| Main knowledge bank page |
Recent additions |
Recent changes |
What links here |
Categories |
Category cloud How-to guides | Organisation profiles | Project profiles | |
Page of Marlett Balmer[top] [end]Who am IMy name is Marlett Balmer (Wentzel)and I live and work in Pretoria South Africa. I hold a Masters degree in Development Studies, a B.Comm Honors (Energy Studies) and a B.A Honors degree from the University of Johannesburg and am currently registered as a PhD student in the Institute for Technological Innovation, Univeristy of Pretoria. I am a partner in PDC, a boutique-type research and consulting firm specialising in development, energy and education. I have been working in the energy field for more 12 years and completed more than 50 energy and development related research projects. I received the Eskom eta award as Woman in Energy 2003 for her contribution towards the energy sector in South Africa.[top] [end]Household energy experienceMy areas of interest and specialisation are:
A full description of all our completed and current projects can be found on our website www.pdc1.co.za I provide an overview of the last 2 completed projects: [top] [end]Project example 1: A desktop study to investigate the global best practice for solar water heating manufacturersThe project was carried out by PDC and Synopsis, a French-based renewable energy research organisation and funded by the Central Energy Fund (CEF) in South Africa. The main aim of the research was to inform the South African public/private sector of global best practice for available SWH technologies, warranty periods, pricing, and standards. The main outputs of the project were:
The research was conducted through a desk-top analysis of technical and market data. Data collection was through a structured questionnaire, e-mailed to a contact database of SWH manufacturers whose contact details were obtained from the web, trade publications, personal contacts and existing reports. Some difficulties encountered were:
[top] [end]IntroductionRenewable energy technologies are often cursed with the simplicity of their basic designs. For example, most engineers take one look at a solar cooker and declare âI can design a better/more efficient oneâ¦â? A Solar Water Heater (SWH) is another renewable energy technology that is based on fairly simple designs utilising the basic laws of physics but at least the technology does not prompt instantaneous reaction to re-design or improve it all the time. The technology has been around for more than 40 years, yet has failed to make significant in-roads in the various markets for hot water. Notable exceptions are the Israel, Greek and Turkey markets where SWHs have enjoyed significant market penetration. Solar water heating is however, generating interest again, internationally due to energy security issues, as well as locally in South Africa where the potential contribution of SWHs to the reduction in peak electricity demand and achieving renewable energy targets is prompting some positive developments. Solar water heating is not an alien technology in South Africa and a number of product suppliers and manufacturers are active in the relatively small market in South Africa. However, a number of serious barriers exist that prevent the technology from taking off in a significant manner and the Central Energy Fund (CEF) has been tasked to address a number of issues related to solar water heating in South Africa. The paper is based on a study commissioned by CEF to investigate the global best practice for available SWH technologies, warranty periods, pricing, and standards. The paper will provide an overview of the research results, a brief description of the lessons to be learned from other countries in terms of solar water heating as well as highlight key recommendations to enable the development of the solar water heating industry in South Africa.[top] [end]Finding / OutcomesIn answer to the question which solar water heating systems would be appropriate for the South African market, most proposed systems were split systems, either with collector and tank as separately installable elements, or with collector and tank mounted onto a common support ("mono-blocs"). No integrated solar water heaters (where collector and tank are the same element) were proposed. Group A manufacturers proposed direct (without heat exchanger) and indirect (with heat-exchanger) systems, with gravity flow and pumped. Group B manufacturers proposed mostly indirect pumped systems. Vacuum tubes are dominant in China; in other countries, mostly flat plate collectors were proposed.[top] [end]Prices in Group A and Group B countriesPer m² of collector surface, Group A water heaters only cost 38% of the Group B models, per unit tank volume 43%. For indirect models, per unit tank volume, the Group A models cost half of the Group B models. For indirect pumped systems, Group A models cost two third of Group B models. It can be seen that for the more elaborate designs the price difference decreases.Table 1: Prices (in Euro) per square meter and per litre Retail prices (in Euro) for complete systems are shown below.  Tables and figures are provided in the attachment (17 KB)Group B solar water heating retail prices are situated between 2000 and 5000â¬, Group A model retail prices show an asymmetrical distribution around 1500â¬. Tables and figures are provided in the attachment (17 KB)Figure 1: Retail prices Group A and B For the scope of this study, it was important to compare ex-factory prices. The distributions of per-unit ex-factory prices for an order of 100 units, as well as for an order of 1000 units are shown below. Tables and figures are provided in the attachment (17 KB)Figure 2: Ex-factory price per unit (100) It should be noted that the samples represented in the histograms are not identical, since not all manufacturers quoted all the different prices. Tables and figures are provided in the attachment (17 KB)Figure 3: Ex-factory price per unit (1000) The price information presented so far concerned systems of different sizes. Since larger systems tend to be more expensive than smaller ones, it is useful to calculate "specific" prices (i.e. prices per unit of tank volume or per collector aperture unit). The most frequently offered prices were â¬3.50 per litre (e.g. â¬700 for a SWH with a 