How to Enhance Energy Services in Informal Settlements? Qualitative Comparison of Renewable Energy Solutions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Energy Situation in Informal Settlements
1.2. Potential Integration of Renewable Energy Systems to ISs
1.3. Available Market Solutions
1.4. Aim of the Study
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Methodology
2.2. State of the Art
2.3. Gap in the Research
2.4. Novelty of the Study
- The comparison of energy-improvement strategies focuses solely on the implementation in (peri-)urban areas, especially those of ISs;
- The selection of qualitative KPIs is realized for a comprehensive classification of different options for the improvement of energy services in ISs;
- In particular, the analysis does not only cover supply for the residential sector but includes the option to support Productive Use Chases (PUC) and energy services;
- A classification matrix is being developed, which helps identify the most suitable RES-based technology depending on the local conditions of a potential site by comparing the different RES-based solutions employing the selected KPIs;
- A subsequent evaluation of the four technologies in the technical, economic, social, environmental, and political/regulatory categories is implemented.
3. Derivation of Key Performance Indicators
4. Classification of Solutions Based on the Selected KPIs
- 1.
- Technical:
- System size: The system sizes are selected according to scientific sources [77,78,79] based on the local energy needs. One can visit the mentioned research to get a detailed understanding of the sizing approach. The maximum size of an Energy-Hub is set to 35 kW based on the maximum power of existing Energy-Hub concepts [80].
- Level of energy services and support of PUC: As a point of reference for evaluating the systems, the Multi-Tier Framework (MTF) is being used. While SHS can achieve an MTF of 1–3 [5,76,81] with the possibilities of lighting, phone charging, and media use, such as a radio. Depending on local economic boundary conditions, a Mini-Grid can sustain an MTF level of 3 to 5 [82]. PUCs are often used to ensure the economic sustainability and profitability of the project. The Energy-Hub concept, on the other hand, can provide services to households at low MTF levels and only during the Hub’s hours of operation. For the PUCs of the companies located in the Hub, a high energy level can be maintained, although very energy-intensive PUCs must be avoided due to the limited capacity of the Hub.
- Availability and reliability of the services can basically be classified from low to high as follows: SHS, Grid Extension, Energy-Hub, and Mini-Grid. Although the national grid in Europe, for example, is extremely stable, blackouts and fluctuations can occur regularly in SSA’s electricity supply, even in large cities. As described in the introductory section, ISs particularly suffer if their population is connected by an unreliable power supply.
- Potential for sector coupling: While sector coupling is limitedly possible within the scope of an SHS due to its restricted capacity, the grid should be able to cover the integration of cooling, heating, or e-mobility if the generation is able to match the demand. The Energy-Hub should be planned based on local needs and is limited in dimensions due to the limited free space in ISs. If the need for electrified mobility is communicated in the course of sizing the Hub, it can support sector coupling within a limited range. The Mini-Grid, on the other hand, is often more flexible in its choice of location for energy production due to its planning over a larger area. This enables greater capacities and facilitates the realization of sector coupling.
- Integration into or transferability to other sites if the national grid arrives: Whilst SHS can either be sold or continuously used in parallel when connected to the grid, the continued operation of a Mini-Grid is more difficult to reconcile with the arrival of the grid. This depends on the operating concept, financing strategy, and relationship with the grid operator. While “moving” a Mini-Grid is not possible, an Energy-Hub can be specially designed, e.g., containerized, to enable transferability to other sites.
- Upfront requirements and settlement upgrading: SHS is installed and integrated into a building without the need for extensive planning. For Grid Extension and the use of Mini-Grids, on the other hand, a stable, secure neighborhood is needed, and agreements for decentral land use to install the generation source, including infrastructure, such as poles, must be obtained [5]. In some countries, areas need to be significantly redesigned for Grid Expansion—e.g., roads to be electrified, houses need to be made passable for emergency vehicles or houses are not allowed to be built with inflammable materials [34,70]. Land rights must also be obtained for the Energy-Hub, but this is limited to the open space where the system is located. No further settlement upgrading is necessary beyond this. In all cases, the operating and financing model must be established, and information on energy demand must be determined.
- 2.
