Slashdot Mirror


African Villages Glow With Renewable Energy

Peace Corps Online writes "The NY Times reports that as small-scale renewable energy becomes cheaper, more reliable and more efficient, it is providing the first drops of modern power to people who live far from slow-growing electricity grids and fuel pipelines in developing countries playing an epic, transformative role. With the advent of cheap solar panels and high-efficiency LED lights, which can light a room with just 4 watts of power instead of 60, these small solar systems now deliver useful electricity at a price that even the poor can afford. 'You're seeing herders in Inner Mongolia with solar cells on top of their yurts,' says energy adviser Dana Younger. In addition to small solar projects, renewable energy technologies designed for the poor include simple subterranean biogas chambers that make fuel and electricity from the manure of a few cows, and 'mini' hydroelectric dams that can harness the power of a local river for an entire village. 'It's a phenomenon that's sweeping the world; a huge number of these systems are being installed,' says Younger."

172 comments

  1. I hate to be selfish by Zerth · · Score: 3, Funny

    But where can I buy these cheap lighting systems? If they're cheap enough for a yurt, I can probably get a payment plan.

    1. Re:I hate to be selfish by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A lot of the work is being done by http://www.lightingafrica.org/ and you can look at the member list there. It's pretty unwieldy, since Africa is a giant continent, but the article itself mentions at least two companies:

      http://www.fireflyledlight.com/
      http://www.huskpowersystems.com/

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:I hate to be selfish by toppavak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amazon, actually. D.light is one of the smaller manufacturers in terms of the size of their systems. The larger systems on the market are a bit harder to find in the developed world.

      This stuff represents one of the smartest applications of solar power- too expensive to justify at power-plant scales, yet the infrastructure-free nature of panels makes them ideal for distributed generation where the grid doesn't reach.

    3. Re:I hate to be selfish by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      A 4W LED will produce approx the same amount of light as a 4.5 - 5W CFL bulb or a 15 - 20W incandescent bulb, in other words, enough to stop you tripping over things when you go to the bathroom at night, but not really any use for anything more than that.

    4. Re:I hate to be selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the article neglects ( who reads TFA ) is the fact that this cheap as chips growth in green tech down in Africa is due to "Low Cost Chinese" equipment from panels, inverters to CFLs
      Still wanna complain about how China is undercutting business in the First World?
      Complain away

      A cursory google search will show multiple chinese firms who sell cheap equipment to consumers there.... while we are stuck with expensive sh1t

    5. Re:I hate to be selfish by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not correct. A 25 watt CFL is about the same amount of light as a 60 watt incandescant. A 4 watt LED is roughly the same; LEDs are about as much more efficient than CFLs as CFLs are as incandescents.

    6. Re:I hate to be selfish by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

      A 4W LED will produce approx the same amount of light as a 4.5 - 5W CFL bulb or a 15 - 20W incandescent bulb, in other words, enough to stop you tripping over things when you go to the bathroom at night, but not really any use for anything more than that.

      I recently purchased some 7W LEDs GU10 Halogen replacements and was told, over the phone, that the conversion factor you should use is 8x. Now they are installed, I'd say that seems a reasonable rule of thumb.

    7. Re:I hate to be selfish by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's in a lamp on a table, or next to where you're sitting on the ground, it's enough to read by. Extending available work hours to beyond sunset allows for more time for education. It also increases the time available for work. Both can result in reduced poverty.

    8. Re:I hate to be selfish by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      CFLs and LEDs are about the same (unless you want to use only green LEDs): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    9. Re:I hate to be selfish by tiq · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can buy one at Ikea for twenty bucks, and they will give another one to Unicef.

      http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/about_ikea/our_responsibility/ikea_social_initiative/sunnan_lamp_campaign.html

    10. Re:I hate to be selfish by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Informative

      I looked at LED bulbs here http://www.clasohlson.co.uk/product/category.aspx?category=light+bulbs:LEDs&id=88601375&_path=251882;85177594;88601372;88601375
      CFL bulbs here http://www.clasohlson.co.uk/product/category.aspx?category=light+bulbs:energy+saving+bulbs&id=88601373&_path=251882;85177594;88601372;88601373
      and incandescents here
      http://www.clasohlson.co.uk/product/category.aspx?category=light+bulbs:incandescent+bulbs&id=88601377&_path=251882;85177594;88601372;88601377

      Incandescents typically produce about 10 lm/W. CFL bulbs typically range between 40 - 50 lm/W There is one bulb that only does 25 lm/W and one that does 59 lm/W.

      LEDs manage about 60 lm/W - the range was 43 lm/W to 67 lm/W, so they are a little bit more efficent than CFLs, but not that much. The main advantage is that they switch on instantly, whereas CFLs take a while to warm up. The main disadvantages are the poor colour spectrum range and much lower lm/cm^3 so you need a much larger bulb to get the same amount of light.

      Looking at your specific figures. I see a 60W incandescent that produces 710 lm of light. I see a 14w CFL that produces slightly more at 750 lm. The most efficient 2W LED bulb on sale produces 135 lm. There aren't any 4W bulbs but two 2W bulbs would produce 270 lm which is about 38% of the output of a 60W incandescent.

    11. Re:I hate to be selfish by trum4n · · Score: 1

      They don't exist in America, ill tell you. Land of the "OMG i can charge more for that cause it's SOLAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!"

    12. Re:I hate to be selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The physically correct conversion factor is between 4 and 5, for both CFLs and LEDs. Anything beyond 5 is currently only attributable to the suggestive powers of the human mind. Better color rendition usually means a conversion factor closer to 4, whereas a conversion factor closer to 5 usually means bluish light with a low color rendering index. LEDs can still improve, further improvements in CFLs are unlikely (the coating absorbs some visible light, but if you make it thinner, more ultraviolet light also escapes the bulb, so that's not a viable improvement).