200 litre tank) and â¬200 per m² (e.g. ⬠800 for a SWH with 4 m² collector aperture surface). The average per m² retail price, including installation, distribution and VAT, for South African SWHs has been found to be ZAR3736 by Holm (2005). Using figures for installation and distribution published in the same study, this corresponds to an ex-factory price (excluding VAT) of ZAR2340, or â¬277 (at the exchange rate of 24/05/2006). The figure below shows a comparison of this price with the 100 unit ex-factory prices proposed by the manufacturers replying to the questionnaire of this study. The entry marked in red corresponds to the average South African price (Holm, 2005) which is 20% higher than the average prices observed in the present study. Tables and figures are provided in the attached file (17 KB)Figure 4: Ex-factory price m2 collector area (100) It should be noted that this comparison must be read with caution, not only due to the variations in the ZAR exchange rate, but also because:
However, the comparison indicates that there is a price reduction potential for SWH produced in South Africa. Typical warrantee periods are one year for tanks (6 years for collectors) from Israel, two years for India, three years for China, and between 5 and 6 years (up to 10 years in one case) for other countries. [top] [end]Lessons learned and repeatabilityA solid majority of experts believe that the best and the most cost-effective market stimulation schemes are of the structure of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act for the production of renewable electricity:
It is not easy to apply this structure to the case of solar water heating, since SWH cannot feed back hot water into the electricity grid. However, the special situation of RSA allows a direct application of this scheme, for the reason that SWH mainly replace electricity in "geysers". Use of a SWH therefore is equivalent to the production of electricity (one could call this "virtual" electricity feed into the grid). To illustrate the issue, consider two neighbours (one with a SWH) who take a shower each every day. On rainy days, both will use electricity, on sunny days, the SWH will heat the water and no electricity will be used by the "solar" neighbour. For all practical purposes, this is equivalent to both neighbours being non-solar, and one of them feeding a shower's worth of electricity into the grid, each sunny day. In this scheme, investment into SWH can be a personal decision, open to all stakeholders, users, utilities, investors, and to the state. In summary, the following observations were made during the course of the study:
[top] [end]The following recommendations are put forward:
[top] [end]Project example 2: Discussion paper prepared for the workshop "National Stakeholder Consultation on Gender and Energy for CSD 14"A framework of 8 goals, 18 targets, and 48 indicators to measure progress towards the Millennium Development goals was adopted by a consensus of experts from the United Nations Secretariat and IMF, OECD and the World Bank. To refresh memories and contextualise the discussion, the eight millennium development goals (MDGs) are:
Energy is specifically mentioned in four of the indicators of target 9 under goal 7:
Although energy is not specifically mentioned in relation to other goals, targets or indicators, it can be argued that energy plays a central part in all the MDGs and without access to adequate energy sources, development becomes more difficult to achieve. This is supported by Cowan et al (1999) who states that energy itself is often not the top priority concern in a particular locality. Often there are other more basic concerns, such as improved water supplies, roads and employment creation and energy does not feature on such a list of development priorities. However, energy is an essential input or requirement for development. Without energy, water pumping, ploughing, processing and transporting agricultural produce becomes impossible. Without energy, and specifically electricity, businesses can not develop and grow â telephones, computers, lights and industrial equipment can not work. However, Cowan et al (1999) cautions that âthere is not a simple connection between improved energy supplies and âdevelopmentâ? and that improved energy provision is only one of the elements along the way, and may not make a big difference by itselfâ?. The energy-gender-poverty link is also not explicitly highlighted in the MDGs, targets or indicators but recognised by practitioners as of importance in achieving the MDGs. To contextualise further, it should be noted that the term âgenderâ? is used in varying contexts, for example when discussing womenâs issues or as a politically correct statement to include in policy discussions or funding proposals. White (1989) states that because gender is viewed as a womanâs issue, this biased view have had negative outcomes for women in reverse to what it aimed to achieve. Sengendo (2004) notes and summarises that gender is a two dimensional concept: first within the development paradigm, gender is an analytical variable used to analyse policies, programmes or projects and how these impact differently on men and women. Secondly, gender describes the social relations between men and women and the way this is socially constructed by society. Gender is considered important in energy, because it influences energy choices and energy use; through the specific gender roles of men and women (men and women need energy for different things and they use energy differently) and because of âgender relationsâ? which, refers to the underlying balance of power between men and women in society, from which gender roles and gender contracts are derived. Following from the different gender roles of men and women, are gender needs, specifically practical and strategic gender needs. When both needs are addressed, there is emphasis to mainstream gender issues in all aspects of the society, so that the focus not only remains on gender issues linked to women being users of energy, but also to aspects such ensuring participation of women in all decision-making processes and ensuring gender is incorporated in planning as well as policy formulation. The full paper achieves two objectives:
