Africa cooking with electricity (ACE) S Batchelor August 2015

1 Executive Summary National grid load profiles of many African countries suggest that

there is considerable room for using storage to move energy from

‘load valleys’ to ‘demand peaks’. eCook with its proposition for

built in storage in a battery could provide additional decentralised

benefit to national grid seeking to implement demand

management.

In order to assess the viability of eCook on grids, two key

questions needed to be answered. How much energy (on

average) does (would) an African household use per day cook

using electricity? And what will be the price to the consumer of

the electricity (per kWh). The paper presents the case for an

average consumption of 1.3kWh per day when cooking with

electricity for a family of four. The paper then presents the range

of electricity tariffs found in Africa, and shows that even at the

relatively high tariff of 20 US cents per kWh it would seem to

make economic sense (be cheaper) to use electricity for cooking

rather than charcoal (in some markets, i.e. where households are

spending more than $10 a month on charcoal).

Drawing on literature and interviews, the paper states that most

people do not cook with electricity partly due to awareness of

relative costs, but mainly due to its unreliability – the uncertainty

that it will be there when you need to cook. That lack of reliability

is influenced by the load profile of many grids, and the lack of

generating capacity at peak loads. The paper presents a typical

load profile from Kenya and illustrates how capacity often exists in

the night.

Among utilities strategies for load smoothing exist; the eCook

proposition is presented as one possible contributing factor for demand side management. It is

suggested that by incorporating a (substantial) battery for storage as part of the eCook equipment,

the consumers would be effectively adding decentralised storage to the grid system. Managed

effectively this could mitigate the need for new generating capacity.

A general willingness to pay for demand side management (and the consequential reliability) is

established by looking at genset use in various countries and situations.

Having discussed the possible role of eCook in national grids, it seems clear to us that an eCook

proposition could form the basis of a new and transformative strategy. If a large number of

households had personal storage, the grid as a whole would benefit. The cost effectiveness of this

solution would make the strategy worthwhile for government, utilities and consumers.

Gamos Working Paper (Aug 2015)

This working paper has been

prepared as a part of ongoing

research in Renewable Energy. In

particular, it is an output

contributing to the SAMSET

research project, the AGRICEN

research project, the READ

research project and the LCT

research project. Each of these

projects are partnerships funded

by the UK Engineering and Physical

Sciences Research Council (EPSRC),

the UK Department of

International Development (DFID)

and the UK Department for Energy

and Climate Change (DECC). On

each project Gamos is a Co-

investigator and collaborator. This

paper also informs the proposition

being championed by Gamos that

solar electric cooking will be a

cost-effective, emission-free

option for resource poor

households by 2020 (or earlier

given the landscape below!)

The paper proposed four steps to informing this strategy: -

Revisit and confirm the household economics to include a battery – to illustrate to potential

policy actors the value of the proposition for the consumer.

Identify actual viable markets – the proposition will be more viable in some places than

others. Again for the sake of the policy actors, work should be done on identifying places

(where charcoal price is high, electricity price low, load profiles are typical, renewables are

entering the system)

Plan for investment in the CapEx – some planning is required as to who will pay the upfront

costs of the eCook equipment. The working paper outlines four models, and further work

needs to be done to identify locations where each model might best work.

Develop cooking systems – eCook is not a single appliance or product. It is a range of

possibilities some of which may have socio-cultural drivers and barriers. There needs to be

ongoing work to develop and create innovative variations on the theme.

Contents 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

3 The key questions ........................................................................................................................... 3

4 How much energy (on average) does (would) an African household use per day cook using

electricity? ............................................................................................................................................... 3

5 What will be the price to the consumer of the electricity (per kWh) ............................................. 5

6 Bring the key numbers together ..................................................................................................... 7

7 Demand side management ............................................................................................................. 7

7.1 Strengthen existing grids? ....................................................................................................... 8

7.2 Mitigating peak loads .............................................................................................................. 8

8 Consumers creating their own reliable supplies ............................................................................. 9

9 Demand side management by genset .......................................................................................... 11

9.1 More storage......................................................................................................................... 12

10 Demand side management by battery ..................................................................................... 12

11 A truly new and transformative strategy .................................................................................. 14

11.1 Revisit the household economics to include a battery. ........................................................ 14

11.2 identify actual viable markets ............................................................................................... 15

11.3 Plan for investment in the CapEx .......................................................................................... 16

11.4 Develop cooking systems ...................................................................................................... 18

12 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 18

13 References ................................................................................................................................ 19

2 Introduction In May 2013, a transformative alternative to biomass for cooking was proposed. (Batchelor 2013)

The original concept suggested that stand alone household solar systems could make economic

sense and substitute for charcoal and wood cooking in Africa by 2020. The concept note stated that

solar and batteries were coming down in price, and that by 2020 their lifetime cost could be

equivalent to $10 a month. It was said that $10 a month or more real cash was spent by 1.6 billion

people in 400 to 600,000 households on charcoal and wood, and that if these people were offered a

system on a pay as you go business model that cost the same per month and yet was modern energy

with zero kitchen emissions, then biomass users across the world would have a transformational

cooking experience, lives saved, climate emissions reduced. For shorthand purposes we have called

this eCook.

