder, and any intermedi-ary). The contract specifies the rights andobligations of each actor in detail.

! Every household who cannot pay a con-nection fee in cash gets a credit from amicro-finance institution; or, alternatively,the whole village gets a credit for part-financing of the micro-hydro power plant.

! The local manufacturer of the turbine orbuilder of the system should be responsi-ble to the village to complete and servicethe plant according to specifications.Specifications are not a luxury. When a

micro-hydro power plant and electrical distri-bution system is planned, a design study (itcan be simple and standardized) is a goodidea. Specifications might include the mini-mal power output, details about the electrici-ty (e.g., voltage variations), the diameter ofthe penstock pipes, and the guarantee period.

Experiences exist worldwide, with somesmall plants running for more than 100years with the same equipment. Let’s notreinvent the wheel, but make good use ofthe lessons learned in order to light manymore villages in the global south. !

Hans Hartung is the water coordinator for FAKT,a German nonprofit (www.fakt-consult.de). Hecan be reached at [email protected].

A Bolivian craftsman builds a turbine.

Phot

o:H

ans

Har

tung

nearby communities in order to recoupinvestment. When they do, it brings theprojects into conflict with energy conces-sionaires.

A 2002 law that created national incen-tives for energy alternatives was primarilyintended for biomass, wind, and small hydroprojects selling electricity to the grid. It also,however, had provisions permitting new gen-erating “agents” to provide electricity cover-age in regions where existing power utilitiescannot guarantee access to energy within areasonable timeframe. Under the law, thesealternative energy providers would be reim-bursed for their investments out of publicfunds. But four years later, the law has stillyet to be put in force. Other investors inmicro-hydro have looked forward to newopportunities resulting from the govern-ment’s “Electricity for All” initiative for pro-viding electricity to all Brazilians. However,they complain that energy concessionairesstill dominate rural electrification planning,elbowing small operators out of the picture.

There are some positive examples forcommunities to look toward. In the region ofSantarém, where the Tapajós River flows intothe Amazon, micro-hydro systems arebecoming so popular that a small industryhas sprung up to manufacture turbines.Antonio Nazareno Almada de Souza foundedthe Idalina Company 10 years ago to build

low-head turbines and design communitymicro-hydro systems, and the plant nowemploys 30 workers. “Our turbines provideconstant energy, at a far lower cost than try-ing to hook up the communities to the grid,”says Nazareno. Idalina’s turbines range in sizefrom 4 to 40 inches in diameter. Nazarenoestimates there to be 80 micro-hydro systemsoperating in the region currently. “We stillhope that the government will open up moreroom for a broader range of companies to beable to take advantage of government subsi-dies for electrification, which would have avery positive effect on promoting micro-hydro in the Amazon,” he says.

The nearby community of Açaizal pooledthe resources of 45 families, who contributed$700 each to generate and distribute 60 kWto four communities, replacing diesel genera-tors. Investing members can consume up to60kWh per month, paying for any excessconsumption, while non-members pay forthe energy they consume. The mini-hydroproject has greatly improved the quality oflife in Açaizal, providing electrical lightingand appliances, and pumped drinking waterto homes. Another important impact in aregion where large soy producers are displac-ing small farmers is that access to electricitynow permits the community to processgrains that can be sold to local markets,helping the farmers remain on their land. !

I n Brazil, some twelve million people(mostly in remote communities) have noaccess to electricity. One of the principalsocial programs of the Lula government

has been its efforts to increase access to elec-tricity across Brazil, through a project called“Electicity for All.” While extending powerlines to rural communities in the central andsouthern regions of the country can be expen-sive – costing up to $2,000 per family in someregions, many of whom will consume lessthan 50kWh per month – in the vast Amazonregion, where nearly 90% of rural communi-ties lack reliable electricity, the task to connectpeople to a central grid is widely acknowl-edged to be pretty near impossible.

Off-grid options for these communitiesinclude solar photovoltaic systems (stillquite expensive in Brazil), modern biomassenergy and, most promising of all in wateryAmazonia, micro-hydro. According a nation-al thinktank on small hydro, there are about1,000 small and micro-hydro dams in Brazil,with an average capacity of 300kW.

Unfortunately, micro-hydro currentlyfaces regulatory barriers meant to protectregional electrical utilities, which historicallyenjoy a monopoly on providing electricitywithin their region. Even micro-hydro proj-ects can require a level of financing thatrequires communities or cooperatives topool their funds and, often, sell energy to

Micro-Hydro in the Amazon Faces Uphill Struggleby Glenn Switkes

Micro-hydro continued

S tatistics show that in 2005, a total ofUS$38 billion was invested in renew-able energy development worldwide.China topped the list with a commit-

ment of $6 billion, excluding spending onlarge hydropower projects.

China has good reason to speed up itsrenewable development, as the country isfairly poor in many energy resources in percapita terms. China’s proven reserves ofpetroleum, natural gas and coal could last15, 30, and 80 years, compared with worldaverages of 45, 61, and 230 years.

At a Sino-European economic summitheld in September in Germany, Chinese Pre-mier Wen Jiabao assured the world thatChina would rely mainly on domestic sup-plies to meet energy needs. The govern-ment’s energy policy would aim to integratedevelopment and conservation, giving prior-ity to the latter.

China is currently weak on energy effi-ciency. The eight industries which accountfor 75% of the country’s industrial energyuse recorded an average energy consumption40% higher than the world’s advanced stan-dard. Energy-efficient housing in China isjust a tiny fraction of urban residential construction. And the energy intensity for heating was two to three times higherthan developed countries under similar climates.

China has vowed to cut down on energyconsumption per unit of GDP by 20% by theend of 2010. Judging by recent performance,some observers voiced skepticism that thegoal could be achieved. But the governmenthas been taking tougher measures.

The new path would have to includeenergy from renewable resources, whichChina has in abundance. Exploitation ofwind, solar, and biomass energies has juststarted. In 2005, China had 61 wind-powerplants with a total generating capacity of1.26 million kW, 1,500 or so biogas projectsand 70,000 kW of solar facilities.

Compared with China’s total capacity of508 million kW for all forms of energy, how-ever, the overall share of renewables remainssmall. This means enormous room for devel-opment.

In April, Premier Wen Jiabao urged all rel-evant government departments to take effec-tive measures to accelerate the developmentof renewable energy, so as to “raise the shareof quality, clean energies in the total energymix.” Renewable energy is expected toaccount for 16% of China’s total energy

exploitation. In less than five years, it plansto boost its wind capacity from virtually zeroto 1,500 megawatts. The region is also animportant base for the solar industry, wheremore than 180 companies are involved inthe development, manufacturing, and servic-ing of solar heating appliances.

Shanghai announced earlier this year aplan to build 100 MW of offshore windenergy capacity. The metropolis hopes toraise it share of renewables to 5% by 2010.The capital city of Beijing has vowed to liftrenewables’ share from the present 1% to4% by 2010.

Companies across China – whether state-owned or private, domestic or foreign-fund-ed – are eager to embrace renewable energyprojects. Many believe the sector will soonbe a gold mine.

Earlier this year, Longyuan Electric Power, the biggest wind player in China,announced a plan to raise its wind-powergenerating capacity from an existing 416MW to 3,000 MW by 2010, and to 7,000MW by 2020. Other major energy developerslike Huaneng, Guodian, and the ThreeGorges Corporation have set up subsidiarycompanies dedicated to new or renewableenergy development.

Foreign companies have been active aswell. The world’s leading wind equipmentsuppliers – Vestas, GE Energy, Gamesa, andSuzlon – have set up wholly owned manufac-

supply by 2020, more than double what it was in 2005.