- Economic:
- Costs: The economic analysis of the technologies in terms of LCOE, capital- (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) costs, and the associated Return of Investment (ROI) is difficult to standardize across a region as large and diverse as SSA. Many factors, such as local market maturity, financial, and regulatory frameworks in each country, various system sizes and services offered and time and duration of installation, have different impacts on system costs and revenues. Especially policies that enable the implementation of feed-in-tariffs or tax cuts. Accordingly, only a ranking of the respective technologies and a range based on underlying literature values are presented. The “Mini-Grid space” [77] (p 20) compares the unsubsidized electricity retail costs of the options Grid Expansion, SHS, and Mini-Grids. Comparison criteria are building density, size and economic power of an area, proximity to the electricity grid, and terrain complexity. The electricity costs of SHS remain relatively constant and expensive to purchase per capita, regardless of the factors mentioned. They are characterized by high CAPEX and low OPEX [24]. The high upfront costs are a major barrier for financially restrained customers. The development of flexible financing systems, e.g., through the introduction of “pay as you go” (PAYG) or the leasing of SHS [92], is becoming more popular, but this is not yet widespread in a standardized way. Due to the dense settlement combined with a large community and the short distance to the legal power grid, the option of Grid Extension is most favorable for ISs from an economic point of view. Only with increasing rurality, i.e., in communities of medium density and higher distance to the grid and free area and high potential of RES generation, Mini-Grids become more economical than the option for Grid Extension. From an economic perspective, Mini-Grids are correspondingly less suitable for deployment in ISs. The cost of Energy-Hubs tends to be slightly lower compared to Mini-Grids because the items for distributed infrastructure and individual power connections are omitted.
- Number of customers: Whereas the costs and ownership for SHS are usually concentrated on one household, for a Mini-Grid or an Energy-Hub, these are being passed onto many customers. While the Mini-Grid has a static number, the Energy-Hub has a mixture of static (businesses within the Hub offering services) and fluctuant (community using energy services) customers.
- 3.
- Environmental:
- Complexity of terrain and density of settlement: As Peterschmidt et al. [77] (p. 20) show in their illustration of the “Mini-Grid space”, the potential terrain for (Mini-) Grid deployment must not be too complex, and the building structure not too densely built. There must be sufficient space for infrastructure, such as transmission and distribution cables. In contrast, all that is needed for the Energy-Hub is a free area, whereby the complexity of the terrain and the density of the buildings are irrelevant. For the Energy-Hub, the number of potential customers increases with the density of the settlement.
- Spatial application area: Due to the high CAPEX of Mini-Grids and the long time to break even, and the lower priority and capacity for Grid Expansion for rural populations, the focus for the implementation of Mini-Grids is in remote, rural areas. Coupled with the ability to integrate the system into the national grid, the Energy-Hub can be deployed in both urban and rural areas. As the distances between housing and Hub are greater in rural areas, an implementation of the system in urban areas is more advantageous due to a higher potential number of customers.
- 4.
- Social:
- Social acceptance: Social acceptance depends strongly on experience. Acceptance is “earned” if the quality of the system is satisfactory and sufficient awareness of the benefits of the system is created among residents. Neighborhood influence and affordability is an important factors for acceptance [64]. According to Runsten [76], local charging stations, which can be categorized as Energy-Hubs, do not enjoy a high level of acceptance. An increase can be achieved by analyzing the energy-related needs of the population and designing the Hub accordingly.
- Vulnerability to illegal activities: Decentralized solutions face a higher risk of falling victim to crime. It is easy to manipulate the infrastructure of the national grid or Mini-Grids towards illegal connections. A centralized system, such as the Energy-Hub, can be more easily protected against crime through a customized design or the selection of a suitable location within a secure compound. The safety of SHS is the responsibility of the facility owners. While panel theft may occur [90], security can be increased with appropriate installation design and social capacity building [76].
- Illegal status of customers: While official identity documents must be available for legal supply through the national grid or Mini-Grids, services in an Energy-Hub can be paid for in advance or tied to the service (PAYG) without contracts or identification required. SHS could also theoretically be purchased once, finances permitting, without relevance to the status of the purchaser.
- Fluidity of customers: The owner of an SHS product is an operator and can resell independently. The fluidity of customers is limited for Mini-Grids and Grid Extension due to fixed connections. With the laying of the power line, an investment is being made in a new customer.
- 5.
- Political/Regulatory:
- Legal barriers: The Grid Extension option is not affected by legal but rather by political barriers, as already mentioned. The necessity of restructuring the settlement can be cited as a legal barrier (see “Technical: Upfront requirements”). Legal obstacles mainly affect RES. The duration and costs of receiving permission to build a Mini-Grid differ from country to country in SSA [94]. There are often no regulations for integration of the Mini-Grid for the case when the grid arrives [95]. This makes the deployment of Mini-Grids in ISs difficult, as their inhabitants often either live close to the grid or even have unreliable or illegal electricity connections. In Mozambique, the operation, including selling of electricity parallel to the existing national grid, is not legal [34], which hinders the implementation of RES-based solutions in ISs further. Due to their individual application without the need for feed-in tariffs and their clearly regulated ownership, SHS encounters lower legal barriers.
- Subsidy framework: Since affordability is the key requirement in ISs, several authors call for tax incentives, such as reduced VATs and import duties for, e.g., solar panels, which encourages their use [96]. The prevailing energy poverty can be addressed by introducing social tariffs. This is applicable to each of the four technologies.