While solar home systems are ‘sexy’ and suggest reaching the unreached in terms of modern energy,

the concept actually lends itself to much more than home systems. The cost effective substitution of

biomass by electricity suggests that a large proportion of current biomass users who are already

connected to a grid could transition –if conditions were right. Grid connected households generally

do not use electricity for cooking because of “unreliable and unstable” supplies (UNDP 2014). And

governments do not encourage consumers to use electricity because systems are already stretched

for peak loads. Peak loads generally occur at 6pm or thereabouts, and to add a few hundred

thousand cooking would tip most systems over.

However, at a National grid level if cooking solutions had demand side management built in, then

valleys in the load profile could be used. Any mini, micro, nano or household renewable energy

supply also has peaks of supply coinciding with lower demand, requiring storage to demand side

manage.

So a system that cost effectively stored energy and moved it from times of supply surplus to times of

demand is important. And if consumers themselves pay for this load smoothing through their

cooking fuel costs how much the better.

3 The key questions Therefore although the original concept note focused on the 2020 price of a solar home system sized

to cook, the key numbers that unlock cooking with electricity are:-

How much energy (on average) does (would) an African household use per day cook using

electricity?

What will be the price to the consumer of the electricity (per kWh)

4 How much energy (on average) does (would) an African household

use per day cook using electricity? This is a crucial assumption. So few Africans currently cook with electricity that it can barely be

supported with data. Households surveys show that those in the wealthier quintile do cook with

electricity in urban connected settings. However by being in the upper quintile of wealth, we must

treat their consumption with caution. First they tend to eat pre prepared food. Meals such as pasta

for instance have had energy invested in them in pre-preparation. This is reflected in the kitchen

cooking time and the cost of the pasta. Prime meat takes less time to cook than offal. By definition

the poor spend a longer time and more energy kitchen processing and cooking food.

Cowan (2008) supplies crucial data. Working with 80 households, he and his team asked people in

South Africa to cook real meals. He measured the fuel input for each meal, and made comparisons

on cost. For Ethno-gel, Kerosene and liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG), he converted the consumption to

MJ and an equivalent kWh. Each of these fuels is quite controllable and it is easy to ‘bring to the

boil, turn down heat to simmer’. This stands in contrast with wood and charcoal (which were not

included in the same batch of tests), where control of the heat is more difficult. This control alone

enables the cook to use less energy than they would with less controllable burns (e.g. wood and

charcoal)

Cowan works with the households to explore different types of meals, ranging from ‘quick’ pasta

meals to ‘long cook offal’ based meals. The results are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Energy consumption of different meals in kWh, Cowan 2008

A medium length meat stew on average takes just under 0.5 kWh. A very long meal, slow cooking

off cuts of meat for several hours takes on average 1.22 KWh.

These experimental data support a more theoretical study based on recipes of Africa based meals.

Figure 2 illustrates that most recipes in Africa take less than 0.5 kWh for a family of 4.

Most surveys report that approximately 50% of households in Sub Saharan Africa have two meals a

day. (eg Demographic and Health Survey, Tanzania 2010). The poorer quintiles of surveys tend to

have two meals a day. Also it should be noted that half of the households interviewed reported that

they had consumed no meat in the previous week, 20 percent took meat once, 16 percent took it

twice, and only 13 percent had meat three or more times. Since it is unlikely that a family will cook

two meals a day that require long cooking, we can assume that one meal might be medium to longer

cooking (0.8kWh), while the other is reheating or short term (0.5kWh).

It is therefore reasonable that the answer to the question “How much energy (on average) does

(would) an African household use per day cook using electricity?”

1.3kWh would cater for most of the needs of a family of 4.

Figure 2 Graph developed by author from data from range of sources, Batchelor 2015

5 What will be the price to the consumer of the electricity (per kWh) We have noted that those in Africa connected to the national grid barely use electricity to cook. This

is said to be because of the unreliability of the supply (Batchelor 2015). Since peak load is already at

6pm, governments and utilities rarely encourage cooking, knowing it will mainly add to peak loads.

However, let us assume that reliability of supply and peak loading could be overcome. Would it

make sense in terms of household economics for a transition from biomass to electricity?

Cowan (2008) translates the energy consumption into price data, and shows that electricity is

cheaper than the other alternatives in all but one scenario. He uses 2008 South Africa cost data.

How then does South Africa tariff compare to other countries? Figure 3 gives a comparison with the

rest of the world for tariff as at 2014, and figure 4 gives a comparison with other African countries as

at 2014.