      Rule of thumb: 60W incandescent = 15W CFL = 15W LED

    13. Re:I hate to be selfish by BergZ · · Score: 1

      As soon as my current fleet of CFLs burn out I plan to replace them with LEDs because of the lower Mercury content.

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
    14. Re:I hate to be selfish by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      LEDs do have one advantage that makes exaggeration valid in some uses. LEDs are directional, and small enough that even if they weren't directional a very small lens or mirror can be used to concentrate the light where it's wanted.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    15. Re:I hate to be selfish by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Never hurts, but do keep in mind when discussing mercury that simply smashing the CFLs upon EOL (not recommended btw) releases less mercury than would be released by a coal-fired powerplant powering incandescent lights over the same time period. Just something to think about - a lot of people really bring the hate to CFLs over that concern.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    16. Re:I hate to be selfish by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Directionality of LEDs is not always a bonus. The pelican afterglow PS3 controller has 7 ridiculously bright green LEDs. two of them are pointed directly into your eyes while holding the controller normally. I had to wrap the thing in black electrical tape.

    17. Re:I hate to be selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy one at Ikea for twenty bucks, and they will give another one to Unicef.

      http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/about_ikea/our_responsibility/ikea_social_initiative/sunnan_lamp_campaign.html

      Wish I could mod you up. I've got a couple of these lamps, and they're bright enough to read by at night. The only inconvenience is remembering to put them by a window during the day so that they recharge.

    18. Re:I hate to be selfish by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The funny thing about that is that it is a personal example of why lame arguments on Slashdot can be a good thing. When CFLs first started hitting the streets, I tried them for energy savings, and was very disappointed with some of their problems. While talking about them on Slashdot, I mentioned the mercury 'problem'. As you can imagine, there were a dozen people ready to call me an idiot because the coal plant releases more mercury than the CFL has. While they could have been more polite, a little research, and I verified that they were right. So, I learned something new, and my ego will recover from being wrong in an internet discussion.

    19. Re:I hate to be selfish by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      I hate to be a shill, but TG sells a variety of powerful LEDs featuring:

      13W Consumption, 100W incandescent light output (900 Lumens)
      5W Consumption, 75W incandescent light output (400 Lumens)
      10W Consumption, 75W directional incandescent light output (400 Lumens)

      They also sell a stupidly-pimped out 5W with no info on output.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    20. Re:I hate to be selfish by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      The real reason poverty is so rampant in Africa, however, is not the lack of after-sundown lighting, it's the rampant corruption, preventing anything worthwhile from getting done without copious bribes to numerous officials and people of 'importance'.

      Extending education time is laudable, but without addressing the foremost cause of the retardation of development, it's not going to make that big a difference whilst corruption is so widespread and entrenched.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    21. Re:I hate to be selfish by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. My HP printer has a blinking LED that was driving me crazy. I had to cover it up with tape.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    22. Re:I hate to be selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cree says they have 160lm per watt leds. http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1271079100891

    23. Re:I hate to be selfish by Brafil · · Score: 1

      Is there any reason for you to assume that Africans are unintelligent? Or is it maybe that greedy, morally corrupt Europeans and Americans totally ruined their continent a couple of centuries ago?

    24. Re:I hate to be selfish by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      A 4W LED will produce approx the same amount of light as a 4.5 - 5W CFL bulb or a 15 - 20W incandescent bulb, in other words, enough to stop you tripping over things when you go to the bathroom at night, but not really any use for anything more than that.

      I don't know what a yurt is, but I'm guessing it doesn't have a bathroom.

    25. Re:I hate to be selfish by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

      Their 150W equal super spot looks an awful lot like the Sylvania Ultra series I've seen in the stores. Checking the Sylvania site though I don't see a bulb that looks like that with multiple lenses like I could swear I've seen in Lowes :-( I would sure like to know more about how these things perform real world before plunking down cash. Buying the $30 units from Lowes (cheapest around I could find) was one thing since I have so many different places to try a standard bulb but floods and spots not so much - I only have two places and they cost 3x as much. In the right place, in the right fixture, LED beat any other bulb IMO...

      BTW Costco has been selling some LED strips for under counter mounting that run off of a 5volt transformer, can be chained together, and have an IRDA remote for cheap. I haven't been able to find them on their site to link but are called Peli Link Lights. Each module is a foot long and you can chain up to 9 of them. They use stereo headphone style connectors to join. Adhesive mounts that come with them blow but zip tie saddle mounts solves that cheap. Check them out :-)

      If you want to build your own lights DealExtreme sells high powered LEDs mounted and pucks to drive them too...

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    26. Re:I hate to be selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both can result in reduced poverty.

      Until a large portion of the population are doing the same thing. Then the added education and additional hours of work will not provide a leg up on the competition, but be a minimum requirement to keeping up with them. Supply and demand can suck sometimes.

    27. Re:I hate to be selfish by evilviper · · Score: 1

      But where can I buy these cheap lighting systems?

      Actually, that one is quite easy... they're usually called solar pathway lights. You're expected to encircle your driveway and walkway with them, where they give off a pathetic small amount of light for a couple hours...

      Now then, if you remove the top piece and toss the junk housing, you have a self contained lighting system. You can pretty well get away with just drillings an LED sized hole in the roof of your yurt, and dropping the LED it through. Instant dirt cheap lighting.

      Sure, they look like crap in your yard, but the bare LED shining down on you is bright enought to read by... The smaller the area, the less light you need. Additionally, you should note many people throw these things away, frequently... either because they're terrible for their stated purpose, because the housing falls apart, or because the junk NICD battery is no longer holding a charge. In the later case, a pack of NiMH batteries will make them better than new.

      And they'll last longer if you add a very simple switch (or just cut one LED lead and bend it back and forth to close and open the circuit) so that the batteries don't get a shallow charge each day then drain to 0 every night...

      How much cheaper can you get? You can get your solar light directly out of the trash.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    28. Re:I hate to be selfish by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with your statement. Except it's not just the rampant corruption. There's also the power hungry warlords and dictators who run many of the African nations. You know, the ones who can't be bothered to feed their people (or allow them to feed themselves).

