Textbox 1: MFMA clause on infrastructure projects
6.1 Outline of the model
6.1.2 Selecting options for action, attributes and indicators
The panel of experts was requested to characterize the problem and provide possible solutions for distributing energy to low-income people living in isolated rural areas and informal urban settlements during the discussions, which were conducted using the PESTEL technique.. Engagements took the form of iterative two-phased face to face and virtual panel
_________________________________________________________________________
100 interviews. During the first round of interviews. Two sets of themed questions were asked, namely,
• Question 1: What are the key national priorities insofar as energy supply is concerned for deprived communities residing in isolated and unelectrified rural areas and informal settlements?
• Question 2: What are the key barriers preventing the implementation of past and planned interventions?
Feedback from the above sessions was collected, collated, and reviewed iteratively with the panel of experts to identify and define feasible and infeasible energy supply technologies and the corresponding technical parameters for comparing these technologies with barriers. The second round of interviews was conducted to review and validate the resulting list of the various energy technology options and the technical parameters. Ten energy supply technologies were identified for multiple uses; cooking, lighting, entertainment and cell phone charging, refrigeration, laundry, home maintenance, and water heating .
The ten energy supply technologies are fuelwood, kerosene, denatured bioethanol fuel, LPG, existing grid electricity (rural electrification), micro-grids based on CCGT, diesel generator scheme based on the open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) technology, concentrating solar power (CSP), crystalline silicon (c-Si) solar PV and wind. The panel of experts also agreed on a list of the cost and technical parameters for assessing the energy supply technologies.
The final list of candidate technologies was circulated among the panel for feedback and endorsement in reaching the agreement. The agreed list was then incorporated into the study.
Table 7 provides the list of the ten energy supply technologies suitable for deployment in low- income households in South Africa for different applications. Table 8 provides detailed summaries of these technologies.
Table 7: Selected energy conversion technologies
Source [energy technology]
Uses
Cooking Lighting
Entertainment and cell phone
charging
Refrigeration
Laundry and home maintenance
Geyser
1. Fuelwood √ × × × × ×
_________________________________________________________________________
101 Source
[energy technology]
Uses
Cooking Lighting
Entertainment and cell phone
charging
Refrigeration
Laundry and home maintenance
Geyser
2. Kerosene √ √ × × × ×
3. Bioethanol
fuel √ √ × × × ×
4. LPG √ √ × × × ×
5. Grid
electrification √ √ √ √ √ √
6. CCGT √ √ √ √ √ √
7. Diesel
generator √ √ √ √ √ √
8. Solar with
storage √ √ √ √ √ √
9. Solar PV √ √ √ √ √ √
10. Wind √ √ √ √ √ √
Source: Study strategic dialogues, 2020 Table 8: Technology descriptions
Source/
Technology Strength Main drawback Key discussion points and takeaways
1. Firewood
Fuelwood is cheap and mostly free in rural areas and is a critical
emergency backup fuel. (Guild and Shackleton, 2018).
Burning firewood is known to cause fire hazards and respiratory
health problems.
Uncontrolled use has led to deforestation and
natural habitat loss.
Fuelwood is a vital and secure fuel for many poor households.
Use of efficient technologies such as cookstoves used to
reduce emissions and quantities used. Fuelwood trade is a recognised source of informal employment (earnings
exceed the international poverty line and social grants).
(Guild and Shackleton, 2018).
2. Kerosene Kerosene and devices used are affordable and readily available to
Associated with several problems such as the death of children who
Currently, there are no known technologies and innovations that have been developed to
_________________________________________________________________________
102 Source/
Technology Strength Main drawback Key discussion points and takeaways
many low-income households and is a
vital emergency backup fuel.
drink it accidentally, the spread of fire, burn injuries and indoor air
pollution.
deal with the adverse effects of kerosene.
3. Bioethanol
Bioethanol is produced locally and is considered a safer alternative to kerosene
and firewood.
High capital costs.
Bioethanol fuel is not readily available in remote rural villages.
Performance optimisation opportunities exist and can be
used in many applications.
Given the high fuel efficiency, bioethanol gel is one of the most popular sources of energy
for cooking in poor communities.
4. LPG
LPG is considered a safer alternative to
kerosene.
High lifecycle costs with fuel costs indexed to the exchange rate. LPG
has a high calorific value and is not readily
available in remote rural villages.
Performance optimisation opportunities exist and can be
used in many applications.
Given the high fuel efficiency, LPG is one of the most popular
sources of energy for cooking in poor communities.
5. Grid
electrification
Source of reliable power and is both socially and politically acceptable – electricity
is considered a status symbol in many rural
communities.
Electrifying low-income households living in
sparsely populated areas require significant
upfront capital expenditure and operational subsidies.
Electrification programmes can be successful and sustainable if combined with other sources of energy such as renewables.
6. CCGT
Gas is considered a clean-burning fuel and
one of the most cost- efficient sources of energy for cooking and
is cheaper than grid- connected electricity.
Gas prices are susceptible to exchange rate movements. Prices are
determined by global petroleum price trends and the exchange rate.
Combinations with other renewable energy sources such as rooftop solar for the
provision of cooking and lighting purposes are very
useful.
7. Diesel generator (OCGT)
Diesel generators are proven and readily available technologies.
Diesel is costly and not easily accessible, maintenance can also
be a challenge and these systems are very
noisy, highly polluting.
Intended to be used during peak periods and emergencies.
Diesel continues to be a useful emergency backup source of
energy.
_________________________________________________________________________
103 Source/
Technology Strength Main drawback Key discussion points and takeaways
8. Solar PV
Clean, no fuel costs, low operational costs,
modular, transferable and low emission.
High capital costs and highly intermittent
production.
The global solar industry continues to invest in innovative solutions and affordable energy storage
technologies.
9. Wind
Clean, no fuel costs and these systems are
modular and easily transferable.
Wind turbine requires a higher level of maintenance – brake pads and greasing of moving components and refurbishment of
rotor blades.
Potential to meet water pumping needs among remote
rural villages and the replacement of expensive diesel-based water pumps.
10. Solar with storage
Clean, no fuel costs, low operational costs,
modular, transferable and low emission.
Suitable for constant output in a micro-grid
setup.
High capital costs in particular the energy storage component.
The global solar industry continues to invest in innovative solutions such as light-emitting diode lamps and displays; and affordable energy
storage technologies.
Source: Muller et al. (2003), Sovacool (2011), Daw (2013), Silwal and McKay (2015), Gross et al, (2017) Gould and Urpelainen (2018), (Guild and Shackleton, 2018), Dalberg (2018), Barasa (2018)