As the figures show, some African tariffs are actually cheaper than Europe. The figures also show

that Cowan was in an environment of particularly cheap tariff.

Figure 3 Residential electricity tariffs in selected countries in 2014 in US$cents (BusinessTech 2014)

Figure 4 Residential electricity tariffs in selected African countries 2014, in US$cents (BusinessTech 2014)

6 Bring the key numbers together If we take the highest African country on our graph, Uganda, at 20 US$cents/kWh,

and use our figure of 1.3kWh as the average daily cooking requirement,

we get a monthly figure of $7.8 (for a 30 day month)

From this simple sum, we can see that cooking with electricity is competitive in terms of price within

many African countries. It could provide cooking at a lower fuel cost than biomass alternatives

(where biomass fuel is paid for). Bacon et al (2010) state that a sizeable proportion of households

that pay for biomass fuel, purchase more than $8 a month. Most of these references are from

several years ago, and recent data shows a trend of increasing price of charcoal in these countries.

Figure 5 The rising cost of charcoal in three African countries (EEP (2013))

7 Demand side management However while the naïve numbers suggest that electricity is a cost effective substitute fuel for

cooking in many African countries, the introduction to this paper highlighted the key problem with

using electricity. It noted that many African grid supplies were unreliable and unstable meaning that

households are reluctant to put their trust in it for a key feature of the life such as cooking (UNDP

2014).

While the naïve economics of the cost of electricity suggest that using electricity for cooking would

be reasonable for the household, it would appear from consideration of the peak loads on the grid

to be a potentially damaging policy. One solution would be to have stronger reliable and stable

national grids. This is the aspiration of many agencies and governments. However, such stability

and output increases require considerable investment. Such aspirations are tied into the ‘energy for

all’ agenda.

7.1 Strengthen existing grids? The challenge is not only to increase the reliability of national grids, and to increase generating

capacity to fulfil peak loads, but also to extend the reach of grids.

The Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative has committed to achieving universal access to

electricity by 2030 under. “Transforming the world’s energy systems will lead to new multi-trillion-

dollar investment opportunities to eliminate energy poverty, integrate and balance conventional and

renewable energy sources, address climate change and enhance prosperity in developed and

developing countries alike.” UNDP 2015

The challenge is daunting: 22 countries in the Africa Region have less than 25 percent access, and of

those, 7 have less than 10 percent access. Most of the papers written on this are pessimistic.

Population growth will outstrip the new supplies and they argue that “Unless there is a big break

from recent trends” the population without electricity access in Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to

increase by 58 percent, from 591 million in 2010 to 935 million in 2030. They lament that “more

than 40 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population is under 14 years old—if the current level of

investment in access continues, yet another generation of children will be denied the benefits of

modern service delivery facilitated by the provision of electricity.” World Bank Group 20015

The World Bank states that “Achieving universal access within 15 years for the low-access countries

(those with under 50 percent coverage) requires a quantum leap from their present pace of 1.6

million connections per year to 14.6 million per year until 2030.”

The language is a call for a something other than business as usual. The World Bank conceives this

as a step wise change in investment - requiring considerable investment. It estimates that the

investment needed would be about $37 billion per year, including erasing generation deficits and

meeting demand from economic growth. “By comparison, in recent years, low-access countries

received an average of $3.6 billion per year for their electricity sectors from public and private

sources”. The document calls for Bank Group‘s energy practice to adopt a new and transformative

strategy to help country clients orchestrate a national, sustained sector-level engagement for

universal access.

7.2 Mitigating peak loads However, as said, even with more generating capacity, the unreliability and instability is often tied to

the peak loads. Exceeding the peak loads on the grid cause some parts of the system to fail.

Cooking (with standard electrical appliances) would add to the peak load. Therefore the load profile

of the National grid becomes an important consideration in terms of policies. Figure 6 illustrates a

typical load profile with a specific one from Kenya.

Figure 6 Load profile of Kenya (Kanini 2013)

Kanini 2013, notes that demand side management could utilise underused generating capacity in the

middle of the night and mitigate the peak loading. This strategic use of storage would enable the

existing generating capacity to serve more people, potentially more reliably. In this paper we argue

that at a National grid level if cooking solutions had demand side management built in, then valleys

in the load profile could be used. A cooking system that cost effectively stored energy and moved it

from times of supply surplus to times of demand could be implemented without large scale

increases in the grid supply. In built storage could be used to mitigate peak loads.

Similarly, any renewable energy supply either stand alone, in mini micro or included in National grids

also has peaks of supply often coinciding with lower demand. Management of renewable energy

such as solar and wind also requires storage to demand side manage.

8 Consumers creating their own reliable supplies In effect, in some places consumers have already created a ‘new and transformative strategy’ –

albeit not a very cost effective one. In the context of unreliable and unstable national supplies,

many consumers run their own diesel and petrol generator sets (gensets).