  2. Ever been in a yurt? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    A yurt is essentially a surface biogas chamber. Owing mainly to the yak milk they drink all year long.

  3. Registered users only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears that the article cannot be read without registering with the New York Times.

    1. Re:Registered users only by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Google "bugmenot nyt".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Registered users only by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=232874

      KIPTUSURI, Kenya (The New York Times) — For Sara Ruto, the desperate yearning for electricity began last year with the purchase of her first cellphone, a lifeline for receiving small money transfers, contacting relatives in the city or checking chicken prices at the nearest market.

      Charging the phone was no simple matter in this farming village far from Kenya’s electric grid.

      Every week, Ms. Ruto walked two miles to hire a motorcycle taxi for the three-hour ride to Mogotio, the nearest town with electricity. There, she dropped off her cellphone at a store that recharges phones for 30 cents. Yet the service was in such demand that she had to leave it behind for three full days before returning.

      That wearying routine ended in February when the family sold some animals to buy a small Chinese-made solar power system for about $80. Now balanced precariously atop their tin roof, a lone solar panel provides enough electricity to charge the phone and run four bright overhead lights with switches.

      “My main motivation was the phone, but this has changed so many other things,” Ms. Ruto said on a recent evening as she relaxed on a bench in the mud-walled shack she shares with her husband and six children.

      As small-scale renewable energy becomes cheaper, more reliable and more efficient, it is providing the first drops of modern power to people who live far from slow-growing electricity grids and fuel pipelines in developing countries. Although dwarfed by the big renewable energy projects that many industrialized countries are embracing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, these tiny systems are playing an epic, transformative role.

      Since Ms. Ruto hooked up the system, her teenagers’ grades have improved because they have light for studying. The toddlers no longer risk burns from the smoky kerosene lamp. And each month, she saves $15 in kerosene and battery costs — and the $20 she used to spend on travel.

      In fact, neighbors now pay her 20 cents to charge their phones, although that business may soon evaporate: 63 families in Kiptusuri have recently installed their own solar power systems.

      “You leapfrog over the need for fixed lines,” said Adam Kendall, head of the sub-Saharan Africa power practice for McKinsey & Company, the global consulting firm. “Renewable energy becomes more and more important in less and less developed markets.”

      The United Nations estimates that 1.5 billion people across the globe still live without electricity, including 85 percent of Kenyans, and that three billion still cook and heat with primitive fuels like wood or charcoal.

      There is no reliable data on the spread of off-grid renewable energy on a small scale, in part because the projects are often installed by individuals or tiny nongovernmental organizations.

      But Dana Younger, senior renewable energy adviser at the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank Group’s private lending arm, said there was no question that the trend was accelerating. “It’s a phenomenon that’s sweeping the world; a huge number of these systems are being installed,” Mr. Younger said.

      With the advent of cheap solar panels and high-efficiency LED lights, which can light a room with just 4 watts of power instead of 60, these small solar systems now deliver useful electricity at a price that even the poor can afford, he noted. “You’re seeing herders in Inner Mongolia with solar cells on top of their yurts,” Mr. Younger said.

      In Africa, nascent markets for the systems have sprung up in Ethiopia, Uganda, Malawi and Ghana as well as in Kenya, said Francis Hillman, an energy entrepreneur who recently shifted his Eritrea-based business, Phaesun Asmara, from large solar projects financed by nongovernmental organizations to a greater emphasis on tiny rooftop systems.

    3. Re:Registered users only by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Mod this up,

      +1 copyright infringement

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:Registered users only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, was unable to read the article on NYTwat.com

      Plea to slashdot users ... please mod my post up so more people see the link below

      "Its possible to give the gift of electricity to more people for the cost of a six pack -- cummon we can forego the sixpack for a year right? "

      http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com/Green-gifts.html
      while the Solar-powered home @ $575 may be steep. Why not gift a goat.

      This Christmas managed to get a donkey, a sheep and some manure.... wife got a kick out of the manure bit because thats what she put under the tree for me.

      do your bit, don't be a cynic

    5. Re:Registered users only by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      If the nearest town with electricity is 3 hours away, how are they powering the towers? Why would they even have towers around there?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  4. There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I keep seeing these stories about how some poor sod is able to light his house with HE solar lights. But that is kind of trivial. What people need is useful amounts of power. The kind that can run a computer, or a blender, or a power saw.

    Without that, all you've done for them is saved them the trouble of lighting a torch. Or a lantern.

    1. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by ekgringo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but just imagine the billions of metric tons of carbon that torches add to the atmosphere. Won't someone please think of the atmosphere?

    2. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A blender so you can blend what? A computer so you can use what software or access what network? A power saw? Maybe useful, but all you've done for them is saved them the trouble of cutting the wood themselves.

    3. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I keep seeing these stories about how some poor sod is able to light his house with HE solar lights. But that is kind of trivial."

      Really? Turn off all your lights and leave them that way as an experiment.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to break it to you but torches aren't as convenient as the ones in Minecraft (although real-world gamma isn't as screwed up as MC's).

      The West had oil lamps long before gas lamps but that didn't stop the brighter but differently-dangerous gas lights from replacing oil lamps. It didn't take long for the much brighter AND safer electric light to replace gas lights.

      Any sort of combustion based light (or heat) source is going to give off soot and smoke and carries the risk of easily setting things on fire. None of those are healthy for humans. They also give off limited amounts of light while consuming relatively expensive fuel (do you use the fuel for light or for cooking?).

      Clean energy for cooking would probably better than lighting but lighting takes a lot less energy than cooking so if you've only got a handful of watts to work with lighting is the obvious choice.

    5. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Especially if you live in a place where you can broil something by putting it in a tinfoil U or black box at noon...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      If you RFTA, it is saving him the money he used to spend fueling his kerosene lamp, and it is more environmentally friendly, and he can recharge his new cell phone with it, which was the main reason for getting the thing.