New Renewable Energy LawChina’s renewable energy development is guaranteed under the nation’s first Renew-able Energy Law, which came into force onJanuary 1. In February, the governmentissued a set of rules to implement the law. In addition, officials have decided to raisethe rate for electricity consumption by asmall fraction that will go toward the devel-opment of renewable energy. And in earlyOctober, the Ministry of Finance releaseddetails of a new fund dedicated to the devel-opment of renewable energy sources, whichwill use grants and interest subsidies to givegovernment support to renewables’ develop-ment in three main areas: oil alternatives,construction, and power generation.

In general, local government officials areenthusiastic about promoting renewableenergy projects. Their motives vary fromsecuring a lucrative source of governmenttax revenues, building up a “green” govern-ment image, to adding a “bright spot” totheir work performance records. Factors suchas the embrace of new energy technologiesnow bear considerable weight in an official’spromotion.

Jiangsu Province in eastern China is par-ticularly active in the renewable energygame. The prosperous region appears deter-mined to take the lead in wind power

China: Picking Up the Pace on Renewablesby Yang Jianxiang

A young admirer inspects a panel installed under the China Brightness Project.

Phot

o:Yi

ngli

Sola

r


continued opposite


Nepal’s Micro-Energy Revolutionby Bhola Shrestha

Born in rural Nepal, the first time Iexperienced electricity was at age11, when I visited a town borderingIndia where my father worked.

Twenty five years later, when the Arun Damcampaign began to press for a more sustain-able path to hydropower development,seven out of ten Nepalis did not have accessto electricity. All those years, I heard a lotabout Nepal’s hydropower potential beingsecond in the world after Brazil, and won-dered why so many still lived in dark.

After restoration of democracy in 1991, agroup of Nepali professionals, the Alliancefor Energy, for the first time questioned alarge development project’s rationale. Theproject was the World Bank-financed ArunIII hydropower project, a 200 megawatt largedam planned for Nepal’s Arun River. At thetime, Nepal had an installed capacity of lessthan 400 MW. The US$1 billion project(including cost of the access road) dwarfedthe national economy, and the cost of itsenergy was prohibitive.

The campaign was not primarily aboutthe dam and its environmental impacts. Itwas about the path Nepal had taken todevelop its hydropower resources. Cam-paigners were pushing for a shift from thedonor-dependent path this big dam typified,

to a locally driven development path. ArunIII was to be built with foreign money, for-eign expertise and on the donors’ terms. Thecampaigners argued that this path was justnot right for Nepal. The high cost of its elec-tricity meant that the project would fail tobenefit the Nepalese.

The Nepali experts argued Nepal mustbuild smaller projects that it could handlewith its own resources and capabilities. Thisapproach would cut project costs in half,build local capabilities, foster local industryand rid Nepal of the dependency syndrome.

After years of debate, the World Bankwithdrew its support and the project wasshelved. Since then, Nepal has had a micro-energy revolution.

A Rural SolutionAbout half of Nepal’s 26 million people livein the mountains. Rural electrificationthrough grid extension to these remote andscattered communities is prohibitivelyexpensive. Decentralized energy systemssuch as micro-hydro, biogas and solar PV aremore cost effective.

Since 1996, when the government’s Alternative Energy Promotion Centre wasestablished, decentralized energy systemshave taken a great stride. The many small

efforts of NGOs became a mainstreamnational program to support promotion ofthese technologies through private sectorservice providers. The market mechanism toprovide such services is one reason for theprogram’s success.

Today, 1,588 micro-hydropower plantsgenerating 8.8 MW supply electricity to about88,000 rural households. About 75,000 house-holds are electrified by solar home systems.Over 168,000 rural households cook on bio-gas, which uses animal dung to generatemethane gas. Over 200,000 cook on improvedstoves that save firewood and prevent respira-tory disease from smoke in the house.

As the true cost of each of these tech-nologies is still beyond the reach of the ruralpoor, the government subsidy program helpsbring down the cost. No subsidy is providedfor improved stoves, however.

The design, manufacture and installationof micro-hydro plants are carried out bylocal firms. Biogas plants are installed bymore than 50 companies spread all over thecountry, and similarly for solar home sys-tems. The improved cook stoves are built bythousands of trained builders, includingmany local women.

turing facilities in China. And seven foreigndevelopment banks, including the Interna-tional Finance Corporation, Germany’s DEG,and France’s Proparco, have invested inChina’s renewable energy projects.

The 30,000 MW wind-power goal for2020 represents a market of $26.6 billion,and the country’s combined renewables tar-gets amount to $100 billion. The comingyears are likely to witness rapid developmentof these energy sources, and the targetsmight even be reached ahead of schedule,industry analysts say.

Barriers RemainYet several major barriers are preventingmore rapid development of renewable ener-gy in China. One is the weakness the coun-try has shown in independent technologydevelopment. To date, most of the renew-ables equipment being used – whether forwind power, biomass, or solar – has beenimported, resulting in higher productionand consumption costs. A recent govern-

ment study designates energy as the top areaneeding urgent R&D support, and lists a hostof government-supported plans covering keyfields of study, cutting-edge technologies,and basic research.

China is one of the 48 countries in theworld that have enacted laws for renewableenergy development. But industries havegiven only a cautious welcome to the coun-try’s laws and accompanying rules of imple-mentation. For many, the wording is toogeneral to be practical. And some measuresremain controversial. For instance, new regu-lations for wind power decree that the gridfeed-in tariffs be decided through a tender-ing process. The measure has been criticizedby industry players, who fear the practicewill result in price cuts and thus deny com-panies a reasonable profit.

Human resources are another problem.According to experts, China aims to engagehundreds of thousands of people in its windpower industry by 2020. The number of spe-cialized workers alone would be in the tens

of thousands. But China currently has a verymeager supply of such experts. Only one ofthe country’s more than 1,000 institutions ofhigher learning provides a four-year programdedicated to wind energy. The situation forother renewables is not much better. Solvingthis problem will require the joint efforts ofmany government departments and socialinstitutions, experts say.

While the shortage of conventional ener-gy resources is the main driver behindChina’s push for renewable energy, thecountry is also making the transition out ofenvironmental concern. The nation’s coal-dominated energy system has caused severepollution in many regions, which has com-pelled the government to turn to cleanerenergy resources. !

Jianxiang Yang is a journalist specializing inenergy with China Features. This article wascoordinated through the Global EnvironmentalInstitute (GEI) in Beijing.

China continued



Can We Awakenthe Sleeping Giant?A Renewable Energy Futurefor the US is Achievable

The sorry statistics are by now well-known: the United States hasjust 5% of the world’s population, but produces 25% of its green-house gas emissions. Efforts to reverse this trend have lagged signifi-cantly, and the US continues to block efforts toward internationalprogress. Here, Dan Kammen – one of the nation’s top energyexperts – lays out a plan to de-carbonize the US economy.

R enewable energy science and tech-nology has undergone dramaticadvances over the past severaldecades. Renewable energy and

energy efficiency have now come of age tothe point where cities, states and nationsplan and implement low – and even nearzero – carbon energy systems.

At present the US economy is decarboniz-ing at just over 1% per year, largely due toadvances in energy efficiency. Despite a his-tory of successes in energy efficiency – effi-cient lighting, refrigeration, heating andcooling, and appliance standards – increaseddemands for electricity as well as energy fortransportation continue to drive energyneeds markedly upward. In this context,low- and no-carbon sources of energy arecritically needed along with carbon seques-tration and long-term dedication to continu-al advances in energy efficiency. Only with amajor commitment to low carbon supply-side technologies can we realistically achievethe needed decarbonization of the globaleconomy, an 80-100% reduction in carbonemissions by mid-century. This is nowachievable, but will require scientific, techni-cal, political, and economic commitment.We are now in an era where the economicsand political opportunities for renewableenergy sources are unprecedented, makingthis a moment of opportunity to dramatical-ly advance clean power for decades to come.