- Local ownership: Local ownership for SHS is ensured, while no ownership is possible with the option of Grid Expansion. Various models exist for Mini-Grids, and the involvement of the local community is increasingly cited as a criterion for sustainable, successful implementation [96,97]. For the success of the Energy-Hub, on the other hand, local ownership is defined as a conceptual component.
- Capacity building potential: The potential for local development by providing education, training, and knowledge exchange is possible to be implemented with all presented technologies. Local expertise in retail, OandM is essential for maintaining customer satisfaction and high product quality [92]. With its low complexity for installation, operation, and maintenance, SHS technology is particularly suitable for capacity building. Part of the Energy-Hub system is to provide education, which could serve as an initial training ground and dissemination of local expertise.
5. Discussion and Outlook
5.1. Global Assessment of the Potential Solutions
5.2. Limitations of the Study
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Odarno, L. Closing Sub-Saharan Africa’s Electricity Access Gap: Why Cities Must Be Part of the Solution. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/closing-sub-saharan-africas-electricity-access-gap-why-cities-must-be-part-solution (accessed on 12 March 2023).
- The World Bank Group. Urban Population Growth (Annual %)—Sub-Saharan Africa. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.GROW?name_desc=false&locations=ZG (accessed on 23 February 2023).
- UNECE. Search for Sustainable Solutions for Informal Settlements in the ECE Region: Challenges and Policy Responses; UNECE: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Jimenez-Huerta, E.R. Informal Settlements. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies; Orum, A.M., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–4. ISBN 9781118568453. [Google Scholar]
- Conway, D.; Robinson, B.; Mudimu, P.; Chitekwe, T.; Koranteng, K.; Swilling, M. Exploring hybrid models for universal access to basic solar energy services in informal settlements: Case studies from South Africa and Zimbabwe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 56, 101202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaunt, T.; Salida, M.; Macfarlane, R.; Maboda, S.; Reddy, Y.; Borchers, M. Informal Electrification in South Africa. Sustain. Energy Afr. 2012, 8, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nassar, D.M.; Elsayed, H.G. From Informal Settlements to sustainable communities. Alex. Eng. J. 2018, 57, 2367–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satterthwaite, D.; Archer, D.; Colenbrander, S.; Dodman, D.; Hardoy, J.; Mitlin, D.; Patel, S. Building Resilience to Climate Change in Informal Settlements. One Earth 2020, 2, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muungano Alliance. Situational Analysis: Mukuru Kwa Njenga, Kwa Reuben & Viwandani; Mukuru: Nairobi, Kenya, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Muraguri, L. Kenyan Government Initiatives in Slum Upgrading. East Afr. Rev. 2011, 44, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheseto, M.N. Challenges in Planning for Electricity Infrastructure in Informal Settlements: Case of Kosovo Village, Mathare Valley—Nairobi. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2013. Available online: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/56433/Cheseto%2CMoses%20N_Challenges%20in%20planning%20for%20electricity%20infrastructure%20in%20informal%20settlements.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 11 December 2022).
- Butera, F.M.; Adhikari, R.S.; Caputo, P.; Facchini, A. The challenge of energy in informal settlements. A review of the literature for Latin America and Africa. In Analysis of Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency in Informal Settlements of Developing Countries; Working Paper Series (in Press); Enel Foundation: Roma, Italy, 2015; pp. 1–32. Available online: https://www.enelx.com/content/dam/enel-found/topic-download/The%20challenge%20of%20Energy%20in%20Informal%20settlements.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2022).
- Silva, E. Sustainable Development. Slums, Informal Settlements, and the Role of Land Policy. 2018. Available online: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/sustainable-development (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- OECD. Informal Settlements Definition. Available online: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1351 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- IEA. The Pandemic Continues to Slow Progress towards Universal Energy Access. Available online: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-pandemic-continues-to-slow-progress-towards-universal-energy-access (accessed on 23 August 2022).
- World Bank Group. Access to Electricity, Urban (% of Urban Population)|Data. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.UR.ZS (accessed on 10 August 2022).
- González-Eguino, M. Energy Poverty: An Overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 47, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takase, M.; Kipkoech, R.; Essandoh, P.K. A comprehensive review of energy scenario and sustainable energy in Kenya. Fuel Commun. 2021, 7, 100015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karekezi, S.; Kimani, J.; Onguru, O. Energy access among the urban poor in Kenya. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2008, 12, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njoroge, P.; Ambole, A.; Githira, D.; Outa, G. Steering Energy Transitions through Landscape Governance: Case of Mathare Informal Settlement, Nairobi, Kenya. Land 2020, 9, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, J.; Riva, F.; Colombo, E. Cooking in refugee camps and informal settlements: A review of available technologies and impacts on the socio-economic and environmental perspective. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 22, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amesa, R.O. An Analysis of Determinants of Adoption of Clean Energy Cooking Technologies and Energy Sources in Kibera, Nairobi County—Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2019. Available online: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/bitstream/handle/11295/109443/Amesa_An%20Analysis%20of%20Determinants%20of%20Adoption%20of%20Clean%20Energy%20Cooking%20Technologies%20and%20Energy%20Sources%20in%20Kibera%2C%20Nairobi%20County%20-%20Kenya.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- M-GAS LIMITED. Introducing M-Gas—Furahia Upishi Wako. Available online: https://mgas.ke/ (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Kamau, A.L.W. The Challenges in Preventing and Fighting Structural Fires in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. Available online: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/handle/123456789/6270 (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Cotton, M.; Kirshner, J.; Salite, D. The Politics of Electricity Access and Environmental Security in Mozambique. In Energy and Environmental Security in Developing Countries; Asif, M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 279–302. ISBN 978-3-030-63653-1. [Google Scholar]
- Bhatia, M.; Angelou, N. Beyond Connections: Energy Access Redefined; ESMAP Technical Report 008/15; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24368 (accessed on 13 September 2022).