    7. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Lighting is the first thing that these poor people need. With lighting they get an extra 4 to 6 hours in a day where they can effectively work in their home without the fuel costs that traditional lighting involves. Like the article said, one woman with the lights noticed her children had dramatically improved grades because they had the opportunity to study at home.

    8. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by fmobus · · Score: 1

      Maybe useful, but all you've done for them is saved them the trouble of cutting the wood themselves.

      and God forbid those pesky Africans be spared of menial work by using more efficient, automated tools.

    9. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can blend the power saw, edit the video on their computer, upload the video to youtube, and make money from ads.

    10. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "I keep seeing these stories.."

      If you'd actually _read_ the fucking stories, you'd know that torches don't grow on trees, or more accurately that all the trees have already been removed for torches. Lanterns need fuel, available only after several hours of traveling and paying up several middlemen and they burn toddlers and risk burning the whole house or village down.
      The saved fuel pays for the LED systems.

    11. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      They are useful amounts of powers. Lighting and communications (i.e., power for mobile or radio) are the most useful things that need electricity.

    12. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Solar ovens work great in most of the 3rd world and provide essentially free energy for cooking on most days. Sadly they don't seem as well known as solar panels and LEDs.

      I suppose of the problems is securing your food while you're gone for the day. Don't want to come home to a nicely fed neighbor and an empty oven.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    13. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What people need is useful amounts of power. The kind that can run a computer, or a blender, or a power saw."

      What is useful to those people is the fact that with these lighting systems their children can study for school after sunset.

      "Without that, all you've done for them is saved them the trouble of lighting a torch. Or a lantern."

      Fuel for that kind of lighting is not free, but sunlight is.

    14. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by afidel · · Score: 2

      noticed her children had dramatically improved grades because they had the opportunity to study at home.

      And THIS is why it may be one of the most important inventions of all time. Nothing will help raise the standard of living and reduce overall pollution in the world as much as increased education.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    15. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by whitehaint · · Score: 0

      Ah but isn't the point trying to bad that electric lights does not make for life changing evolution? I mean seriously, the industrial revolution was well under way before electric lights were around.

    16. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very good point. This and the bicycle.

    17. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      But... but... didn't you know? The only barrier to affluence in Africa is the tragic dearth of blenders and powersaws! Every day, you hear it in the villages and in the countryside, the yearning for a Black and Decker...

    18. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What people need is useful amounts of power.

      The most "useful" energy these people have is the joules created by the food they eat. What they need is the ability to improve their standard of living, and an extra few hours of light will go a long way to helping that happen. Whether allowing them to sew clothing or study algebra, their main source of energy is still going to be calories. But the light gives them opportunity they otherwise would not have.

    19. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      RTFA is a crime on Slashdot :P

      Reminds me of the "No-Kero"(sene) initiative, for providing solar-powered lamps to poor homes. While it doesn't provide an option to charge your cellphones, it does help eliminate Kerosene-related problems. Also, they are in a single handy, sturdy package, unlike the rather complex solar setup described in the article. They have been installed in places like Kenya and donated to the flood-affected areas of Pakistan.

      The current problem is how to mass produce these to avail economies of scale and help reduce per-unit cost. Currently they are at a prohibitively expensive $20/unit (though it reduce a bit, but not much, for bulk purchases). Especially since, the article states that the "Firefly" solar setup costs a mere $12 for it's cheapest model, and can light a bulb *and* charge a cellphone. (The one she bought is for $80, and runs four bulbs)

      The manufacturer themselves admit it is not something which can be quoted to poor 3rd world families with a straight face, when you can get solar garden lamps for a couple of dollars. However, unlike the garden lights, these, as I understand, are built for harsher handling, and provide more Lumens.

      Link: http://www.nokero.com/

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    20. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they just hire Mexicans to do it? I thought we decided that was the most efficient way.

    21. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by BrentH · · Score: 1

      Please check you sarcasm detector: it's broken.

    22. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by minchazo · · Score: 2

      Lanterns need fuel, available only after several hours of traveling and paying up several middlemen and they burn toddlers and risk burning the whole house or village down.

      Wait, wait... They burn toddlers in Kenya for fuel? Man that's harsh :(

    23. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A house lit in a dark evening means more time for productive (i.e. money-earning activity), and more time for study - reading books and such. These can change things.

    24. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and that happes when power outages occur. I light a few candles and can see plenty well.
      The problem is the food in the freezer possibly going off, and that I can't work on my laptop if the batteries are flat.

      So yes, "There's more to electricity than lighting".

    25. Re:There's more to electricity than lighting. by fritsd · · Score: 1

      A computer so you can use what software or access what network?

      I dunno, maybe this computer using this software and accessing this network seems a good start.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  5. Reading light by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't underestimate the importance of having interior light after sundown. In many villages, it is impossible to do any reading or studying since there is no artificial light, and work must be done outside while the sun is up. We take for granted the ability to read a book after the sun goes down, but this ability is critical for poor people in developing nations to better themselves.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Reading light by feepness · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't underestimate the importance of having interior light after sundown. In many villages, it is impossible to do any reading or studying since there is no artificial light.

      I don't understand. Why don't they just switch from e-ink readers to LCD tablets?

    2. Re:Reading light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> it is impossible to do any reading or studying since there is no artificial light

      What, Kindles don't have a backlighting mode?

    3. Re:Reading light by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Most of these places are actually using something more advanced than a simple LCD tablet; a wireless platform that never needs charging!

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/3/9/

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Reading light by noidentity · · Score: 2

      Or just burn a book to light the room. Oh, wait...

    5. Re:Reading light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many villages, it is impossible to do any reading or studying since there is no artificial light,

      So they're so poor they can't afford candles?
      Or maybe they're studying how to make candles?

        I guess I'm still confused how LED lighting can be cheaper than incandescent (or a candle).
      Or maybe the LEDs used in these countries get to use lead (and other ugly stuff) to reduce costs.