For example, in Nigeria the Presidential Task Force on Power (PTFP 2015) estimated that electricity

demand in Nigeria stood at 12,800 MW, while the country was only able to produce 3,400 MW. In

response to this citizens and businesses have purchased their own generating sets, and in 2011 an

estimate was made that there was between 4000MW and 8000MW installed. Even the lower

estimate suggests that there is more installed power in self generation than in the national grid.

A 2011 World Bank survey (Ref) of 3,000 Nigerian business revealed that the biggest problem they

reported was unreliable power supply. Businesses reported that they experienced average power

outages of 8 hours per day. 88% of retail and manufacturing businesses survey reported owning

private generators. And the manufacturing businesses surveyed reported that approximately 69% of

their total electricity usage was produced by private generators. The expenses incurred running

private generators cost the average business the equivalent of more than 4% of their sales.

This is not unique to Nigeria. A survey of firms in other countries in Sub Saharan Africa, showed

significant proportions of the respondents citing electricity as a notable business constraint, as given

in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Electricity as a business constraint (Steinbuks & Foster 2015)

This is consistent with the example of Nepal, where 750MW installed hydro was contrasted with

750MW of gensets imported during the last 10 years by the ex minister of energy. (Gyawali 2015). .

The costs of own-generation are about three times as high as the price of purchasing (subsidized)

electricity from the public grid. However, because these generators only operate a small fraction of

the time, they do not greatly affect the overall average cost of power to industryi

Figure 8 Electricity as a business constraint (Steinbuks & Foster 2015)

While businesses and the tourist industries can afford to supplement the grid supplies with genset

electricity, only those households in the upper quintile could consider it. Management of unreliable

and unstable grid supply by domestic consumers seems out of reach.

9 Demand side management by genset So far we have focused on national grid supplies, and the business response to its unreliability and

instability. When we consider renewable energy systems, any mini, micro, nano or household

renewable energy supply also has peaks of supply that have to be managed, not because of

instability of the supply, but because of the nature of the supply.

For mini, micro and nano grids, renewable energy is often combined with diesel or petrol generators

to manage the peak demand. Solar by definition delivers its energy during the day, and in order to

fulfil peak loads that occur in the evening, hybrid systems use gensets in the evening. For instance

Figure XX shows the load curve of an actual diesel genset power plant supplying the village of Ain

Ehel Taya in Mauritania (Lena 2013). The figures show the actual production of the existing 55 kVA

diesel genset today (average daily load curve) and after adding a 16 kWp PV system with 150 kWh

battery, for a daily energy demand of 140 kWh.

Figure 9 Diesel genset power plant supplying the village of Ain Ehel Taya (Lena 2013)

Here the yearly PV penetration rate is 35%. Compared to just running the genset, hybridization

significantly reduces fuel consumption, improves genset performance (because genset running hours

at low load are reduced), reduces genset usage and thus extends its lifespan. However, gensets are

an expensive form of electricity and their use can be mitigated by inclusion of more energy storage

in the system.

9.1 More storage The following figures show the production of a 70 kWp PV system with 600 kWh battery added to a

diesel plant equipped with three diesel gensets (73, 125 and 175 kVA) in Cambodia, currently being

studied. In this case the PV penetration rate is 45%. Hybridization allows supply of the base load

with battery instead of using a small genset for 16 hours a day, which would result in poor

performance and a shortened lifespan.

Figure 10 Diesel genset power plant in Cambodia (Lena 2013)

Even in hybrid systems excessive use of diesel while providing stability, increases the cost per kWh.

10 Demand side management by battery We have seen that energy storage can mitigate the peak demands and more effectively use

renewable technology. Mini, micro, nano and home solar systems all tend to include batteries to

manage the match between generation and load profile. Until recently, lead acid batteries have

dominated the storage scene, but more recently Lithium Ion with its higher energy density has

opened up new possibilities. A recent article in the New Scientist appropriately sums up the worlds

current experience with Lithium Ion batteries. “Corporations and Governments are pouring billions

of dollars into improving existing battery technology – with some success.” Figure 11 shows the

changing proportions of the key battery technologies in use.

Figure 11 Share of global investment for battery chemistries (scienceofsingularity 2013)

Battery technology is now in everyday use. Mobile phones rely on batteries and consumers notice it

when they are discharged. The development of electric cars is creating a new opportunity, and this

also stimulates new developments in battery technology.

With this lowering of price of Lithium Ion batteries, there have also been innovations in demand side

management with renewable energy. In Germany the solar energy programme which encourages

Solar Photovoltaic panels on domestic roofs to feed into the grid via a ‘feed in tariff’, has enhanced it

programme by subsidising energy storage. Since 2013, 10,000 Lithium Ion storage batteries for Solar

have been subsidised to the tune of € 167 million.