- Dumitrescu, R.; Groh, S.; Philipp, D.; von Hirschhausen, C. Swarm Electrification: From Solar Home Systems to the National Grid and Back Again? In Sustainable Energy Solutions for Remote Areas in the Tropics, 1st ed.; Gandhi, O., Srinivasan, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 63–80. ISBN 978-3-030-41951-6. [Google Scholar]
- GNESD. Country Report (Kenya): Energy Poverty in Developing Countries’ Urban Poor Communities: Assessments and Recommendations. Urban and Peri-Urban Energy Access III; Report Prepared for the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development by The Energy, Environment and Development Network for Africa (AFREPREN/FWD); African Energy Policy Research Network (AFREPREN/FWD): Nairobi, Kenya, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Blimpo, M.; McRae, S.; Steinbuks, J. Why Are Connection Charges So High? An Analysis of the Electricity Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, R.; Wang, X.; Ackom, E.; Reyes, J. Energy Access Realities in Urban Poor Communities of Developing Countries: Assessments and Recommendations; Report Prepared for the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development (GNESD) by the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and the GNESD Secretariat. Summary for Policy-Makers; GNESD-SPM-UPEAI II-01/2015; Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development (GNESD); UNEP DTU Partnership: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015; ISBN 978-87-93130-21-0. [Google Scholar]
- Rutu, D.; Smyser, C.; Koehrer, F. Where and How Slum Electrification Succeeds: A Proposal for Replication; Live Wire 2019/100; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/31896 (accessed on 12 September 2022).
- Broto, V.C.; Stevens, L.; Ackom, E.; Tomei, J.; Parikh, P.; Bisaga, I.; To, L.S.; Kirshner, J.; Mulugetta, Y. A research agenda for a people-centred approach to energy access in the urbanizing global south. Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 776–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Kroon, B.; Brouwer, R.; van Beukering, P.J. The energy ladder: Theoretical myth or empirical truth? Results from a meta-analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melo, J., Jr. Os Desafios e Oportunidades de Acesso a Energia em Assentamentos Informais: Perspectivas do Município de Maputo [PowerPoint Slides]; Universidade Eduardo Mondlane: Maputo, Mozambique, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Muchiri, E. The Dark Slum. Muungano wa Wanavijiji. 24 March 2016. Available online: https://www.muungano.net/browseblogs/2016/03/24/the-dark-slum (accessed on 10 December 2021).
- Christley, E.; Ljungberg, H.; Ackom, E.; Fuso Nerini, F. Sustainable energy for slums? Using the Sustainable Development Goals to guide energy access efforts in a Kenyan informal settlement. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 79, 102176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovacic, Z.; Musango, J.K.; Ambole, L.A.; Buyana, K.; Smit, S.; Anditi, C.; Mwau, B.; Ogot, M.; Lwasa, S.; Brent, A.C.; et al. Interrogating differences: A comparative analysis of Africa’s informal settlements. World Dev. 2019, 122, 614–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sverdlik, A.; Mitlin, D.; Dodman, D. Realising the Multiple Benefits of Climate Resilience and Inclusive Development in Informal Settlements, New York. 2019. Available online: https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/realising-multiple-benefits-climate-resilience-and (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Akella, A.K.; Saini, R.P.; Sharma, M.P. Social, economical and environmental impacts of renewable energy systems. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 390–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castán Broto, V.; Salazar, D.; Adams, K. Communities and urban energy landscapes in Maputo, Mozambique. People Place Policy Onlines 2014, 8, 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IRENA. Off-Grid Renewable Energy Solutions to Expand Electricity Access: An Opportunity Not to Be Missed; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2019; Available online: https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Jan/Off-grid-renewable-energy-solutions-to-expand-electricity-to-access-An-opportunity-not-to-be-missed (accessed on 25 January 2022).
- Muungano Alliance. Youth Priorities: Mathare, Mukuru, Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya. 2022. Available online: https://www.muungano.net/publicationslibrary/2022/8/11/youth-priorities-9-demands-1-appeal (accessed on 3 December 2022).