Significant differences exist at the stateand federal levels in the US in terms of whatgoals are realistic and achievable. The federalgovernment plan for an 18% decarboniza-tion by 2012 from 2002 level in tons of car-bon per unit of GDP would actually allow

emissions to grow by 12-16%. This targetwould thus represent a larger increase thanthe 10% increase that occurred in the previ-ous decade. By contrast, California plans toreduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 lev-els by 2010, and by 80% by 2050. The focusof this article is on the technologies andpolicies available to meet targets more akinto California’s plan, as well as those underdiscussion in the US northeast and Europe.

Renewable Energy TechnologiesThe global solar cell (PV) industry has grown by over 20% per year for the pastdecade, and on a percentage basis is theworld’s fastest growing supply-side source ofenergy. In 2005 the global PV market grewby a remarkable 50%, reaching a total pro-duction volume of over 1,100 MW.

Solar PV represents a particularly easy touse form of renewable energy. The state ofCalifornia has joined Japan and Germany inleading a global push for solar installations,with a new “Million Solar Roof” commit-ment that will bring 3,000-10,000 MW ofnew solar PV. The potential for this technol-ogy is virtually unlimited. Work in myresearch group, the Renewable and Appropri-ate Energy Laboratory, reveals that the cur-rent 0.5 GW of solar PV installed in the UScould grow to over 700 GW in only 20 years.

Currently, PV is relatively expensive, withcosts of 20-25¢/kWh for crystalline cells. Bycomparison, coal-fired electricity is 4 -6¢ perkWh, natural gas is 5-7¢/kWh, biomass-firedpower costs 6-9¢/kWh, and nuclear, wherethe most disagreement over costs exists, isbetween 3-12¢/kWh, depending on what isincluded in the analysis.

Large PV installations have installed costsas low as $5/watt. Costs have been fallingconsistently over the past decade. Aggressiveprograms in Japan (where 290 MW of solarwas installed last year) and California (where50 MW was installed) have each observed sig-nificant year to year cost reductions, of over8%/year in Japan and 5%/year in California.

Thin film and amorphous silicon solarcells are also in commercial use today, withKenya, surprisingly, the global leader in solarsystems (not watts) installed per year. Over30,000 very small (12-30 watt solar panels)systems are sold in Kenya each year, at costsas little as $100/system. More Kenyans makenew electricity connections through solareach year than through new connections tothe grid. The efficiency of amorphous solarcells are lower than crystalline by a factor oftwo or more, but the costs are less by a fac-tor of at least four, making these moreaffordable and useful for the two billion peo-ple on earth without access to electricity.

Photovoltaics may be the most prominentform of solar power, but solar thermal sys-tems are also undergoing a resurgence. Solarthermal systems focus mirrors on a workingfluid such as oil. Stirling Energy Systems (SES)has contracts to build two large solar-dishpower plants in southern California.

As part of its fulfillment of the state ofCalifornia’s Renewable Portfolio Standard(RPS), Southern California Edison signed a20-year power purchase agreement with Stir-ling Energy Systems for a 500 MW solarplant to be built in the Mojave Desert. Theplant will consist of 20,000 dish concentra-


tors arrayed over 4,500 acres, producingapproximately 1,000 GWh of electricityannually. The plant could be expanded to850 MW. The utility signed a second con-tract with San Diego Gas and Electric tobuild a 300 MW plant in the Imperial Valley(with possible expansion to 600 MW).

Costs for the California Stirling plantshave not been made public, but estimatedlevelized electricity costs for current concen-trating solar power technologies are: 5-9¢/kWh for towers, 7-11¢/kWh for focusingtroughs, and 9-13¢/kWh for dishes (the Cali-fornia Stirling projects). Projected costs,assuming reasonably attainable cost reduc-tions in the next 10 years are: 3.5-5¢/kWhfor towers, 6-9¢/kWh for troughs, and 4-6¢per kWh for dishes. With their very largescale and long-term contracts, the two proj-ects are likely to have costs closer to 4-6¢.

The Wind RevolutionGrowth in the wind industry has been noth-ing short of explosive. In 1994 there was amere 1,600 MW of wind installed in Europe,but now reaching 40,000 MW in 2005. Anaggressive construction and installation pro-gram in Germany has resulted in over18,000 MW installed. The north Germanstate of Schleswig-Holstein currently meets25% of annual electricity demand with over2,400 wind turbines. In addition to Ger-many’s progress, there is 10,000 MW inSpain, 3,000 MW in Denmark, and over1,000 MW in Great Britain, the Netherlands,and Portugal.

The US has also seen a dramatic increasein installed wind power, with a 43% growthin 2005, and total capacity at 9,100 MW.The US however has a tremendous land-based wind resource with about 11 trillionkWh of achievable production – more thanthree times the total of all electricity pro-duced in the US last year. The global windindustry has also been producing increasing-ly large and efficient turbines, with 4, 5, and6 MW turbines now in production for land-and ocean-based applications. North Dakota,for example, has a larger wind resource thanGermany, yet only 98 MW is installed. Windis also, in many locations, the cheapest formof new power, with costs generally in 4-7¢per kWh range.

Excitement also exists around tidalpower, the ability to utilize the emergingfield of synthetic biology to cleanly andcheaply create biofuels, hydrogen for use infuel cells, and novel means of power storage.

Each of these technologies are now at ornear what is often called tipping points –technological and economic stages in theirevolution where investment and innovation,as well as market access could move theseattractive but generally marginal contribu-

tors to playing major roles in the regionaland global energy supply.

At the same time aggressive policies toopen markets for renewables are taking holdat city, state, and federal levels around theworld. These policies have been adopted fora wide variety of reasons: promoting marketdiversity or energy security, investment inlocal industries and job creation, and theprotection of the environment. More than20 US states have adopted significant stan-dards for the fraction of electricity that mustbe supplied with renewables, while Germanyand Sweden are committed to plans toreduce the use of fuels by 80% and 100%,respectively, in two decades. The world ofrenewable energy is changing.

Financing in Retreat The US federal government and privateindustry are both reducing their investmentsin energy R&D at a time when geopolitics,environmental concerns, and economic com-petitiveness are all increasing the need for amajor expansion in our capacity to innovatein this sector. Our ability to respond to thechallenges of climate change, or to the eco-nomic vulnerability of the nation to disrup-tions in our energy supply have both beensignificantly weakened by the lack of atten-tion to long-term energy planning.

Calls for major new commitments toenergy R&D are now common, and calls forenergy “Manhattan Projects” have becomefrequent. Strong correlations exist betweenpublic and private sector R&D, and innova-tion as represented by patenting activity. Thescale of the energy economy, and the diversi-ty of potentially critical low-carbon tech-nologies to address climate change, all arguefor a set of policies to energize both the pub-lic and private sectors.

My lab reviewed spending patterns ofthe six previous major federal R&D initia-tives since 1940 and compared them to sce-narios of increasing energy R&D by factorsof five and ten. Based on IPCC assessmentsof the cost to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at550 ppm, and other studies that estimatethe probable success of energy R&D pro-grams and the resulting savings from thetechnologies that would emerge, $15-30 bil-lion/year in the US would be sufficient. Wefound that the fiscal magnitude of a largeenergy research program – dramaticallyincreasing our meager $3 billion annualnational investment in energy research – iswell within the range of programs in othersectors, each of which have produceddemonstrable economic benefits. US energycompanies could also increase their R&Dspending by a factor of 10 and still bebelow average relative to R&D intensity ofUS industry overall.

