Cooking in Developing Countries: fuel consumption and GHG emissions, user acceptance and incentives

8/9/2019 Cooking in Developing Countries: fuel consumption and GHG emissions, user acceptance and incentives

1/23

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - EEDAL '06 1

Cooking in Developing Countries -fuel consumption and GHG

emissions, user acceptance and

incentives

Michael Grupp (Synopsis, France)

Marlett Balmer (PDC, Pretoria, RSA)

Nicolaas Beute (Cape Peninsula University

of Technology, RSA)


2/23


Table of contents

Status quo: the different cooking fuels -consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Discussion of fuel options: how to reduceemissions and save costs

Impact monitoring and use-based incentiveschemes

Remarks on grids in Developing Countries


3/23


Global consumption of different cooking fuels

Coal

7%

Wood 3-stone

48%

Wood stove

6%Root

1%

Dung

8%

Charcoal

1%Electricity

3%Kerosene

1%

LPG

1%

Crop rs

24%


4/23


Fuel consumption and cost per meal portion

0

2

4

6

810

12

14

16

Wood3-stone

Woodstove Root

Kerosene LPG

Electricity

Biogas

CharcoalDung

Croprs Coal

MJinput/MP

0,000

0,020

0,040

0,060

0,0800,100

0,120

0,140

0,160

US$/M

P

Energy consumption MJinput /MP

Fuel cost $/MP


5/23


Global GHG emissions by different cooking

fuels

Wood 3-stone45%

Coal

16%

Crop rs

10%

Dung

3%

Charcoal

2%

Wood stove6%Root

2%

LPG3% Kerosene

4%

Electricity

9%


6/23


Cooking: the GHG facts

Cooking contributes around 5% of global GHG

Most emissions are caused by biomass in

developing countries (non-sustainable wood, lowefficiency cooking appliances, high number of

users - but potential for low-cost improvement)

Cooking in industrialised countries emits less

GHG (less users, cleaner fuels, more efficient

appliances).


7/23


Option 1: Gas fuels (traditional and renewable)

Pros: clean, cheaper thanelectricity, lower start-up

investment

Cons: safety reputation,

traditional gas fuels needcentralised production and

distribution chain, price

Traditional gas can be

replaced by bio-gas orhydrogen.

Prototype hydrogen cooker


8/23


Option 2: Liquid fuels (Kerosene, bio-fuels, syn-fuels)

Plant oil cooker (U. of Hohenheim)

Pros of Kerosene: mostly cheaper than

electricity, lower start-up investment

for supplier, extremely low start-up

investment for user, can be marketed

in small lots

Cons of Kerosene: smell, safety (fireand toxicity)

Kerosene can be replaced by bio-fuels

and syn-fuels such as plant oil,

ethanol, methanol

Plant oil cooker (U. of Hohenheim)


9/23


Option 3: Solid fuels (3-stone fires, coal,charcoal and biomass stoves)

Pros: free, respectively

cheaper than electricity,

high acceptance for

traditional stoves

Cons: massive contribution

to GHG and indoor air

pollution, local

deforestation for wood.Improved wood stove (Vesto)


10/23


Option 4 : Non-fuel stoves (solar)

Pros: zero GHG emission,

convenient if used right

Cons: needs change of cooking

habits, no stand-alone system,initial investment, stoves need

product development and

efficient low-cost

production/distribution/after

sales organisation


11/23


Option 5: traditional grid / electric cooking

Pros: locally clean, polyvalent, convenient, high

user acceptance

Cons: high GHG emissions, expensive for user and

utility (traditional grid), very low overallefficiency, lack of generating capacity in DC, low

return on investment (poor clients)

Conclusion: electric cooking will remain limited to

wealthy or subsidised, high user density situations.


12/23


User acceptance - the critical issue

Clean cookers need acceptance to be effective

New cooking techniques have a poor acceptance

record (coal vs wood, microwave, solar)

Acceptance is a complex issue (tradition,

convenience, cost, supply, safety, image, )

Acceptance can be improved by incentives


13/23


Incentives to boost user acceptance

Incentives should be directly related to impact - hence

to clean cooker use rate

Incentives should be directed in priority at the user (in

contradiction to usual practice), not at the professional

Collateral effects, e.g. by subsidising fuels instead of

use, should be avoided

Use rates should be metered for impact assessment as

basis for incentives - but how ?


14/23


Electricity for clean cooker use - an incentive scheme

The concept:

Clean cooking is recorded

on line and converted into a

reward via carbon value

Cooks get paid for GHG

reduction by free electricity

(local or central grid)

GHG metering and billing

is piggy back on the grid,

without additional cost.

Clean cooker

Electricity meter

Use meter

Local grid

Electricity use

Emission meter

Sat link (option)


15/23


Local satellite grids

Many users in Developing Countries will never be

connected to the traditional grid. Their electricity needs

can be met by local grids.

Intelligent grid functions such as data transfer, intelligentmetering and two-way billing could be provided for by

local grids.

Satellite grids: local grids could be synchronised by sat

link to become part of the central grid - at acceptable cost


16/23


Open questions

The technical characteristics and cost potential oftamper-proof use meters

Technical, financial and user related feasibility of local

and satellite grids

The institutional reaction to the concept

Will the user give it a try ?

Will the concept work in the real world ?


17/23


Perspectives 1

Cooking will remain a complex activity, implying

multiple cooking devices for specific uses

Cooking in Developing Countries is a mass market

(more than 1 billion devices in use), between 1000 and10000 times bigger than todays RE clean cooker

market

The corresponding cash, material and energy flows

mean BIG business and will re-shape existingstructures


18/23


Perspectives 2

Cooking cannot rely durably on fossil fuels

There will be competition between local and central

production of RE for cooking; between biological andsynthetical production modes, between fuels and non-

fuel technologies

Whatever the outcome may be, user acceptance is key.


19/23


Free fuel supply


20/23



21/23


Cooking in Developing Countries causes important GHG

emissions and high costs

User acceptance of clean stoves is still poor - and hard toestablish

Efficient incentives must be based on actual use rates

Use rates can be metered and rewarded via an avoided-emission-for-electricity scheme

Local grids run either by utilities, investors or users can be

synchronised to the traditional grid by satellite control(satellite grids) which keeps all future options open.

Conclusions


22/23


Electricity for clean cooker use - an incentive scheme

Use metering by single ship

data logger

GHG reduction is

converted to free electricity

Pros: acceptance; adapted

to low density locations.

Clean cooker

Electricity meter

Use meter

Local grid

Electricity use

Emission meter

Sat link (option)


23/23


GHG emissions per meal portion by different

cooking fuels

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Wood3-stone

Wood

stov

e

Root

Kero

sene

LPG

Electricity

B

iogas

Cha

rcoal

Du

ng

Cr

oprs

Coal

gCO2quivalent/M

Emission CO2

Emission non-CO2

Total emission CO2-equivalent

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gulf-restoration-network
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Cooking in Developing Countries: fuel consumption and GHG emissions, user acceptance and incentives

Documents