Recently there was significant publicity about the Tesla power wall. While this too is a lithium Ion

based battery managed by electronics, the interesting feature of the publicity is that it is not only

promoted as an enhancement for solar systems, but also is for managing grid connections.

“Powerwall is a home battery that charges using electricity generated from solar panels, or when

utility rates are low, and powers your home in the evening. It also fortifies your home against power

outages by providing a backup electricity supply. Automated, compact and simple to install,

Powerwall offers independence from the utility grid and the security of an emergency backup.”

(Tesla 2015)

Here we see the promotion of energy storage, not only to support renewable energy, but to be at

the heart of demand side management, securing ‘reliability and stability’.

11 A truly new and transformative strategy The Tesla Powerwall, and other similar products, innovates around the idea that it is possible to have

consumer led demand side management. Whether national grid or some small grid (mini, micro,

nano, or even household), sufficient energy storage can provide consumers with reliability and

stability of supply, while contributing to peak load demands on the system (and thereby reducing

the generation required at peak load), and in some case reduce expense.

With this in mind, let us return to the state of African grid supplies. In some cases if a large number

of consumers had ‘Tesla Powerwalls’ (or an equivalent), a country could smooth the load and avoid

the need for power outages. For instance peak demand in Kenya is almost twice the base load, and

load smoothing would benefit the system. However, in other countries such as Nigeria, the gap

between demand and supply is beyond load smoothing and new plant is required. The call made by

the World Bank for investment in infrastructure is wholly relevant.

However, the Bank has also stated that the levels of investment required will be a challenge and

called for adoption of “a new and transformative strategy to help country clients orchestrate a

national, sustained sector-level engagement for universal access.” (World Bank 2015)

11.1 Revisit the household economics to include a battery. In this day of consumer democracy, perhaps one approach is to ‘consumer fund’ the investment

required. To encourage consumers to make the investment required.

We have noted that consumers currently pay each month for the cooking fuel. At the same time,

from a purely economic point of view, they could move to grid electricity for the same or similar

cost. However, they are constrained from this by the effect of cooking on the peak load, and its

impact of increasing the unreliability and instability of the grid supply (and therefore the lack of

encouragement by government and utilities).

Batchelor (2013) proposed a battery cooker combination that in effect would smooth the loads.

Charged at times of energy surplus, load valleys, connected households could use the stored energy

to cook when they wanted.

The cost of a Lithium Iron Phosphate battery is currently at around US$700per KWh (stored). This is

a manufacturers figure for stored energy given ‘sensible’ use – ie no excessive deep discharge, no

high working temperatures. Under these conditions Lithium Iron Phosphate is said to work for

between 1000 and 3000 cycles over its lifetime.

Assuming one day of cooking is effectively one cycle, the cost of the battery per day depends on our

assumptions on total number of cycles in the lifetime of the battery. If we assume 2000 cycles, then

the daily added cost of having a battery (at $700 per kWh) is US$ 0.35 per kWh per cycle (1kWhc).

This more than doubles the cost of cooking by electricity. In Uganda at US$0.2 per kWh from the

1 Batteries are rarely discussed in this way since the number of cycles depends on the system use of the battery, so we could not find a suitable nomenclature.

grid, the extra battery cost would raise the expenditure on 1.3kWh per day to $0.715 per day and to

$21.45 per (30 day) month. The premium is effectively a payment for reliability, and at $21 per

month is too high (in 2015)

However, these numbers depend on the battery cost per kWh and the assumptions on number of

cycles. Battery costs are expected to move towards $250 by 2020. At $250 per kWh, and keeping

the assumption at 2000 cycles for lifetime, the cost per cycle reduces to $0.125/kWhc bringing the

monthly cost to $12.7 per month (by 2020).

The figure of $250 per kWh may also be fulfilled by alternative chemistries in batteries. For instance

Sodium based batteries are not very energy dense and therefore have limited value in the phone

and electric car markets. However, they are said to be able to give greater discharge, and are

already working out at $400 per kWh. They are then said to give 10,000 cycles, which (if accurate)

means they already offer a solution at $0.04/kWhc, and a monthly cost of $9.4 They are also

predicted to reduce in cost further by 2020.

All of this depends on the number of cycles a battery can deliver in its lifetime. To date we have

limited data on this regarding operating lifetimes in higher ambient temperatures and rapid

discharge (C > 1).

11.2 identify actual viable markets It is important to realise that we have been using Uganda tariff figures at 20 cents as a baseline and

that other countries will likely be cheaper. Household consumption of charcoal varies considerably

and with the rise in charcoal costs there are many households that are likely to be paying up to $20 a

month for their biomass.

So the case for the equipment will vary location by location.

In terms of national grids, a likely market would have the load profile similar to Kenya. There should

be a load valley which can be stored and mitigate the peak load. If such exists policies would have to

be brought into place to encourage stored energy.