Where Do We Go From Here?The challenge we face is larger than simplyincreasing energy budgets, public or privatesector. First and foremost, the country needsan energy plan and a goal. The US addictionto imported fossil fuels comes not only at anenvironmental price, but geopolitical andeconomic ones as well. Climate change,which promises to be a disaster if we contin-ue our present path, can also be the rallyingpoint for an economic clean-tech revolution.

We can and should make energy anational priority, and to do that we must:

Make energy and the environment a corearea of education in the US. We must developin both K-12 and college education a core ofinstruction in the linkages between energyand our social and natural environments.

Establish a set of energy challenges worthyof federal action. Establish what could becalled Sustainable Energy USA awards thatinspire and mobilize academia, industry,civil society, and government to take actionon pressing challenges. Challenges couldinclude campaigns to design and deploy: ! Buildings that cleanly generate significant

portions of their own energy needs (“zeroenergy buildings”).

! Commercial production of 200-mile-per-gallon vehicles, as can be achieved todaywith prototype plug-in hybrids using low-carbon generation technologies accessedover the power grid, or direct charging byrenewably generated electricity, and effi-cient biofuel vehicles operating onethanol derived from cellulosic feedstocks.

! Zero Energy Appliances (which generatetheir own power).

! “Distributed Utilities”: challenges andmilestones for utilities to act as marketsfor clean power generated at residences,businesses, and industries.Invest in clean energy commensurate with

its importance. Public sector spending alonewill not solve our crisis of underinvestment,but a healthy private sector requires us to“prime the pump.”

Expand international collaborations thatbenefit developing nations. Greenhouse gasesemitted anywhere impact us all, not onlytoday but for decades to come. In manycases, tremendous opportunities exist to off-set future greenhouse gas emissions and toprotect local ecosystems both at very lowcost, but also to directly address criticaldevelopment needs such as sustainable fuelsources, the provision of affordable electrici-ty, and clean water. My laboratory hasrecently detailed the local development,health, and global carbon benefits ofresearch programs and partnerships onimproved stoves and forestry practices acrossAfrica. We find that dramatic decreases in



Africa. Few large PV companies are excitedabout prospects, and they have been unwill-ing to invest in infrastructure for delivery ofPV to off-grid areas. Without incentives,should they be expected to?

In the few places where PV SHSs havebeen moderately successful (Kenya, Morocco,Zimbabwe), markets operate in an informalmanner outside of government or powercompany control. Like bicycles and gen-sets,PV systems are sold over the counter.Although this private sector market might bethe preferred approach, it is often accompa-nied by a downward spiral in quality andperformance. The rural poor buy compo-nents, not designed systems, and the poorperformance of these often slipshod systemsdoes not help the technology’s reputation.

For an expensive technology, the off-gridrural poor market segment poses challengesthat thus far have not been surmounted.Rural spending power is quite limited.Although the cellular phone boom provideshope that PV SHS markets can be expandedon the continent, the expansion is not hap-pening fast enough.

The spectacular growth of the PV industryin the North has come as a surprise even toEuropeans – but in Africa, governments stilldo not have PV on the radar. For most, PVhas been a “donor thing,” with no real role inelectricity sector planning. Even for off-gridPV, donors are usually the champions – PVhas not been taken seriously at policy levels.

Poorly implemented donor projectsAs of 2005, there is relatively little to showfor the investment of over US$100 millionin PV in Africa from multilateral donorssuch as the Global Environment Facility(GEF), the UN and the World Bank over thepast decade. Although failure of PV projectsis linked to development failures in Africa ingeneral, there are some fundamental projectissues that need to be re-thought.

In the mid-1990s, donors began design-ing a number of PV projects throughout thecontinent. Using GEF funds, the UNlaunched national PV efforts in Zimbabwe,Ghana, Uganda, Malawi, Lesotho, Namibia,Tanzania and elsewhere. The World Bankand IFC used GEF funds to build PV intoenergy programs in Kenya, Ethiopia,Mozambique, Zambia and Uganda.

From day one, “barrier removal” was theguiding mantra of GEF-supported PV proj-ects in Africa. The theory was that renewableenergy technologies would be viable if keymarket barriers were removed. What wasneeded, said the economist project design-ers, was elimination of these barriers so that

renewables could compete on an even foot-ing. For PV, high investment costs, lowawareness, lack of technical skills and capaci-ty were seen as the chief barriers.

So GEF funding, channelled through gov-ernment, ended up funding activities that –it was hoped – would remove these barriers.In reality, most of the funds supported inter-national workshops, vehicle purchases, hir-ing of project managers and consultants, anda whole range of awareness-raising activities,while comparatively little was spent on actu-al installations. In fact, to date, much of theallocated money hasn’t even been spent!Clearly, removal of barriers does not meanthat the private sector will enter the sectoror that investments will occur.

A look at some of the “major” projectsthat were supposed to stimulate marketsreveals a litany of failure – and sadly, thereare many more:! A $5 million 1995 UNDP GEF project in

Zimbabwe resulted in the PV marketplacegrowing from four to over 60 companiesovernight. After the project, most of thecompanies fell out of the market, and thefund was quickly depleted and closed.

! A $5 million 1998 IFC project in Kenyasought to make PV financing funds avail-able to banks and PV companies to “trans-form” the market. Even at the project’sconcessional rates, PV companies andbanks were not interested in the loans. Ina market where 15,000 systems are soldper year commercially, less than 500 sys-tems have been installed by this project.

! A multi-million dollar 2003 World BankGEF effort to expand the PV market inEthiopia, offered as part of a $120 millionenergy sector loan, was designed by con-sultants and handed over to a governmentdepartment that did not have the capacityto execute the project. No systems havebeen installed thus far, but the project islisted as “active” on the GEF website.

! The Solar Development Group was a $45million GEF/IFC program aimed at acceler-ating private sector reach into rural areas.It made several million dollars of invest-ments and grants to PV companies in EastAfrica, with a relatively small impact. Ithad trouble finding companies that wereinterested (or could qualify) for the loans.Eventually its portfolio was handed overto a Dutch bank.

In the aid business, nobody likes amuckraker. Typically, we say little about thefailures and move on to the next project.The danger, though, is that we get cynical,and begin to believe that development of

the PV market is not possible. Among the projects completed in the last

decade, there were a lot of good ideas onhow to build markets, but there wasn’t reallythat much money and even less commit-ment to make things happen. PV companydirectors in Africa tell of days spent workingwith project designers and managers in vainhope that they could make something hap-pen. Too often, projects were designed andhanded over to entities, such as small gov-ernment departments, that could not possi-bly execute them.

Often, multinational organizations sim-ply went ahead with the business of imple-menting projects because (in the case of theWorld Bank) they are green window-dressingfor much larger loan packages or (in the caseof the UN) they are part of a political processof doling out internationally agreed funds.Even the most enthusiastic government offi-cials and PV companies were thwarted byGEF’s faceless bureaucracy, committee deci-sion-making and endless paperwork.

Lack of incentivesThe most important single reason for PV’slack of progress in Africa is the lack of incen-tives for companies and consumers. Thephenomenal growth of PV in Japan, Ger-many and elsewhere is almost entirely dueto incentive support and policy drivers thatcome from governments.

For Africa, the GEF – the largest singleinvestor in PV – has said that subsidy is for-bidden in its projects. From the beginning,this was the rule. Elaborate financing andguarantee mechanisms have been designed,pilots have been executed, new marketingmethods introduced and productive usesproposed. Every gimmick imaginable tobuild markets has been incorporated intomultilateral projects except subsidies.

Without the type of subsidy that hasstimulated western markets, it is impossibleto expect rural African markets to start buy-ing PV on even modest scales. If the rich inthe North can only be convinced to buywith a subsidy, how can the poor be expect-ed to pay full price? How can PV companiesbe expected to invest huge amounts to setup infrastructure to sell one module at atime in remote villages when they can sellthem by the thousands in Germany?