    6. Re:Reading light by The+Shootist · · Score: 1

      Funny (interesting) how old Honest Abe Lincoln managed to study (by candlelight) after sundown.

      As long as these solar panels and LED lights are paid for by something other than my tax dollars, I suppose it's OK.

    7. Re:Reading light by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess I'm still confused how LED lighting can be cheaper than incandescent (or a candle).

      Not every place in the world has centralized, reliable electricity. Running a generator in a remote location requires regular maintenance and spare parts, distribution wires to every home, and a reliable source of gasoline or diesel. Using LED lamps means needing less than a tenth of the generation and storage capacity you would need for incandescents -- each home can supply its own needs with a single moderately-sized and -priced panel. Not only that, but LED lamps will last orders of magnitude longer than incandescents (close enough to 'forever' in this application as to make no difference), and are virtually unbreakable -- there are also places on Earth where you can't just drive your SUV to Wal-Mart for a new pack of bulbs.

      Candles don't suffer from being off-grid, but have you actually ever tried to light a room using just candles? If you're trying to illuminate (for reading and writing, or any sort of detailed handwork) instead of just trying to get freaky on the couch, candles are a pretty crappy source of light. You need a lot of open flames to avoid eyestrain, which means both a large attendant fire risk and - for the entire village - literally tons of candles every year.

      If you give a man a candle, he'll have low-quality light for an evening. If you give a man an LED lamp and solar panel, he'll have light for decades. The higher up-front cost is more than balanced by the near-zero recurring cost and - particularly - by the socioeconomic benefit of reliable, constant, work-compatible night-time light.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    8. Re:Reading light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record, I'm a US citizen and I'd be happy to see some of my (and your) tax dollars pay for this.

    9. Re:Reading light by lysdexia · · Score: 1

      Probably the same way Malcom X did in prison: with great damage to his eyeballs.

    10. Re:Reading light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still seems like you're talking about a huge up-front cost (again, we're talking about people who don't have disposable cash reserves) versus a small, but recurring cost.
      And if you've already got power generation (via solar or diesel/gas) then the bulb technology you choose isn't going to make a huge difference -- we're not talking about running a 24-hour greenhouse.

      $$ for LED light(s) [1]
      vs
      0.0$/month for incandescent bulb(s) [2]
      + 10x the power (adding only a little $ per month)

      No argument that LED is the technically superior solution (minus the mercury and other nasties), but it doesn't make economic sense.
      Especially when you're asking people to spend several months salary just to buy a few bulbs which may pay for themselves in several years.

      [1] Single LED bulb (60 watt equivalent) - $40
      [2] 24 Pack of 60watt bulbs - $13

    11. Re:Reading light by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      He lived in a place were candles were easily available and his family could afford them with no trouble. This is not the situation these folks are in. Even if it was possible. candles are dangerous and expensive in reoccurring costs.

      I would be happy to see our tax dollars go for something like this.

    12. Re:Reading light by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand. Why don't they just switch from e-ink readers to LCD tablets?"

      We'll call that comment the "Marie Antoinette response".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Reading light by afidel · · Score: 2

      Fuel oil for a lamp adds up over a fairly short time to more than a small LED/solar combo torch of equivalent brightness. And since they have extremely long life it's likely that governments and NGO's can subsidize them as it's closer to teaching a man to fish than it is to giving him a fish (say a months supply of lamp oil).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    14. Re:Reading light by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Candles aren't cheap. You only think they're cheap because you never use them. To adequately light a room takes several candles at least, and you need to replace them every few days at best. One of the biggest draws of electric lighting, once it had been fully developed (and before that, gas lighting), was how much *cheaper* it was than using candles.

    15. Re:Reading light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember somewhere about Abraham Lincoln reading books by candlelight. Do you think no one in Africa has thought of this? It is not obvious that some electric lamp is better than a palm oil-powered lamp anyway.

  6. Subject and body conflict, again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When did Inner Mongolia move to Africa?

    1. Re:Subject and body conflict, again... by Asmor · · Score: 1

      Didn't Russia attack Mongolia and annex it to Africa?

      Wait, that's not right. Is it? I can never remember if annex means what I think it means.

    2. Re:Subject and body conflict, again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jigsaw Risk. Two forms of entertainment combined into one!

  7. Re:Link Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KIPTUSURI, Kenya — For Sara Ruto, the desperate yearning for electricity began last year with the purchase of her first cellphone, a lifeline for receiving small money transfers, contacting relatives in the city or checking chicken prices at the nearest market.

    Charging the phone was no simple matter in this farming village far from Kenya’s electric grid.

    Every week, Ms. Ruto walked two miles to hire a motorcycle taxi for the three-hour ride to Mogotio, the nearest town with electricity. There, she dropped off her cellphone at a store that recharges phones for 30 cents. Yet the service was in such demand that she had to leave it behind for three full days before returning.

    That wearying routine ended in February when the family sold some animals to buy a small Chinese-made solar power system for about $80. Now balanced precariously atop their tin roof, a lone solar panel provides enough electricity to charge the phone and run four bright overhead lights with switches.

    “My main motivation was the phone, but this has changed so many other things,” Ms. Ruto said on a recent evening as she relaxed on a bench in the mud-walled shack she shares with her husband and six children.

    As small-scale renewable energy becomes cheaper, more reliable and more efficient, it is providing the first drops of modern power to people who live far from slow-growing electricity grids and fuel pipelines in developing countries. Although dwarfed by the big renewable energy projects that many industrialized countries are embracing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, these tiny systems are playing an epic, transformative role.

    Since Ms. Ruto hooked up the system, her teenagers’ grades have improved because they have light for studying. The toddlers no longer risk burns from the smoky kerosene lamp. And each month, she saves $15 in kerosene and battery costs — and the $20 she used to spend on travel.

    In fact, neighbors now pay her 20 cents to charge their phones, although that business may soon evaporate: 63 families in Kiptusuri have recently installed their own solar power systems.

