|
Rural Electrification with Solar Energy as a Climate Protection Strategy A Message from the Staff of the
|
||
|
Installing a solar home system (SHS) in a developing country is not the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions today. And yet people frequently mention SHS as an important tool in the global effort to combat climate change. Should people think of solar as a prime climate change mitigation strategy? You would say "no" if you are solely concerned about keeping the cost per ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as low as possible. But only for the short-term. Simpler, cheaper efficiency measures are much more tempting-like plugging up leaky gas pipes, making industrial boilers efficient, reducing transmission and distribution losses, and other relatively easy measures that developed nations have implemented. You should say "yes" if you are concerned with pollution control as well as alleviating the inordinate amount of poverty in rural regions. The "co-benefits" to climate change mitigation, as some climate policy experts would say, are too great. Electrifying villages with grid extension to far-flung towns is often expensive-SHSs could cost-effectively fill rural lighting, leisure, and business needs. Plus, SHSs are amenable to distribution, servicing and financial networks that can employ people in many communities, and with different skills and educational levels. This feature can make SHSs an integral part of the solution to stem the desperate flow of rural people into cities-not only by fueling the trappings of modern life, but also by sparking job creation. Yet SHSs' attractive features-small and located close to the user-can also disrupt the traditional electricity utility business, which typically relies on a big power plant connected to customers through extensive wires. Because of the institutional and associated financial challenges of adopting a "disruptive technology," many interests surrounding climate change policy are tempted to tout technologies-such as nuclear power, "clean coal," and even sequestration of carbon in ocean floors-that allow utilities to perform business as usual. These approaches essentially keep the current way of doing the electricity business intact. Yet anybody familiar with regulatory enforcement in many developing nations should shudder at the thought of nuclear plants. While coal is plentiful, "clean coal" does little to avoid carbon emissions, while coal mining often saddles regions with economic stagnation. And those knowledgeable about ocean habitats recoil at the thought of massive industrial operations at the bottom of our seas. So it is imperative that climate change policy does not shy away from supporting disruptive technologies that promise enormous social benefits and long-term climate change benefits. As Clayton Christiansen (author of The Innovator's Dilemma and creator of the "disruptive technologies" concept) points out, disruptive technologies need the involvement of small firms who carry a big stake in their success. SHSs are poised well-while large multinationals manufacture SHSs, smaller organizations distribute and maintain them. Climate change policymakers have much to build upon. It is unlikely that climate change policy alone unleash all of SHSs' benefits. But it can certainly contribute needed incentives for SHS adoption-especially if policymakers incorporate "sustainable development" considerations into their decisions, and do not rely on shortcuts that fail to seed an energy infrastructure equipped for long-term GHQ cuts. SHSs can play a role in promoting economic and social development in the developing world while protecting the environment. It is an opportunity that is not easy seize, but it is worth it.
Virinder Singh, Research Manager November 15, 1999 |
||
|
Rural Electrification with Solar Energy |
||
|
|
||