As we have seen above, the household economics seem viable even with the household paying the

normal grid tariff. One of the policy instruments that could encourage this transition would be to

offer a different tariff during certain hours of the day (night). Modern meters, particularly for new

build housing or new connections could easily include software to adjust for the such different

tariffs. For the utility, the benefit of night-time storage could be cost neutral as it would mitigate the

need for more generating capacity. At any battery scenarios with less than $0.1/kWhc it is likely that

the cost of the metering would be met by savings in generation capacity.

In terms of expansion of the grid, or the use of renewable energy, the inclusion of storage at the

point of delivery would also strengthen the business case.

For stand-alone grids, Consumers would be signed up for and using electricity at a sufficient level to

make the whole system more viable, and would smooth the supply/load profile. Peak supply in the

middle of the day, for instance from solar PV panels, would be stored and used in the evening. All

mini, micro, nano and home system solar installations have energy storage as part of their system

design. This is often already incorporated into the cost per kWh. At the moment solar systems tend

to operate at about $0.6 per kWh however this will reduce dramatically as the price of batteries

comes down. By linking the cost of electricity to that currently spent on charcoal, households and

communities may more easily sign up to regular consumption of modern energy making a stand-

alone system more viable.

However, for national grid it also makes sense. As the National grid incorporates renewables into

the national generating system, the grid may experience a mismatch of supply and demand. Having

enough storage in the system could mitigate this effect. Having consumers running decentralised

storage in domestic appliances could be a key to easier introduction of renewables.

Likely markets for a battery/cooker combination in a single appliance (from this point of view) are

therefore

National grids that have typical load profiles, with load valleys in the middle of the night,

and peak loads at or above existing capacity

National grids that are bringing into their generating mix renewables

Stand alone grids (mini, micro, nano or home systems) that are only viable if there are

economies of scale, such that total consumption matches the system cost, bringing cost per

kWh to within $0.3.

11.3 Plan for investment in the CapEx Upfront purchase of a device costing several hundred dollars is unlikely from most African

households and loan financing will likely be required. Four potential models need to be explored.

The national utility model. Given the benefits to the national grid, those managing the national

infrastructure could offer households the equipment on a pay as you go basis.

Either with smart metering or within the appliances inclusive of batteries, monitoring of energy

consumption could be related to the time of day. Night time charging is likely with the products as

described in the original concept notes, and this gradual use of energy during the night is likely to

utilise load valleys and benefit the grid system. The equipment could be ‘given’ to the consumer,

and its cost recovered through a slightly higher tariff on energy consumed by it.

If differential rates could be created, then the utility might further motivate the consumers to charge

their devices at a slightly cheaper night-time rate, or the ‘battery’ premium could be subsumed into

the night-time tariff (which would then remain the same as the day time tariff).

Note, as discussed briefly above the direct use of the grid for cooking is generally discouraged as it

contributes to the peak load. If a utility rolled out the battery/cooker combination, it might also

institute a premium tariff or penalty for households consuming a lot of energy at peak times.

Even without differentiated tariffs the national utilities could calculate the cost of new generating

capacity, and a cost benefit analysis could provide the basis for redirecting those funds into a roll ot

programme of ‘loaned’ equipment (ie equipment remains the property of the utility and its use is

dependent on consumers paying their utility bills.

Rural electrification model There is a demand for extending the grid to rural areas. One of the

challenges of rural areas is that the cost of extending the grid is high per households and yet

consumption of energy is relatively low. Thus recovery of investment costs is difficult.

The literature suggests that rural electrification programmes can invest between $300 and $2000

per household.

One proposition is that this finance be redirected from transformers and wiring to provide

households with the ecook devices with solar PV Panels. This would operate in a similar way to the

above national utilities, with equipment loaned to the household and cost recovery included within

their tariff.

The challenge here is that currently Solar PV systems operate at about S0.60 per kWh and this may

be too high to get people who perhaps only partly purchase their fuel to switch to modern energy.

In Kenya in 2007 for instance (GACC & GVEP 2012) 40% of rural households spent $7 a month on

biomass fuel. These figures suggest actual expenditure on biomass (as opposed to growing or

collecting it yourself) may be too low to encourage an alternative rural electrification programme

based around cooking – at least until about 2025.

Pay as you go model. There has been considerable success in rolling out solar lighting on a pay as

you go model. The equipment is owned by the company, the user pays for a number of

months/years, and at the end of term the equipment belongs to the user. This has found favour

with households who can substitute their expenditure on lighting for the monthly cost. Monthly

costs are often of the same order as has been discussed above, with MKopa charging $12 a month

for 18 months.

We understand that the challenge of this model is the raising of investment by the company to

undertake the initial roll out. Investors do get a return on their money, but the risk is quite high

given the complexity of rolling out and managing equipment.