Government rural electrification funds –which might have subsidized thousands ofsystems – have not been made available forPV. In most countries, there is not evenenough funding for grid electrification. Exist-ing resources are too scarce to extend the hun-dreds of kilometres of 30 kV lines required,

continued opposite

Solar Africa continued from page 1


and renewable energy departments didn’twant to split funding with PV companies.

Finally, from the overall needs perspec-tive, PV as a technology has never been a pri-ority. Alleviation of poverty is the big theme.In the development community, there aremany who believe that PV has received toomuch development assistance already. In acontinent where health, shelter, education,water, income generation and other basichuman needs are so poorly served, it is diffi-cult to make a direct case for PV.

Still, when Germany, California andJapan invest billions in PV – places withhundreds of times more kilowatt-hours percapita than Africa and scarcely half the solarradiation – doesn’t the idea of building theAfrica PV market make a kind of moralsense? Of course it does! PV must play a rolein the future of Africa’s power supply. Thequestion is: How to do it.

Real niches for PV in AfricaUnlike Germany or Japan, few (if any)African countries have a coherent plan orstrategy for the PV sector. PV in Africa hasalways been a small-project affair, withoutlong-term champions or deep-pocketed sup-porters. National governments do not haveserious interest, except where rural electrifi-cation wires can’t reach. The sectors thatmatter – the private and utility sectors – are almost universally unaware and unwill-ing to invest in PV.

Perhaps the focus on PV for rural electrifi-cation only has taken the focus off – anddiverted resources from – other viable andimportant PV markets. While grid-connectedgrowth worldwide has outstripped off-gridPV market growth, similar important andstrategic niches for grid-connect PV in Africahave been ignored.

Nevertheless, growing PV production andfalling costs will eventually reach Africa andnew niches will surely develop. As they do,key stakeholders in African power marketswho presently view PV only as a tool for off-grid electrification will become more inter-ested in the PV technology.

Although much of the potential impactof PV remains in small off-grid systems,there is considerable potential for use of PVin more elaborate off-grid systems. Maximiz-ing access means looking at the public sector(as the World Bank is currently doing in anumber of countries with projects thatinstall PV in clinics, schools and pumpingstations) as well as the private sector.Tourism, small business, telecom and agri-culture would invest in PV if provided withthe necessary incentives and capacity build-ing. If on-grid PV makes sense in countries

where there is excess power, then surely PVmakes sense where grid power availabilityand fluctuations are a problem, in places likeKampala, Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Today,there are tens of thousands of battery back-ups in east African cities where power sup-plies are fragile.

As happened in Germany, grid-connectprograms will be critical to development ofthe PV industry in Africa. Grid-connect sys-tem capacity will build skills in an industrythat has been focusing on small off-grid sys-tems, and make the sector more interestingto investors. Finally, grid-connect PV willenable PV companies to diversify their busi-ness and, in the long term, enhance theirability to serve rural customers.

What is needed There is an urgent need for support of bothoff-grid and on-grid PV activities. A marketthat has not grown significantly in 10 yearswill not grow spontaneously.

Support by donors and governments forPV projects and the achievement of agreedtargets should go hand-in-hand. Supportersmust mandate accountability on numbers ofsystems installed and sold. Africa knows howto install PV – what is needed are supportersconcerned about the entire process of design,execution, monitoring and evaluation.

As in Europe, the US and Japan, subsidywill be a key element to the developmentof the market. With the drying up of GEFPV support, there is a need to seek newsources of subsidy funding. Some countriesmay be able to support modest PV subsidieswith locally raised revenue. Others willrequire support from donors. The $20 bil-lion PV industry should consider allocatingsupport for Africa from within its own coffers.

Off-grid, PV needs to become part of therural electrification planning process, andgovernments need to be clear about the lim-its of rural grid expansion.

Intelligent incentives must be made avail-able. Subsidies should be available for a rangeof PV systems. A long-term vision is needed.

On-grid, there is a need to develop experi-ence and treat PV as an electricity source thatit highly valued and easily deployed. Clearlya situation where there is over a gigawatt ofgrid connected PV in developed countriesand nothing in Africa is not tenable.! government and utility policy must be

adjusted to provide incentives and clearprocedures for connecting PV to the grid

! targets must be set by ministries to pro-mote use of PV on-grid

! investment by the private sector must besupported and encouraged

! creative financing tools must be developed(including carbon finance)

! a group of knowledgeable championsamong African power utilities, ministries,private sector and regulators needs to bedeveloped and supported

! existing global experience in grid-connect-ed PV needs to be incorporated into theAfrican market.More that in any other part of the world,

solar energy must play a role in Africa, as alter-natives become increasingly expensive. Newefforts in PV must take different approachesthat learn from successes in the North, andmistakes of past projects. An Africa with alarge PV market benefits everybody. !

Mark Hankins is an energy consultant based inKenya (email: [email protected]). Alonger version of this article appeared in Renew-able Energy World (http://www.renewable-ener-gy-world.com/)

Annual PV installation in Germany: A “Feed-in Law” has resulted in a solar boom there.

Subsidies Could End Africa’s Solar Eclipse

Sour

ce:©

RW

E Sc

hott

Sola

r Cm

bH a

nd E

PIA

Building a Solar Nation, State by State

What is Vote Solar trying to accomplish? Simply put, we’re trying to bring solar intothe mainstream. Our mission is to makesolar competitive with conventional electric-ity generation so we can have a self-sustain-ing solar industry. Once it hits that cost-effective level, the amount of solar that canbe installed is gigantic.

We have a straightforward strategy fordoing this. In the short term, while solar ismore expensive than conventional electrici-ty, financial incentives will be the enginethat gets the solar market going strong. Inaddition, we are clearing the road of regula-tory barriers, to make solar easier to installnow and so that solar energy can coverevery rooftop once the price reaches paritywith conventional sources.

The cost curves will continue to move insolar’s favor. Fossil fuels are going up, andsolar will continue to come down in price asmore people use it. The price of natural gasin this country has increased four timessince 2001, and the volatility of its price hasbeen even more pronounced. Once thoselines on the cost comparison chart cross,there will be no stopping solar. Our job is tomake that cost curve decline at an evenfaster rate. We want to see it be cost-compet-itive by 2012, not 2025.

What’s your biggest challenge? Convincing some decision-makers and utili-ties that this is a worthwhile path to take. Alot of people just want the cheapest powerpossible, even if that means dirty coal. Someutilities and regulators are a bit afraid of theloss of control that will come from such adecentralized system, in which individualhomeowners and businesses are the driversof investment in the electricity sector. We tryto show them that even though solar ismore expensive now, the long-term benefitsare huge. There are strong job-creation bene-fits, robust system-distribution benefits(because of less strain on the grid systemwhen houses and businesses have their sys-

tem on the roof), and clean air and climatechange benefits. There is tremendousmomentum and public support for solarnow, so our job is getting easier.

What is needed for solar power toreally take off?Nationally, we need to increase the numberof state governments committed to solar. TheCalifornia Solar Initiative was by far thelargest commitment to solar in this country(it will bring 3,000 MW to the grid in thenext 10 years). California is the sixth largesteconomy in the world, and it sets the exam-ple for other states on a lot of energy poli-cies. Arizona just voted to increase renewableenergy in the state, creating a market for upto 2,000 MW of new solar capacity – a pro-gram that is far larger on a per-capita basisthan California’s. New Jersey and Pennsylva-nia also have programs underway. The mostlikely scenario will be 10-20 states with majorcommitments to solar in coming years.

The federal government has also taken abig step to support solar. The Energy PolicyAct of 2005, which created a 30% solarinvestment tax credit, was the first federalcommitment to solar energy in 20 years. Butthe problem is that it was only for two years,and is set to expire at the end of 2007. Weneed a long-term commitment from the fed-eral government to give solar a big boostand we’ll be working to extend the tax creditfor a full 10 years.