    “You leapfrog over the need for fixed lines,” said Adam Kendall, head of the sub-Saharan Africa power practice for McKinsey & Company, the global consulting firm. “Renewable energy becomes more and more important in less and less developed markets.”

    The United Nations estimates that 1.5 billion people across the globe still live without electricity, including 85 percent of Kenyans, and that three billion still cook and heat with primitive fuels like wood or charcoal.

    There is no reliable data on the spread of off-grid renewable energy on a small scale, in part because the projects are often installed by individuals or tiny nongovernmental organizations.

    But Dana Younger, senior renewable energy adviser at the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank Group’s private lending arm, said there was no question that the trend was accelerating. “It’s a phenomenon that’s sweeping the world; a huge number of these systems are being installed,” Mr. Younger said.

    With the advent of cheap solar panels and high-efficiency LED lights, which can light a room with just 4 watts of power instead of 60, these small solar systems now deliver useful electricity at a price that even the poor can afford, he noted. “You’re seeing herders in Inner Mongolia with solar cells on top of their yurts,” Mr. Younger said.

    In Africa, nascent markets for the systems have sprung up in Ethiopia, Uganda, Malawi and Ghana as well as in Kenya, said Francis Hillman, an energy entrepreneur who recently shifted his Eritrea-based business, Phaesun Asmara, from large solar projects financed by nongovernmental organizations to a greater emphasis on tiny rooftop systems.

    In addition to these small solar projects, renewable energy technologies designed for the poor include simple subterran

  8. Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0

    I call semi-bullshit. I've put a solar panel array in the back yard. 4, 80-watt kyoceras charging as many batteries. It works fine, but it wasn't cheap (about $3000 for panels, box, charge controller, inverter). And it doesn't do much. Yes, it runs small lights, a TV and a computer. Maybe a drill and a blender. Forget it for cooking. And forget it if you have a string of cloudy days.

    For my money, the current crop of solar panels and batteries are still pretty poorly designed, expensive and inefficient. At the very least, scalable solar power systems should have been integrated (battery, panel, and inverter in one box) and modularized for plug and play long ago. I know Clarian Power is trying to do this, but they don't have a shippable product yet.

    At the moment I'd put it into the category of a rich man's toy. If there are *cheap* solar panels, I'd love to know where to buy them. If anyone has a line on cheap *non-touchy* nickel-iron batteries, i'd like to hear about that too.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

      People in poor areas aren't running all those appliances; they're running 4-watt light bulbs per TFS. Plus prices in the US aren't the same as around the world.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by BattleWaryMushroom · · Score: 2

      These are smaller panels, intended for basic needs--i.e. lights after dark. 4 Watts for several hours lighting a room, or even a small portion of a farm plot for plants or livestock... Now productivity doesn't stop at dusk. 18 hours days become possible... For cooking: the shi-t-reactors. Ever burn a buffalo turd? It burns. : )

    3. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      According to TFA we're talking about China selling directly to Africa. Aside from the lack of safety concerns I think they also have an advantage in that they aren't being held back by a billion patents and trolls.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by localman57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're essentially using scaled up versions of those stakes you stick in the yard next to your cement walk to light their houses. You know, the ones that cost 8 bucks and consist of a small solar panel, a couple of NiCads, an ic and an LED or two?

    5. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Zumbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aside from what other posters have noted, I think you forget one crusial point: You have access to a well maintained electrical system, an African village does not. The alternative to using decentralized renewable energy sources is to wait for the central government to build power plants and wires all over the country. Which requires a lot of organization and stability, not to mention that such structures are prime targets during the unrests that plague Africa.

      To some extent this is similar to how phone networks are spreading in Africa. Building centralized phone networks and putting copper in the ground requires a large investment, making it somewhat infeasable. However, building a few mobile phone towers is a much smaller investment and, thus, much more feasable for a business. Over time, if the business yields a profit, more towers can be constructed, giving better coverage. Or one can make trade aggreements between the different service providers to ensure maximum coverage.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    6. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by confused+one · · Score: 1

      A cheap 20-30W panel and a cheap car battery will go a long way toward charging a cell phone, running a radio and providing a few hours of light at night, which is what they're after.

    7. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by rbrander · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bingo. Most of these commenters are clearly not reading TFA. It describes the woman having to take a 3-hour ride and pay a fee *to charge her cell phone*. This economic decision of hers wasn't made lightly, she shopped and worked it out the way you'd have to justify buying a car. With this trickle of power, she has lighting at night, and she can charge the cell phone, and she can charge others in the village to charge *their* cell-phones, though that payback is just for early adopters; everybody in her village will have them soon.

      The picture gets better going forward five years. By then, most poor Africans will have cell phones. LED lighting is expected to double in lumens/watt efficiency in that time, and more so in economic efficiency as prices may drop by 40%. (The market for LED over here is going to explode soon, because Compact-Fluorescent is always going to look bluish and cold, but LED's are coming out now with CRI [colour indexes] as nice as incandescent. The economies of scale will start to kick in then.) And, of course, solar panels are improving too.

      At some point, development in these places will reach a point where they have so many electrical needs that they will pay for a few local wires to a small generator. Once the locals pay to wire up the village, a market has just appeared for an entrepreneur who can get a line out to them from a real power station. At least we can hope that works, since 50 years of attempts to teleport these villages from nothing to mid-20th century in one Big Development have done almost nothing but fail.

    8. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      I've put a solar panel array in the back yard....it wasn't cheap...

      How much would it have cost you to have grid power if it hadn't been installed already at your house? If the nearest bit of the grid were just a mile away, you'd probably be out a good $50,000 -- and a lot of these villages are a lot further from reliable power than that. Don't forget that in some of these remote areas a long stretch of unguarded power line might as well have a "Steal me for free scrap metal!" sign on it, too. Gasoline or diesel (not to mention spare parts) for a generator are going to be costly and difficult to acquire.