A second challenge of this model is the variation in lifetime of the main components of a Solar PV-

ecook system. While it may seem attractive to create a solar home system, the anticipated lifetime

of the PV is of the order of 20 years. Our above calculations on cost were based on a battery of 2000

cycles, i.e. a lifetime of 5 years. Regarding Pay as you go models that offer people ownership of the

equipment at the end of term, if the payments are timed such that ownership completes in say 3

years, the consumer will have then have to find financing to replace the battery (2 years on), or be

left with 15 years of investment in Solar PV that cannot be used.

This balancing of replacement of parts of the system is perhaps best handled by the utility model (or

a pay as you go model that does not hand over ownership.

Loan financing model. Microfinance is now an established instrument for development activities.

The initial investment could be considered as part of microfinance portfolios. Larger sums are often

only loaned to households if there is a business plan for generating income. Microfinance

organisations often have rules preventing loans for ‘consumption’. This will likely require some

changes in microfinance guidelines. Solar equipment is already coming onto the portfolios of many

organisations, and helping financiers see that while the cooking equipment does not generate

income it would save significant (unavoidable) expenditure might be help them to add collar ecook

to the list of possible uses of a loan.

Given that the system substitutes for regular expenditure on charcoal (and wood), if loan financing

were made available the household should not find it difficult to repay – depending on the cost of

finance.

In practice, any or all of these models could be combined into workable solutions for finding the

cost. Utilities might make arrangements with finance organisations to give their customers

preferential loans. Pay as you go models might draw on more flexible arrangements.

So far in this paper the costs we have been using do not include costs of finance, profit and

distribution costs. In order to have a commercially sustainable system, it will be necessary to pass

these costs onto the consumer thus raising the per kWh cost, whether by utilities, pay as you go

companies of loan financiers.

11.4 Develop cooking systems We have repeatedly stated that the cost models are predicated on the descending price of batteries

(and Solar PV Panels). There is a need to undertake prototyping and innovation to ensure that the

best configurations of ecook emerge.

Batchelor 2013 presented the idea that a simple hot plate was the way forward, arguing that this

would represent the least necessary behaviour change (hot charcoal burner – hot electric plate).

However, once cooking with electricity is ‘accepted’, there is a wide range of other cooking products

that could be explored. Induction stoves are said to be more efficient in converting the electrical

energy to heat for cooking food. Batchelor avoids these because they require steel cooking pots,

and most pots in Africa are aluminium. It may be the case that once households have become

familiar with cooking with electricity, that a package of induction stove with relevant steel pots and

pans might be more accepted.

Similarly, existing pots and pans radiate heat to the side, wasting a lot of energy. When a pot is

being used on a charcoal burner, the energy going up the side of the pot, and/or being radiated from

its side is barely relevant to the total cost of the fuel. With electrical cooking, savings can be made

by ensuring a good fit between pot and hob, and by lowering the losses. Food is cooked by

temperature not energy per se, and so if a pot is raised to cooking temperature, the energy require

to cook the food is dependent on the energy required to maintain the temperature. Rice cookers

use small amounts of energy by insulating the sides and retaining heat. One way forward would be

to develop packages of insulated pots and pans that maximised cooking temperatures for minimal

energy input. (Ref Nottingham)

This evolution or innovation of the cooking package will of course be highly dependent on the

cultural styles of cooking and the willingness for households to change behaviour. These are not

insignificant challenges.

12 Conclusion National grid load profiles of many African countries suggest that there is considerable room for

using storage to move energy from ‘load valleys’ to ‘demand peaks’. eCook with its proposition for

built in storage in a battery could provide additional decentralised benefit to national grid seeking to

implement demand management.

In order to assess the viability of eCook on grids, two key questions needed to be answered. How

much energy (on average) does (would) an African household use per day cook using electricity?

And what will be the price to the consumer of the electricity (per kWh). The paper has presented

the case for an average consumption of 1.3kWh per day when cooking with electricity for a family of

four. The paper then went on to present the range of electricity tariffs found in Africa, and showed

that even at the relatively high tariff of 20 US cents per kWh it would seem to make economic sense

(be cheaper) to use electricity for cooking rather than charcoal (in some markets, ie where

households are spending more than $10 a month on charcoal).

However, the paper drawing on literature and interviews, went on to state that most people do not

cook with electricity partly due to awareness of relative costs, but mainly due to its unreliability –

the uncertainty that it will be there when you need to cook. That lack of reliability is influenced by

the load profile of many grids, and the lack of generating capacity at peak loads. The paper

presented a typical load profile from Kenya and illustrated how capacity often existed in the night.

Strategies for load smoothing exist, and the ecook proposition was given as one possible

contributing factor for demand side management. It was suggested that by incorporating a

(substantial) battery for storage as part of the ecook equipment, the consumers would be effectively

adding decentralised storage to the grid system. Managed effectively this could mitigate the need

for new generating capacity.