As state and federal governments committo solar power we’ll continue to see pricesfall. The cost of modules comes down about20% for every doubling of units produced,and the cost of panels is the single biggestcost of installing a solar system. However, weneed to do more than just reduce the cost ofthe panels to bring solar into the main-stream. We need to remove all the regulatorybarriers that can stop solar in its tracks, suchas permitting and interconnection, as well aseliminating utility rates that are prejudicedagainst solar.

What are you working on now?We are focusing significant attention on util-ity rates, which are the key to making solarcost-effective without subsidies. This year wewere successful in getting a major southernCalifornia utility to offer solar-friendly ratesto customers who install solar. They are nowoffering a solar-friendly tariff that increasesthe value of solar by 30-40%, just by proper-ly valuing the cost of electricity. In effectthey’re putting a monetary value on solar’sbenefits to the utility, such as the reducedneed to upgrade the transmission and distri-bution system (because solar adds powerwithout adding burden to the grid), thereduced need for peaking plants for busiestelectricity-use times, and the reduction insmog during the summer peak smog season(which is also the peak solar-power season).These kinds of rate deals are a key driver ingetting solar to be self-sufficient.

What lessons have you learned fromyour campaign that might be useful toactivists working on cleaner energyaround the world?Persistence. It took four years to get the Cali-fornia initiative passed. We tried to hustle itthrough every possible route. Also, when try-ing to convince skeptical policy leaders, we’vefound that it’s important to utilize every pos-sible argument in your favor. You never knowwhen a key point will be taken up and cham-pioned by someone in power – some peoplewill be drawn to the argument that solar cre-ates more jobs, others will be more concernedabout fossil fuel’s cost volatility, while stillothers will be most interested in avoidingbuilding new power plants or reducing airpollution. It’s important to use your full set oftools and use facts to back them up.

We are on the right track. The level ofgrowth in the solar industry has been phe-nomenal, with the market growing between35-60% every year. This is the kind ofgrowth that solar advocates have beendreaming of for years. The costs of installingsolar are continuing to come down and weknow we will be successful in bringing solarinto the mainstream. The only question iswill it be soon enough to avoid the worstconsequences of global warming and morefossil-fuel-related wars. That is what moti-vates us to be successful in our work. !


The California nonprofit group Vote Solar began after voters in San Franciscooverwhelmingly approved a $100 million solar bond measure in 2001 tobring renewable energy to the city grid.Vote Solar has worked to replicatethat initiative’s success in cities and states around the country.Today, thegroup works on policy and regulatory issues to bring down the costs of solarpower so it can be brought up to scale.We talked with J.P. Ross, one of VoteSolar’s three staff members, about their dream of a Solar Nation.


Africa’s Sweet Harvest: Energy from Sugarby Terri Hathaway

S ugar is king in Mauritius, accountingfor 90% of cropland, 25% of foreignexchange earnings, and supporting 1in every 18 residents of this tiny

island nation. But sugar is not the onlyexport coming from the cane fields – elec-tricity is a valuable byproduct of the harvest.

For nearly 50 years, Mauritius has beenusing agricultural waste from its sugar indus-try to help electrify the nation. Not onlydoes Mauritius have the highest electricityaccess rate in Africa – often cited at 100% –but more than a third of its electricity comesfrom power plants using bagasse, the fibrouswaste from sugar cane. With 10 power plantsin operation and even more planned, bagassecould provide over half of the country’s elec-tricity by 2010.

“Bagasse energy development has enabledthe country to displace its reliance onimported fossil fuel, diversify its energy base,and reduce electricity generation invest-ments by the utility,” said Dr. Kassiap Deep-chand, technical manager at the MauritiusSugar Authority. “It has also improved theviability of the sugar industry by allowing itsmodernization and rehabilitation, enabledsavings in foreign currency by decreasingfossil fuel imports, and reduced our green-house gas emissions.”

How it worksCogeneration is the process of generatingboth electricity and heat simultaneously in asingle power plant. By using agriculturalwaste – sugar is one of the most efficient –cogeneration uses a renewable source of bio-mass. The fibrous cane stalk can be burnedto make steam and generate electricity. Sugarfactories can easily meet their own energyrequirements with bagasse, and well-designed, efficient plants can generate a sur-plus for sale to the national grid or to sup-port a mini-grid in rural locations.

Unless some of the bagasse is stored foruse during the non-crop season, another fuelmust be used to produce electricity year-round. A renewable energy fuel such asethanol could be used; otherwise, a fossil fuelis used. In Mauritius, the power plants weredesigned to use all available bagasse duringthe crop season. Only three of the 10 bagasseplants run year round, using coal during thehalf of the year when bagasse is unavailable.

Keys to Mauritius’ successMauritius has some unique characteristicsthat may have helped influence its success

with bagasse. The country does not have itsown fossil fuel resources and relies heavilyon imported fuel. The island was uninhabit-ed before colonization. After periods ofDutch, French and British control, the coun-try gained independence in 1968 and nowhas one of the highest GDPs per capita inAfrica ($13,000). The country is home to just1.2 million residents. Sugar cane, covering40% of the island’s land, has benefited frompreferential trade agreements with Europe,which have paid up to three times the worldmarket price.

Interest in exploiting energy from bagassebegan with just one sugar factory in 1957. Inthe 1980s, two bagasse cogeneration powerplants were built and began to export powerto the grid. In the 1990s, the combination ofsuccessful plants and increasing oil prices ledto the development of a Bagasse EnergyDevelopment Programme, a collaborativeeffort between the government and the pri-vate sector.

For over a decade, government policy hascontinuously supported building a successfulcogeneration energy system, not only inte-grating bagasse into the country’s energyplanning, but prioritizing it. A clear policyon use of bagasse for electricity was devel-oped, and supporting policies and legisla-tion, such as removing income tax forbagasse electricity revenue, were put inplace. Targets for growth were set. Barriers tomeeting those targets were identified andaddressed along the way.

Small cane growers have not been ignored.A Sugar Investment Trust, comprised of smallgrowers and industryworkers, was establishedin 1994 and owns a 20%stake in all of the canemilling companies, 20%in the seasonal bagasseplants, and 14% in theyear-round plants. Theshareholders are thenentitled to a dividendbased on the profits ofthe trust. About a thirdof the nation’s bagasseenergy comes from smallgrowers.

Mauritius’ sugarindustry does, however,face risks. Sugar produc-tion costs are on therise, and global pricesare projected to drop by

about a third in the next few years. ButDeepchand doesn’t see this as a risk. “Thedrop in sugar prices offers an opportunity tomitigate the impact on revenue by enhanc-ing electricity export to the grid,” he said,predicting that mill centralization and tech-nological upgrades will make the bagasseplants more efficient.

African expansionResearchers estimate that there is great poten-tial for bagasse cogeneration in many Africancountries. Total cane production in Africa is90 million tons, representing 10,000 GWh ofpotential bagasse-generated electricity. Sudanhas possibly the highest potential, withapproximately 644 GWh (just greater thanMauritius’s 600 GWh potential); Kenya has530 GWh; Ethiopia, 150 GWh; Uganda, 173GWh; and Tanzania 101 GWh of potential.

While it is believed that many Africancountries could produce bagasse-based elec-tricity, commercial viability requires an esti-mated 200-300 tons of cane to be crushedper hour, which is far more than manycountries currently produce. It also requirescareful management of a country’s sugarindustry, something often neglected bymany African governments.

Deepchand believes that creating anenabling environment for independentpower producers to build cogenerationpower plants is a key step to successfulbagasse generation elsewhere in Africa. “The success achieved in Mauritius can bereplicated in the region, the African conti-nent,” he says with confidence. !