- Janda, K.; Fennell, P.; Johnson, C.; Tomei, J.; Lemaire, X. Towards inclusive urban building energy models: Incorporating slum-dwellers and informal settlements (IN-UBEMs). In Proceedings of the European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Summer Study, Belambra Presqu′île de Giens, France, 3–8 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Jaglin, S. Off-Grid Electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Rural Experiments to Urban Hybridisations. halshs-02078148. 2019. Available online: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02078148 (accessed on 2 March 2023).
- Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt. SEED Initiative—Sustainable Energy Education Districts. Available online: https://www.seed-initiative.org/ (accessed on 13 March 2023).
- Knobloch, C.; Hartl, J. The Energy Kiosk Model. Current Challenges and Future Strategies. Issue 01. 2014. Available online: https://2020.endeva.org/publication/the-energy-kiosk-model-current-challenges-and-future-strategies (accessed on 31 August 2021).
- Resch, M.; Breyer, C.; Harborth, N.; Gaudchau, E.; Schnorr, F.; Wolff, M.; Bartschat, A. Solarkiosk–Abschlussbericht RLI; RLI gGmbH: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavernier, L.; Rakotoniaina, S. Review of Energy Kiosk Development Projects; Field Actions Science Report; Special Issue 15; Institut Veolia: Aubervilliers, France, 2016; pp. 66–67. Available online: https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/4165 (accessed on 27 March 2023).
- Chen, M. Optimal Electrification Planning in Sub-Saharan African Countries. Master’s Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA, 2021. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/2152/114794 (accessed on 14 March 2023).
- Blechinger, P.; Köhler, M.; Juette, C.; Berendes, S.; Nettersheim, C. Off-Grid Renewable Energy for Climate Action—Pathways for Change; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ): Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ortega-Arriaga, P.; Babacan, O.; Nelson, J.; Gambhir, A. Grid versus off-grid electricity access options: A review on the economic and environmental impacts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feron, S. Sustainability of Off-Grid Photovoltaic Systems for Rural Electrification in Developing Countries: A Review. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amupolo, A.; Nambundunga, S.; Chowdhury, D.S.P.; Grün, G. Techno-Economic Feasibility of Off-Grid Renewable Energy Electrification Schemes: A Case Study of an Informal Settlement in Namibia. Energies 2022, 15, 4235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertheau, P.; Oyewo, A.; Cader, C.; Breyer, C.; Blechinger, P. Visualizing National Electrification Scenarios for Sub-Saharan African Countries. Energies 2017, 10, 1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhattacharyya, S.C.; Palit, D. The Nexus of Grids, Mini-Grids & Off-Grid Options for Expanding Electricity Access. 2019. Oxford Policy Management. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339076931_The_nexus_of_grids_mini-grids_off-grid_options_for_expanding_electricity_access (accessed on 20 September 2022).
- Rabah, K.V. Integrated solar energy systems for rural electrification in Kenya. Renew. Energy 2005, 30, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngowi, J.M.; Bångens, L.; Ahlgren, E.O. Benefits and challenges to productive use of off-grid rural electrification: The case of mini-hydropower in Bulongwa-Tanzania. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2019, 53, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bahaj, A.; Blunden, L.; Kanani, C.; James, P.; Kiva, I.; Matthews, Z.; Price, H.; Essendi, H.; Falkingham, J.; George, G. The Impact of an Electrical Mini-grid on the Development of a Rural Community in Kenya. Energies 2019, 12, 778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaygusuz, K. Energy services and energy poverty for sustainable rural development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 936–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Den Heeten, T.; Narayan, N.; Diehl, J.-C.; Verschelling, J.; Silvester, S.; Popovic-Gerber, J.; Bauer, P.; Zeman, M. Understanding the present and the future electricity needs: Consequences for design of future Solar Home Systems for off-grid rural electrification. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on the Domestic Use of Energy (DUE), Cape Town, South Africa, 4–5 April 2017; pp. 8–15, ISBN 978-0-9946759-2-7. [Google Scholar]
- Okoye, C.O.; Oranekwu-Okoye, B.C. Economic feasibility of solar PV system for rural electrification in Sub-Sahara Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2537–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payen, L.; Galichon, I. Energy Access in Rural Togo: The Relevance Of The Energy Kiosk Solution, Paris. 2017. Available online: https://www.enea-consulting.com/en/publication/energy-kiosk-a-solution-for-rural-electrification-in-togo/ (accessed on 3 September 2021).