      If each home runs a pair of 4-watt LEDs for six hours each evening, that's 48 watt-hours: four hours of daytime sunlight from a small 12-watt panel (let's say five hours to allow for losses). That's well below-average sun for rural Africa, and even a modest battery should be able to carry them through a few days of cloud. (In a pinch, they can cut back to one lamp for a few nights, too.) There's no inverter costs or losses; the whole system can run at 12 volts DC.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    9. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by mitgib · · Score: 1

      According to TFA we're talking about China selling directly to Africa. Aside from the lack of safety concerns I think they also have an advantage in that they aren't being held back by a billion patents and trolls.

      I think also without the limitations of those billions of patents and the trolls that go with them, we can see villages innovate new uses beyond what is already being done with these small power generation units.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    10. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 years of attempts to teleport these villages from nothing to mid-20th century in one Big Development have done almost nothing but fail

      Unless you're in the business of government.

    11. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope not. I would much rather see them figure out how to get all the electrical use they want WITHOUT going centralized. Reducing power usage is much harder than not starting to use it in the first place. So, they have an opportunity that will be an easier pill to swallow than it is for us. Right now, there isn't a lot of incentive to push people to make their homes self sufficient eletrically. Some people do it, but the decade long payback on solor panels makes it unworkable for any renter, and unattractive for most home owners.

      If their power usage ramps up slow enough that the payoff on building an electric grid is a poor as our payoff on putting up solar panels, they will create a market pressure for non-grid production. Just look at the fact that our homes receive AC, while virtually every product in them uses DC. The power loss via wallwarts alone is a sad sad thing. The trick will be whether we can import their advancements back to here.

    12. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (The market for LED over here is going to explode soon, because Compact-Fluorescent is always going to look bluish and cold, but LED's are coming out now with CRI [colour indexes] as nice as incandescent. .

      I work in the field of efficient lighting and you couldn't be further from the truth.
      CFLs have always been available in warm white colour temperatures. Cool white and daylight colour temperatures are available because they are actually better for working lights, (e.g. your kitchen and study, not to mention offices and workshops). You can see more clearly under higher colour temps, it affects the state of alertness of the brain and the lamps are also more efficient in cool white. BTW, daylight from the sun is a very 'cool' blue light in the middle of the day.

      Colour rendering is a totally unrelated issue and is typically around 85 for both CFLs and good quality LEDs at the moment. (Tungsten incandescents are 100.) 85 is considered excellent and perfectly fine for everyday use. I have seen far more LEDs with terrible colour rendering than CFLs. Even when they are nominally high CRI they often have a tinge of magenta or green to the light, which can be disturbing.

      Current LEDs work in essentially the same way as CFLs, using a phosphor to convert blue/violet/UV light to 'white' light and this method will never achieve 100 CRI, which doesn't matter anyway.

      Having said that, all-round LED quality is coming along in leaps and bounds and they are definitely the way of the future..

    13. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CFLs being cold and bluish isn't the issue; low CRI means that there's gaps in the emitted spectrum. A 2700k CFL is about as warm as a 60W incandescent, but lower CRI means that the light is deficient in certain colours and simply odd looking.

      There are higher CRI CFLs, but they're more expensive and hard to find. LEDs right now have about the same CRI as CFLs and about as poor a spectrum overall, but there are new Quantum Dot LEDs that are considerably better. The only QDLED light I know of costs $100 for 60 (75?) W incandescent-equivalent though.

    14. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rbrander sez: "Once the locals pay to wire up the village, a market has just appeared for an entrepreneur who can get a line out to them from a real power station."

      No.. they've just created a new opportunity for the closest copper wire thief to make a profit stealing the newly installed copper wire and reselling it. Copper wire theft is endemic in most of Africa. Copper wire thieves include gov't ministers on down to local beggars. They need Tesla's method of wireless AC power transmission. Too bad that info has been lost (or hidden).

      see: http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1015&bih=584&q=africa+copper+wire+theft

    15. Re:Panels and batteries still pricey and crappy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting aside implementing this in places like Africa, or Mongolia, why not find a way to implement these kind of things in good old rural America? God knows that 3rd world conditions DO, in fact, exist in regions like Appalachia, or the Mississippi Delta region, and the lack of infrastructure/ wages of these areas is not vastly different in terms of REAL cost/ wages, than some of the remotest parts of the rest of the world, and for many of the same reasons. There's been an appalling lack of affordable, quality, solar powered utility systems over much of the United States, it's nearly inexcusable that this should be so in a supposedly "developed" country as this.

  9. Global Paradigm Shift by BattleWaryMushroom · · Score: 1

    One possible change that could result from this is a global paradigm shift about energy use. Poor countries that have been ignored (and largely overpopulated) or abused by larger, richer countries, can now change their literacy rates, enabling them to join the global markets--and conversations. The use of energy in first world countries is to a great extent exorbitant and capricious. Having a poor neighbor with equivalent education (India?) may have a dramatic effect on global policies--i.e. the changes of having India and China in the G20+ Summits. Bigger changes: solar power (not Fusion-on-Earth!) may become the (only practical) savior of climate change... It's fusion at a safe distance (93 million miles away) and yields more energy than the next 10 generations will ever need.

  10. Paywall by pinkeen · · Score: 2

    I don't know why but this link bypasses the paywall: click.

    1. Re:Paywall by pinkeen · · Score: 1

      Or maybe there isn't a paywall but the OP posted a wrong link (through his account).

    2. Re:Paywall by BattleWaryMushroom · · Score: 1

      I don't know why but this link bypasses the paywall: click.

      Because it's in the "Environment" section. No one reads that.

  11. Don't shun the darkness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't they just leave the dark nights dark?

    People in the west are suffering all sorts of ailments and syndromes simply due to poor sleep hygiene allowed by electrical lighting. We are constantly messing with our brains with non-natural light triggers that confuse our sense of time. Is it really the end of the world if their productivity is limited to daylight hours in Africa?