Mauritius’ sugar cane fields.


improve the resilience of electricity supply,thus reducing many kinds of social costs,risks and anxieties, including military costsand vulnerabilities), and stakeholder conflictavoidance.

Although the list of benefits is aimedmore at energy-industry professionals, thebook’s intended readership also encompass-es public policy makers, concerned citizens,and business leaders.The latter are becom-ing increasingly influential decision-makers,bringing their market logic to bear on a tra-ditionally conservative yet increasingly busi-ness-orientated industry.The book goes tosome length to highlight the profitableopportunities available to businesses invest-ing in distributed electricity, as well as out-lining practical policy changes that arerequired to enable distributed electricity torealize its full value. Lay readers are assistedwith numerous tutorials and boxes explain-ing technical concepts.

Fundamental changes are underway inthe US electricity business and Small isProfitable seeks nothing less than to nur-ture a revolution, recognized by Lovinsthree decades earlier, that would return thepower industry back to the neighborhoodlevel from where it originated more than100 years ago.While Small is Profitable per-suasively entices business leaders and policymakers with the language of economics, theauthors’ long affiliation with the sustainabili-ty movement make it clear that one under-lying motive of the book is to help ensurethat electricity will not end up bankruptingthe planet.

Carl Middleton

Decentralizing Power:An Energy Revolution for the 21st Century,by Greenpeace UK (2005, 72 pages,free from www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7759.pdf)

“We can be pretty certain what unsustain-able electricity looks like,” asserts Walt Pat-terson of the UK’s Royal Institute of Inter-national Affairs.“It looks like most of theworld’s present-day electricity systems.”

Patterson’s critique sums up the centralmessage of Decentralizing Power, which pre-sents a scathing critique of Britain’s central-ized, inefficient and outmoded power gridsystem, and outlines a contrasting vision ofa decentralized, efficient and environmental-ly friendly alternative.

One of the report’s more stunning reve-lations is that 78% of energy produced inthe UK is wasted. Energy loss occursthrough heat loss or inefficient power pro-duction in power plants; losses in transmis-

Small is Profitable:The Hidden Eco-nomic Benefits of Making ElectricalResources the Right Size, by Amory B.Lovins et al. (Published by Rocky MountainInstitute, 2002, 399 pages, US$60 softcover/US$30 PDF, www.smallisprofitable.org)

In 1976, Amory Lovins published a paper inForeign Affairs that caused a storm in the USenergy industry. In it, he argued that theindustry faced a choice between two mutu-ally exclusive paths. Choosing the “hardenergy path” would lead to further invest-ment in gigantic, centralized nuclear and fos-sil-fuel fired power plants and high-voltagetransmission networks, unavoidably accom-panied by massive energy wastage and othersocial and economic problems inherent tosuch systems. On the other hand, the “softenergy path” entailed transition to renew-able energy technologies, whose smallerscale more closely matched the needs ofconsumers, accompanied by much greateremphasis on energy efficiency. Ultimately theUS energy industry continued along thehard path.Yet, as Lovins and co-authorsdemonstrate in their recent book Small isProfitable, electricity industry restructuringsince the early 1990s in the US has led themarket’s invisible hand to gently reroute theindustry in the direction of the soft energypath to the point that the authors feel ableto proclaim:“The era of the giant thermalpower plant has quietly ended.”

Small is Profitable begins by tracing theascendancy of the centralized model ofpower generation in the US and finds thatkey assumptions that led to the industry’sfixation with gigantism are no longer valid.(While the book focuses exclusively on theUS electricity industry, the authors suggestthat many of the lessons learned mayextrapolate globally.) In an attempt to lowerconsumers’ electric bills through reducedgenerating costs, engineers obsessed withbuilding increasingly larger centralizedpower stations, eventually reaching wellbeyond 1,000 megawatts in size.The engi-neers treated the network of transmissionand distribution wires needed to get theelectricity from remote centralized powerstations to consumers as an unavoidablefixed cost.

Yet, according to this team’s analysis, thewires business is now the dominant factorin consumers’ electricity bills, not the costof electricity generation itself, and mostblackouts result from grid failure, not gener-

ation failure.The economies of scale pre-dicted for centralized plants have also failedto materialize in plants larger than one hun-dred megawatts or so in size.The authors’conclusion, therefore, is that cheaper andmore reliable power is best produced closeto where it is consumed and at a scale theright size for the job.

The central message of Small is Profitableis that economic and other benefits of dis-tributed electricity (also known as decen-tralized electricity) are becoming irresistiblyattractive. Distributed electricity generatorsare typically renewable, but not necessarilyso, and include photovoltaic cells, wind tur-bines, fuel cells, and efficient gas-fired co-generation plants.Among other advantages,distributed generating technologies benefitfrom reductions in cost associated withmass production rather than massive indi-vidual plant size. In places like the US, withnearly complete coverage by existing grids,distributed systems can supply supplementalelectricity to areas that require morepower and are already served by transmis-sion grids in place of expensive gridupgrades. In remote areas where the grid isyet to reach, distributed electricity systemscan operate independently at the householdscale or through mini-grids.

Distributed electricity is not just aboutimproved generating technologies and dis-tribution arrangements, but also optimizingthe electricity services provided to the end-user, including improving the efficiency withwhich electricity itself is used and providingpower of a quality suitable for the task athand.According to Small is Profitable, the net result of the distributed electricityapproach is system-wide savings on operat-ing and external costs.

Small is Profitable details 207 benefits thatcan be derived from distributed electricity.Benefits range from the strictly financial(No. 6: Smaller, faster modules can be builton a “pay as you go” basis with less financialstrain, reducing risk) to the esotericallytechnical (No. 110: Distributed resourcescan reduce reactive power consumption byshortening electron haul length throughlines and by not going through as manytransformers – both major sources ofinductive reactance). Recognizing that deci-sions are often not made on a financial ortechnical basis alone, the book also exploresthe numerous values that, although notreadily quantified, can be decisive in makingenergy choices.These include the benefitsof green sourcing, security of supply (No. 171: Distributed resources can signifi-cantly – and when deployed on a large scalecan comprehensively and profoundly –


respiratory illness, and much more sustain-able forest management is possible acrossmuch of Africa through program and poli-cies that emphasize best practices in legal,managed, charcoal production as well as pro-grams to disseminate improved stoves. Farfrom an isolated example, such opportuni-ties exist everywhere.

Recognize and reflect economically the valueof energy investment to the economy. Cleanenergy production – through investments inenergy efficiency and renewable energy gen-eration – has been shown to be a winner interms of spurring innovation and job cre-ation. This should be reflected in federal eco-nomic assessments of energy and infrastruc-ture investment. Grants to states, particular-ly those taking the lead on clean energy sys-tems, should be at the heart of the federalrole in fostering a new wave of clean-techinnovation in the energy sector.

And finally, we must put economics towork and begin a serious federal discussion of

market-based schemes to make the price ofcarbon emissions reflect their social cost. Acarbon tax and a tradable permit programboth provide simple, logical, and transpar-ent methods to permit industries and house-holds to reward clean energy systems andtax those that harm our economy and theenvironment. Cap-and-trade schemes havebeen used with great success in the US toreduce other pollutants, and several north-eastern states are experimenting with green-house gas emissions trading. Taxing carbonemissions to compensate for negative socialand environmental impacts would offer theopportunity to simplify the national taxcode while remaining, if so desired, essen-tially revenue-neutral. A portion of the rev-enues from a carbon tax could also be usedto offset any regressive aspects of the tax,for example by helping to compensate low-income individuals and communitiesreliant on jobs in fossil-fuel extraction andproduction.