[top] [end]Project example 3: Vosman Basa Njengo Magogo alternative fire lighting method implementation projectHigh levels of air pollution associated with household coal burning create human health problems and unnecessary expenses in terms of health costs to individuals, employers and the national government. In the interest of community development and social investment, Anglo Coal supported a project to popularise an alternative fire lighting method to reduce air pollution. Anglo Coal appointed PDC to implement a Basa njengo Magogo alternative fire lighting method demonstration project in Wards 7, 8 and 9 of Vosman Township near Witbank. The project aimed to demonstrate the Basa njengo Magogo (BnM) method to 10 000 households in the identified project area within the winter months of June, July and August 2006. Although Anglo Coal sells only to Eskom or export markets and no Anglo coal is used by households in Emalahleni, air pollution has been identified as an area of concern for both the company and the local community. Anglo Coal supports the project in the interest of community health and general environmental improvement of the area. The Basa njengo Magogo project is endorsed by the Department of Minerals and Energy, Department of Environmental Affairs and the Emalahleni Local Municipality.Vosman township lies off the N4 highway just before Witbank. The area has a mix of formal and informal housing and although basic service delivery has been improved, specific parts of Vosman remain without electricity and proper housing. The project was implemented in Wards 7, 8 and 9 with Ward 7 being the largest and most informal. The area was selected for the project by the Municipality, Ward Councillors and Anglo Coal. Originally, only Wards 8 and 9 were earmarked for the project but to reach the target of 10 000 households, Ward 7 had to be included. Households in Vosman obtain coal by purchasing from coal merchants as well as by collecting coal from a nearby old coal dump. Households donât admit freely to collecting coal from the dump as it is prohibited and they can be prosecuted. Collecting from the dump is also dangerous and households report hearing explosions (most possibly from methane gas) and the coal caving in. The quality of the collected coal is also very low since it is full of stones, very big in size, brittle and reportedly does not burn well and is difficult to light. Lastly, out of the 8 coal yards selling coal that were interviewed, 1 admitted selling coal from the dump site. However, the project team suspects that more merchants are selling coal from the dump or mixing it with coal bought elsewhere. The 26 fieldworkers were divided into 9 groups, and each group had to do a minimum of 2 BnM demonstrations per day. At the end of the project, some groups made more than 2 demonstrations per day but at individual households, bringing the average number of people reached per demonstration down. In total 893 demonstrations were held over the demonstration period with an average of 12 people attending per demo. The majority of demonstrations were held in the street, although some demonstrations were held inside someoneâs house by special request. In follow-up visits to households, 534 households responded positively to the question if the method was tried at home after the demonstration - 90% of the sample. Out of the 534 respondents who did try the method at home, 528 reported that they were successful and that the method worked â 99% were successful. In total, 66 respondents (or 11% of the sample) reported that they were not successful in using the method. The majority of respondents (465) saw a demonstration in the street, 106 saw a demonstration in a house, 6 saw it at a school and 1 person saw a demonstration at a coal yard. In total, 555 interviews were conducted during the monthly follow-up visits. In total, 535 respondents or 96% of the sample indicated that they were using the BnM method to make a fire. On the suggestion made by Anglo Coal, interviewers also had to indicate if they actually witnessed the household making a BnM fire or having just made a BnM fire. Interviewers reported that they actually saw the BnM method used in 487 of the households visited â or 87% of the sample interviewed. A total of 12 396 households were reached during the demonstration period. Furthermore, during the household daily follow-up visit, households indicated that they would be willing to tell and show other people the method. In the monthly follow-up interviews, 389 respondents indicated that they have told someone about BnM while 368 respondents indicated that they have shown someone how to make a BnM fire. In terms of the frequency of household fires, 173 households or 31% of the sample reported no change in the frequency of their fires. A total of 124 households still make only one fire a day while 49 households reported still making two fires per day. Therefore, 69% of the sample reported making fewer fires per day with the BnM method: Figures are provided in the attached file (18 KB)Figure 1: Fire making frequency of households Households who purchase their coal in bags, reported the following savings per month: Figures are provided in the attached file (18 KB)Figure 2: Coal savings for households buying coal in bags Figures are provided in the attached file (18 KB)Figure 3: Coal savings for households buying coal in buckets A small number of households (15) also reported saving 1, 2 or 3 wheelbarrows per month, but since this was only reported by such a small sample it was only included in the total coal savings for the area. In total, based on the weight of coal per bag, (around 30 kilograms) households saved on average 28 kilograms of coal per month (the equivalent of almost 1 bag) or in total more than 7 tonnes over the project period. Based on the weight of a bucket of coal, households saved 4.7 kilograms of coal per month (the equivalent of 1 bucket or tin of coal) and in total, households using tins saved 920 kilograms of coal over the project period. This would mean that households using coal bought in bags are saving almost R50 per month while households using tins are saving almost R20 per month. Marlett Balmer marlett@... www.pdc1.co.za User:Marlett Balmer 26 September 2006 | |
Page created:
26 September 2006; Last edited:
31 October 2006; Version: 3 | |
Pagename: User:MarlettBalmer @HEDON: HMDA | |