A general willingness to pay for demand side management (and the consequential reliability) was

established by looking at genset use in various countries and situations.

Having discussed the possible role of ecook in national grids, it seems clear to us that an ecook

proposition could form the basis of a new and transformative strategy. If a large number of

households had personal storage the grid as a whole would benefit. The cost effectiveness of this

solution would make the strategy worthwhile for government, utilities and consumers.

The paper proposed four steps to informing this strategy: -

Revisit and confirm the household economics to include a battery – to illustrate to potential

policy actors the value of the proposition for the consumer.

Identify actual viable markets – the proposition will be more viable in some places than

others. Again for the sake of the policy actors, work should be done on identifying places

(where charcoal price is high, electricity price low, load profiles are typical, renewables are

entering the system)

Plan for investment in the CapEx – some planning is required as to who will pay the upfront

costs of the ecook equipment. The working paper outlines four models, and further work

needs to be done to identify locations where each model might best work.

Develop cooking systems – ecook is not a single appliance or product. It is a range of

possibilities some of which may have socio-cultural drivers and barriers. There needs to be

ongoing work to develop and create innovative variations on the theme.

13 References Bacon R Bhattacharya S & Kojima M 2010 Expenditure of Low-Income Households on Energy, World Bank

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTOGMC/Resources/336929-1266963339030/eifd16_expenditure.pdf

Batchelor S (2013). Is it time for Solar electric cooking for Africa? Gamos Concept note, May.

http://www.gamos.org/images/documents/Is%20it%20time%20for%20solar%20electric%20cooking%20One%

20pager%2018062013.pdf

Batchelor S (2015). Cooking with electricity in Africa in 2020. A transformational shift? Royal Geographical

Society Annual International Conference 2015. http://lcedn.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/RGS-Delivery-

Models-2015-Simon-Batchelor.pdf

BusinessTech 2014 Webpage accessed Aug 2015 http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/71291/south-africa-

electricity-prices-vs-the-world/

Cowan B (2008). Identification and demonstration of selected energy best practices for lowincome urban

communities in South Africa. Project Deliverable No. 17 of Alleviation of Poverty through the Provision of Local

Energy Services APPLES, Project no. EIE- 04-168, Intelligent Energy Europe

Demographic and Health Survey Tanzania 2010 ; National Bureau of Statistics Dar es Salaam, Tanzania ICF

Macro Calverton, Maryland, USA April 2011

http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR243/FR243%5B24June2011%5D.pdf

EEP (2013) “ANALYSING BRIQUETTE MARKETS IN TANZANIA, KENYA AND UGANDA” Graph data Sources:

Camco analysis and projections with data from (KNBS, 2006- 2012; Ferguson, 2012; WB, 2009)

http://www.harvestfuel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/AnalysisReport_BriquetteMarkets_Final.pdf

GACC/GVEP 2012 Kenya Market Assessment Sector Mapping GVEP/GACC

http://cleancookstoves.org/resources_files/kenya-market-assessment-mapping.pdf

Gyawali D 2015 Video presentation accessed Aug 2015 http://lcedn.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/04/LCEDN-Durham-24-3-15-Dipak-Giawali.pdf

Kanini M 2013 Energy Efficiency: A kenya power perspective; THE KENYA POWER PERSPECTIVE AFRICA

CARBON EXCHANGE (ACX) ENERGY EFFICIENCY WORKSHOP APRIL 24-25th 2013

http://www.slideshare.net/ACX_Africa/energy-efficiency-a-kenya-power-perspective

Lena 2013 Rural Electrification with PV Hybrid Systems Overview and Recommendations for Further

Deployment, IEA PVPS Task 9, Subtask 4, Report IEA-PVPS T9-13:2013 CLUB-ER, Thematic Paper ISBN : 978-3-

906042-11-4

PTFP 2015 Webpage accessed Aug 2015 http://www.nigeriapowerreform.org/

scienceofsingularity 2013 webpage accessed Aug 2015 http://scienceofsingularity.com/2015/07/29/the-

battery-revolution-that-will-let-us-all-be-power-brokers/

Steinbuks, Jevgenijs, and Vivien Foster. "When do firms generate? Evidence on in-house electricity supply in

Africa." Energy Economics 32.3 (2010): 505-514.

Tesla 2015 Webpage accessed Aug 2015 https://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/powerwall

UNDP 2015 SDG 7 webpage accessed Aug 2015

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sdgoverview/post-2015-development-agenda/goal-7.html

World Bank (2015b) World Bank Enterprise Survey

https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/data/exploreTopics/Infrastructure

World Bank Group 2015 World Bank Group Support to Electricity Access, FY2000-2014 AN INDEPENDENT

EVALUATION https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/Data/reports/Electricity_Access.pdf