- Rabetanetiarimanana, J.C.I.; Radanielina, M.H.; Rakotondramiarana, H.T. PV-Hybrid Off-Grid and Mini-Grid Systems for Rural Electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa. Smart Grid Renew. Energy 2018, 9, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Opiyo, N.N. Impacts of neighbourhood influence on social acceptance of small solar home systems in rural western Kenya. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 52, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandelli, S.; Barbieri, J.; Mereu, R.; Colombo, E. Off-grid systems for rural electrification in developing countries: Definitions, classification and a comprehensive literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 1621–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, J.; Sievert, M. Impacts of rural electrification revisited—The African context. J. Dev. Eff. 2016, 8, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grimm, M.; Munyehirwe, A.; Peters, J.; Sievert, M. A First Step up the Energy Ladder? Low Cost Solar Kits and Household’s Welfare in Rural Rwanda. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2016, 31, 631–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- World Bank Group. Access to Electricity (% of Population)—Sub-Saharan Africa|Data. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=ZG (accessed on 19 April 2023).
- BloombergNEF. State of the Global Mini-Grids Market Report 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.seforall.org/system/files/2020-06/MGP-2020-SEforALL.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2022).
- Bos, K.; Chaplin, D.; Mamun, A. Benefits and challenges of expanding grid electricity in Africa: A review of rigorous evidence on household impacts in developing countries. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 44, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharyya, S.C. Review of alternative methodologies for analysing off-grid electricity supply. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moner-Girona, M.; Bender, A.; Becker, W.; Bódis, K.; Szabó, S.; Kararach, A.G.; Anadon, L.D. A multidimensional high-resolution assessment approach to boost decentralised energy investments in Sub-Saharan Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 148, 111282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilskog, E. Indicators for assessment of rural electrification—An approach for the comparison of apples and pears. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 2665–2673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuso Nerini, F.; Howells, M.; Bazilian, M.; Gomez, M.F. Rural electrification options in the Brazilian Amazon. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 20, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runsten, S. Energy Provision and Informality in South African Informal Urban Settlements: A Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessment of Energy Access Alternatives. Bachelor’s Thesis, KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Energy Technology, Energy Systems Analysis, Stockholm, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Franz, M.; Peterschmidt, N.; Rohrer, M.; Kondev, B. Mini-Grid Policy Toolkit: Policy and Business Frameworks for Successful Mini-Grid Roll-Outs, Eschborn. 2014. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/2014-mini-grid-policy-toolkit/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
- Bhattacharyya, S.C. Mini-Grids for the Base of the Pyramid Market: A Critical Review. Energies 2018, 11, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IRENA. Innovation Landscape Brief: Renewable Mini-Grids; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2019; Available online: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Feb/IRENA_Innovation_Landscape_2019_report.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2021).
- OMC Power Private Limited 603. Micropower Plant. Available online: https://www.omcpower.com/page/whatwedo (accessed on 31 March 2023).
- Narayan, N.; Chamseddine, A.; Vega-Garita, V.; Qin, Z.; Popovic-Gerber, J.; Bauer, P.; Zeman, M. Exploring the boundaries of Solar Home Systems (SHS) for off-grid electrification: Optimal SHS sizing for the multi-tier framework for household electricity access. Appl. Energy 2019, 240, 907–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukoro, V.; Sharmina, M.; Gallego-Schmid, A. A review of business models for access to affordable and clean energy in Africa: Do they deliver social, economic, and environmental value? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 88, 102530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharyya, S.C.; Palit, D. A critical review of literature on the nexus between central grid and off-grid solutions for expanding access to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 141, 110792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-García, A.; Ciller, P.; Lee, S.; Palacios, R.; de Cuadra García, F.; Pérez-Arriaga, J.I. A Rising Role for Decentralized Solar Minigrids in Integrated Rural Electrification Planning? Large-Scale, Least-Cost, and Customer-Wise Design of Grid and Off-Grid Supply Systems in Uganda. Energies 2022, 15, 4517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrasco, L.M.; Narvarte, L.; Lorenzo, E. Operational costs of A 13,000 solar home systems rural electrification programme. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mgwali, T. City Power pounces on illegal connections in informal settlement near Ruimsig. Roodepoort Record. 6 June 2022. Available online: https://roodepoortrecord.co.za/2022/06/06/city-power-pounces-on-illegal-connections-or-city-power-pounces-on-illegal-connections-in-informal-settlement-near-ruimsig/ (accessed on 4 April 2023).
- Omondi, A. Kenya Power Targets to Recover KSh 2b from Illegal Connections in Slum Areas. TUKO.co.ke. 5 November 2021. Available online: https://www.tuko.co.ke/411711-kenya-power-targets-recover-ksh-2b-illegal-connections-slum-areas.html (accessed on 4 April 2023).