In summary, R&D is an essential compo-nent of a broad innovation-based energystrategy that includes transforming marketsand reducing barriers to the commercializa-tion and diffusion of nascent technologies.The evidence we see from past programsindicates that we can effectively scale up ourenergy R&D effort substantially. We recom-mend a sustained increase in funding by atleast a factor of five to meet the energy chal-lenges of the 21st century. The economicbenefits of such a bold but long overduemove would help transform our economyinto what at one time seemed impossible: avibrant, environmentally sustainable engineof growth. !

Daniel Kammen is the “Class of 1935 Distin-guished Professor of Energy” at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, and founding director of theRenewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory(http://rael.berkeley.edu). A longer version of thisarticle appeared in Scientific American.

Sleeping Giant continued from page 9

sion and distribution systems; and throughleakage, poor insulation and inefficient enduse by homes and businesses.

Decentralizing Power provides a step-by-step description for the lay reader on howto implement a decentralized energy sys-tem. It requires more than just pluggingwind, solar or geothermal systems into anexisting grid.A complete revamping of theenergy system is necessary so powerrequirements can be met locally and use of the national grid is limited to being abackup, rather than primary, source ofenergy.

The report acknowledges substantialinstitutional barriers that need to be sur-mounted, both from an entrenched industryhostile to change and a regulatory systemrooted in the status quo.The report urgesusing the British tax system to rewardhomeowners and businesses that installdecentralized energy systems, while penaliz-ing inefficient centralized power stations.

The ultimate goal is to create energy useand production patterns where end usersalso become producers. Such a strategy isoperational in Woking, southwest of Lon-don, where the town council has installed a

network of 60 local cogeneration plants,photovoltaic arrays and even a hydrogenfuel cell station.Woking is now 99% energyself-sufficient and has reduced its CO2emissions by three-quarters.

As Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Wash-ington, DC-based Foundation on EconomicTrends, put it, “Once the consumer, the end-user, becomes the producer and supplier ofenergy, power companies around the worldwill be forced to redefine their mission ifthey are to survive.”

Tim Kingston

When Pulimarang village was electrifiedwith solar home systems in 1996 – the firstsolar village in Nepal – people came from allover to see. Because smoky kerosene lampswere replaced with quality electric lights, theproject had benefits for health and educa-tion. Students now study past dark, and vil-lagers began adult education classes. The bat-tery power also allowed people to listen toradio and watch television – a source ofinformation and entertainment. Womenstarted knitting shawls in the evening,adding to their incomes.

Against the backdrop of this micro-energyrevolution, the picture for the megaprojectshandled by the government utility is dismal.The cost of the 70 MW Middle MarshyangdiHydropower Project has doubled, the com-pletion date delayed. Nepal will face power

shortages for a few years because of this proj-ect’s problems. The complexity of large proj-ects like Middle Marshyangdi and its prede-cessors raise more questions than hope foraffordable electricity for the people.

Efforts by government to attract foreigninvestors to build megaprojects are under-way, but it is too early to predict the out-come. A Power Summit was held in Kath-mandu in July to attract Indian developers,and today a number are vying for licensesfor large dams total 14,000 MW for powerexport to India. Little information regardingthe environmental impacts of some of theselarge dam projects has been discussed publi-cy. Thus far, no big dam projects havereached the implementation stage.

The scenario in the small hydro sector(up to 15 MW) is different. As the hydro-

power sector opened to the private sectorafter the Arun debacle, about half a dozenpower plants, mostly small hydro, havecome online. Local finance, local expertiseand the local hydro industry are being mobi-lized in the process. With the success of thefirst few projects, the banking sectors arealso keen to invest in new projects. Localconsulting firms have more jobs, and localcontractors and fabricating workshops too.All of this is building local capacity. The firstgeneration of private sector small hydroprojects have some inevitable problems, butthe Nepali hydro industry is gainingstrength from the experiences. !

The author is a mechanical engineer working onhydropower in Kathmandu.

Nepal continued from page 7

1847 Berkeley WayBerkeley,CA 94703,U.S.A.

Change Service Requested

Non-Profit Org.US POSTAGE

PAIDBerkeley, CA 94703

Permit No. 126

IN THIS ISSUEAfrica:A sea-change is need-ed to get solar power toAfrica.Page 1Commentary:A sensibleenergy future seems far off,and yet we’re at the tippingpoint on a number of tech-nologies.Page 2Wind:A look at India’s windenergy boom.Page 3Microhydro:Lessons learnedfrom around the world.Page 4-5China:A new push forrenewables and efficiency iswide,but is it deep? Page 6Nepal:After defeating amajor dam project,local

energy activists and engineershave taken Nepal into a more sustainable direction.Page 7US:A renewable future forthe US is achievable,says aprominent energy expert.Page 8Policy:An interview with VoteSolar,a US-based nonprofit.Page 12Bagasse:Recycling cropwaste for energy is a viableoption for many sugar-producing nations.Page 13In Print:Reviews of twobooks on decentralized energy.Page 14

Sharing the Air: Making Wind Power Safer for Winged Creaturesby Elizabeth Sabel

In response to growing protests, the local government adopted a plan in 2005 to close half the turbines at Altamont Passfor three months during winter migratoryseason. Older turbines will be shut downpermanently.

Because they are much more efficient,modern turbines pose less threat to birdsand bats than the first wave of large windturbines built in the 1980s. Fewer turbinesare required to produce energy and theblades of the turbines move slower, whichhelps prevent flying creatures from gettingcaught in them.

Although there doesn’t seem to be aquick fix to the problem, further research,learning from past mistakes and collabora-tive efforts with wildlife experts are impor-tant steps toward making sure the windpower industry can continue to expandwhile keeping the skies safe for birds and bats. !

For further information: www.nationalwind.org,www.batcon.org

S cientists and environmentalists areworking to reduce the number of batsand birds killed by wind turbines.Although estimates vary, a 2003 report

from the National Renewable Energy Labora-tory stated that over 1,000 birds were killedannually in the Altamont Pass of California,the oldest and one of the largest wind farmsin the US. A 2004 study by the Bats and WindEnergy Cooperative (BWEC) concluded thatover 1,300 bats were killed in a six-week peri-od at a wind center in West Virginia.

Many of the species being killed arethreatened or endangered, and critical to thehealth of the planet. Bats, for example, sup-port more than 300 plant species in thetropics alone through pollination and seeddispersal. Bats also eat tons of unwantedinsects, decreasing the need for pesticides.

BWEC, a collaborative effort betweenwind energy companies and bat specialists,is in the middle of a five-year research pro-gram to determine the best methods forminimizing the risks wind farms pose tobats. Their efforts include studying batbehavior at current wind energy sites, identi-

fying potential low-risk sites for buildingnew wind facilities, and experimenting withaudio signals that would deter bats from fly-ing in the path of the turbines.

Groups such as the Ornithological Coun-cil and the Wildlife Society are co-sponsors ofa joint statement issued in March supportingrenewable energy development and urgingenergy firms to collaborate with independentscientists in order to minimize the impact oftheir technologies on wildlife. Conservationgroups are also encouraging wind energyinvestors to only invest in firms that demon-strate a commitment to resolving wildlifeproblems associated with wind farms.

Bird deaths at the Altamont Pass windfarm spurred the debate on the impact ofwind farms on birds. Studies have shownthat Altamont Pass has the world’s worstbird-kill record for windfarms. The pass is amajor migration route for birds of prey.Many of the original turbines built at thepass are also less efficient than their moderncounterparts, requiring many more turbinesto produce energy, thereby increasing thethreat to birds.

Special Focus

Renewable Energy

W orld R ivers R eview...supply power in areas already connected to the grid. A new push for...

Documents

Transcript of W orld R ivers R eview...supply power in areas already connected to the grid. A new push for...