- Sarker, S.A.; Wang, S.; Adnan, K.M.M.; Anser, M.K.; Ayoub, Z.; Ho, T.H.; Tama, R.A.Z.; Trunina, A.; Hoque, M.M. Economic Viability and Socio-Environmental Impacts of Solar Home Systems for Off-Grid Rural Electrification in Bangladesh. Energies 2020, 13, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Antonanzas-Torres, F.; Antonanzas, J.; Blanco-Fernandez, J. State-of-the-Art of Mini Grids for Rural Electrification in West Africa. Energies 2021, 14, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azimoh, C.L.; Wallin, F.; Klintenberg, P.; Karlsson, B. An assessment of unforeseen losses resulting from inappropriate use of solar home systems in South Africa. Appl. Energy 2014, 136, 336–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Antonanzas-Torres, F.; Antonanzas, J.; Blanco-Fernandez, J. Environmental life cycle impact of off-grid rural electrification with mini grids in West Africa. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kizilcec, V.; Parikh, P. Solar Home Systems: A comprehensive literature review for Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2020, 58, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Electricity Maps ApS. Live 24/7 CO2 Emissions of Electricity Consumption. Available online: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map?lang=de (accessed on 17 March 2023).
- Eales, A.; Unyolo, B. Renewable Energy Mini-Grids in Malawi: Status, Barriers and Opportunities, Glasgow. 2018. Available online: https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/64868/ (accessed on 2 April 2023).
- Numata, M.; Sugiyama, M.; Mogi, G. Barrier Analysis for the Deployment of Renewable-Based Mini-Grids in Myanmar Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Energies 2020, 13, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Come Zebra, E.I.; van der Windt, H.J.; Nhumaio, G.; Faaij, A.P. A review of hybrid renewable energy systems in mini-grids for off-grid electrification in developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 144, 111036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gill-Wiehl, A.; Miles, S.; Wu, J.; Kammen, D.M. Beyond customer acquisition: A comprehensive review of community participation in mini grid projects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Off-Grid | Close-to-the-Grid | Weak-on-Grid | Illegal Connection |
---|---|---|---|
Residents have no grid access. | Residents are in direct environment of transmission-lines, but not yet connected. | Residents are connected, but the electricity network is unreliable. | Supply is organized by intermediaries (e.g., cartels) illegally. |
KPIs | SHS and Pico Solar | Mini-Grid | Energy-Hub | Grid Extension | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical | System size | Pico Solar < 10 Wp SHS < 150 Wp [77] | 10 kW to >10 MW [77,78,79] | <35 kW: Size depends on residents’ needs, offered services, and availability of space [80]. | / |
Level of energy services and support of PUC | TIER 1–3 [5,76,81] No support for PUC | TIER 3–5 [82] PUC supports system profitability and sustainability. | TIER 1–4 PUC with limited energy demand is part of the system design. | TIER 5 [26] System should allow every range of electricity demand or service [6]. | |
Availability and reliability of services | Availability is limited to irradiation. Reliability dependent on usage and weather [76]. BESS drives costs upwards [60]. | Highly reliable and available. | Services should be available during opening hours and expected to be highly reliable. | Depends on power utility; the goal is a fail-safe electricity supply; illegal connections often highly unreliable. | |
Integrable in national grid | Operation parallel to the grid is possible. | If integration of RES in national grid is legal, connection is manageable. Feasible from a technical point of view, regulations need to be introduced from an economic point of view. | / | ||
Distance to national grid | Operation parallel to the grid or reselling with arrival of grid is possible. | Although concepts of grid integration exist, grid should be far away and not reach the site soon. | “close-to-the-grid” population can benefit due to reliable services. If E.H. is integrated in a grid, support of the reliability of the national grid is possible. | / | |
Sector coupling potential (e.g., cooling, e-mobility) | Not suitable. | Integrable. | Limited integrable. | Integrable. | |
Transferable to another site if the grid arrives | Highly transferable. | Not transferable. | Highly transferable. | / | |
Settlement, Household or infrastructure upgrading required? | No Settlement-, but limited household-upgrading is necessary. | Yes, e.g., poles. If houses are made of certain materials, connections can be refused [70]. | No upgrading is necessary. An open space is required. | Yes. If houses are made of certain materials, connections can be refused [70]. | |
Operation and Maintenance (OandM) needs | Low. | High: Higher voltage, hard- and software more complex, skills for OandM and monitoring needed [5]. | Responsibility of energy provider: Embedded in national OandM scheme. | ||
Upfront planning requirements | Low. | Complex. | Medium. | Complex. | |
Economic | LCOE | Very wide range depending on local conditions and country: 0.25 and 1.4 USD2019$/kWh [51]. SHS tend to be more expensive than Mini-Grids [69,77]. | Due to central- and lack of decentralized infrastructure cheaper than Mini-Grid. | Very wide range depending on tariff and country: <$0.1/kWh to >$8/kWh [51,83]. | |
CAPEX | High upfront cost for individual customer: ~300 USD/Kit [84]. | Very high due to inclusion of BESS: USD 1420/kW to USD 22,689/kW [69]. | Similar to Mini-Grid due to inclusion of BESS, but no distribution infrastructure. | High connection fees can occur [29]. | |
OPEX | 26.5% maintenance of total costs [85]. | 35–40% of lifetime cost [69]. BESS drives OPEX upwards. | Electrification in ISs costs utilities disproportionate amount of money due to illegal activities [86,87]. | ||
Revenue Potential/Return of investment | Upfront purchase or financed sale over 2–3 years [5]. Profitability given [88]. | Profitability depending on the economic-, financial concept, the ownership model. | Profitability depends on the economic, financial concept, the ownership model and local acceptance. | Profitability in the area of ISs difficult. System and monetary losses due to illegal activities [86,87]. | |
Number of customers | Very limited. | Limited with determined, fixed customers. | Limited with partly determined commercial actors and walk-in customers. | If generation meets demand: unlimited. | |
Social | Social acceptance | Acceptance is earned if system quality is satisfactory, and awareness was created. Neighboring influence is factor [64]. | With early engagement, interaction and awareness on operation and use: high acceptance [89]. | As a temporal solution according to [76]. Depending on the design, the services offered and the collaboration with the community. | Preferred solution according to [76]. Often mistrust between dwellers and governmental/power utilities [32]. |
Dynamic reaction to fluidity of customers | Flexible. | Limited. | Highly flexible. | Limited. | |
Vulnerability to illegal activities and theft | Panel theft can occur [90], but overcome by appropriate installation design, social capacity building, and education [76]. | By-passing is possible, Non-payment and theft should be included in the maintenance costs (OPEX) [69]. | Theft-secure design necessary. Risks of crime when carrying borrowed appliances (BESS, lights) to the HH [76] Deposits for borrowed appliances are to be introduced [46]. | Tampering is common via illegal connections and illegal sharing. | |
Socioeconomic situation of customers and illegal status | Illegal status irrelevant if upfront costs of SHS can be balanced. | Provision of legal documentation for connection difficult [12]. | PAYG, no long-term contracts necessary. | Provision of legal documentation for electricity connection difficult [69]. | |
Environmental | Complexity of terrain | High complexity [50,77]. | Low complexity [50,77]. | High complexity, but one free space needs to be accessible. | Low complexity [34,50]. |
Density of settlement | Suitable for dense settlements. | Complexity of implementation increases with the density. | One open space necessary, the density of the rest of the settlement is irrelevant. | Complexity of implementation increases with density. | |
Spatial implementation area | In both regions, rural and urban areas, implementable. | In both rural and urban area implementable, but rural area is more common. | In both rural and urban areas implementable. | In urban regions, connections are more economical. | |
CO2 footprint | Solar off-grid: 50–160 g CO2-eq/kWh [51,91]. | ~0 to >1000 g CO2-eqkWh [51], depending on electricity mix. | |||
Political/Regulatory | Legal Barriers | Low | High | High | Low |
Subsidy Framework | Grants and Subsidies are possible. FiTs do not apply due to self-consumption. | Grants and Subsidies possible. | Grants and Subsidies are possible. FiTs do not apply due to self-consumption. | Social tariffs for poor communities with low consumption. | |
Local ownership | Individual ownership. | Community ownership is possible, but not universally implemented. | Community ownership likely. | No ownership. | |
Capacity building potential | Possible within the SHS frame [92]. | High | High | Low |
KPIs | SHS | Mini-Grid | Energy-Hub | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Technical | System size | Not applicable | ||
Level of energy services and support of PUC | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
Availability and reliability of services | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
Integrable in national grid | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Distance to national grid | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
Sector coupling potential | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
Transferable to another site if grid arrives | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
Settlement, Household, or Infrastructure upgrading required? | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
Operation and Maintenance needs | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
Upfront planning requirements | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
Economic | LCOE | 1 | 2 | 2 |
CAPEX | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
OPEX | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Return of investment | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
Number of customers | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
Social | Social acceptance | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Dynamic reaction to fluidity of customers | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
Vulnerability to illegal activities and theft | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
Socioeconomic situation of customers and illegal status | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
Environmental | Complexity of terrain | 3 | 1 | 2 |
Density of settlement | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
Spatial implementation area | Not applicable | |||
CO2 footprint | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Political/ Regulatory | Legal barriers | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Subsidy framework | Not applicable | |||
Local ownership | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
Capacity building potential | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Besner, R.; Mehta, K.; Zörner, W. How to Enhance Energy Services in Informal Settlements? Qualitative Comparison of Renewable Energy Solutions. Energies 2023, 16, 4687. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124687
Besner R, Mehta K, Zörner W. How to Enhance Energy Services in Informal Settlements? Qualitative Comparison of Renewable Energy Solutions. Energies. 2023; 16(12):4687. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124687
Chicago/Turabian StyleBesner, Rebekka, Kedar Mehta, and Wilfried Zörner. 2023. "How to Enhance Energy Services in Informal Settlements? Qualitative Comparison of Renewable Energy Solutions" Energies 16, no. 12: 4687. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124687