    1. Re:Don't shun the darkness! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah... I'd be a much healthier person with 21 hours of sleep a day this time of year. All natural and how it was meant to be. Sigh.

  12. Wow, lights. by SpeZek · · Score: 1, Informative

    Woop de doo, poor people in impoverished countries can now spend their entire savings purchasing the solar panels needed to light a few rooms when it's not cloudy outside.

    Still doesn't change the fact that, by disallowing them to use the massive amounts of coal under their feet, we're disallowing them to build infrastructure and means of production so that they can accumulate capital. They need to be more than plain consumers to bring themselves up to our standards of living, and for that they need cheap, plentiful energy such as coal so that they can start producing wealth. They need factories, not tea lights.

    1. Re:Wow, lights. by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure requires stability, something that is lacking in those areas.

    2. Re:Wow, lights. by BattleWaryMushroom · · Score: 1

      Don't you know that if we start letting everyone develop, we'll have to deal with many more conflicting governments, norms, economies, etc... Keeping the poor poor keeps everything the same. And if everything is the same, then there are the constant number of problems to worry about. Not more. Not less.

    3. Re:Wow, lights. by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      Still doesn't change the fact that, by disallowing them to use the massive amounts of coal under their feet, we're disallowing them to build infrastructure and means of production so that they can accumulate capital.

      How does a single village build a coal-fired power plant?

      How does a rural community accumulate capital if they can only accomplish tasks during daylight hours -- and then can only accomplish enough to maintain a subsistence agricultural lifestyle?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    4. Re:Wow, lights. by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2

      Except as others have pointed out, this yields two incredibly important things:

      1. More available hours to work. This means improved education (more time to study) and increased productivity.
      2. More reliable communications - the solar power system allows villagers to charge cellular telephones and radios.

      These things will improve the villagers abilities to do things for themselves rather than rely on aid dollars. Education and productivity produce wealth, not coal plants built by foreigners. With education and communication will come stability, and with stability the ability to create the solid infrastructure that will be important. Unfortunately I think you're putting the cart before the horse here.

    5. Re:Wow, lights. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure that people like you will be more than happy to exploit these people and their children in order to work in your factories until they die from the pollution.

    6. Re:Wow, lights. by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      by disallowing them to use the massive amounts of coal under their feet, we're disallowing them to build infrastructure and means of production so that they can accumulate capital.

      Bad idea for some obvious reasons and some not so obvious reasons, such as:
      - To maintain infrastructure, you need social stability and other supporting infrastructure.
      - To make use of infrastructure, you need a society ready to take advantage of that infrastructure.
      - Various climate reasons
      - Big business vs. little people. In less developed regions, the small people usually have very little say. This is the little people empowering themselves.

      They need factories, not tea lights.

      I'm not so sure about that. For the moment, cheap tea lights might be exactly what they need.
      If they build huge power plants, then how will that power get distributed, with so little infrastructure and when people often live so spread out? Who is going to pay for the upkeep of that infrastructure?
      But with solar panels running tea lights then (as others have already pointed out) power generation will be affordable and immediately usable in the coutryside, even for subsistence farmers.

      One thing I'm waiting to see is if this is part of Africa's way to the future. What I mean is that late adopters of technology often end up using better or more suitable technology because they've skipped over intermediate stages by the time they enter and don't have to deal with legacy systems. (Example: PAL vs NTSC) This in itself may seem like nothing, but perhaps as Africa starts catching up in earnest, many parts may build upon distributed systems of renewable energy, as compared to the centralised systems that suit cities. I dunno. It's just a thought.

  13. Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    The big tech companies should start investing in these rural electricity providers since these villages are untapped revenue for potential consumers. Just like rural America, there's money to be had in "them there hills".

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The African village folk have seen BS and know what it's like - literally. They are much harder to con than you rich lazy American "consumers".

    2. Re:Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      You don't own anything by Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo...or any of the other BS providers? Or is your run home by Linux?

      --
      Loading...
  14. Good for population control by Urkki · · Score: 1

    I suspect this also will help reduce population growth, with people able to do also other things after dark. And this isn't meant just as a joke.

    Also, condoms are easier to use when there's light, for that theoretical group of people who do know what they are, do have them, are actually willing to use them, but do not have enough light to put them on.

    1. Re:Good for population control by ZDRuX · · Score: 0

      Reduce population growth by limiting the availability of basic living necessities such as electricity and power plants?

      I suppose you're part of the Malthusian crowd that is suggesting we should rid of the less advantaged for some pseudo-altruistic belief that we'd be much better off if we could just have less of ourselves. I don't know what it is about people these days really having some hatred towards our own species that we would openly and willingly suggest to people that they do NOT reproduce and live out their lives how they see fit, and restrain their human nature to engage in family building.

      The fact that most of the industrialized nations across the globe have a birth-rate below that what is necessary sustain a society seems to trouble no one, and is given very little discussion time. Instead, we are fed the factually wrong idea that there's an over population problem.

      Anybody who has spent some time researching this problem (or non-problem) with an biased view would concur alarmists have been yelling about overpopulation for hundreds of years, and if anyone would have taken them seriously - we should have run out of food and resources countless of times by now, but somehow this hasn't happened. However, we use these false assumptions as a pretext to take away from poor people living in places like Africa and deny them the basic foundations needed to grow and sustain life in the name of saving them... it's absolutely absurd.

      Everybody knows (...or should know) that you need a steady birth rate of 2.5 just to SUSTAIN society, you need more than that to GROW a society. Here's some hard facts for those who care to know:

      2.15 - Africa (population falling)
      0.97 - U.S.(drastically falling)
      0.8 - Canada
      0.56 - UK
      0.53 - France
      -0.06 - Germany

      If you look at those numbers, it is quite clear the overall population of the planet is spiraling downwards and this will cause a possibilty of a huge crysis if this isn't brought up as a real point to discuss.

      Source CIA: CIA World Facts

      So don't let anyone tell you we're in trouble if we don't curb people fucking... quite the contrary, we're in serious trouble if don't have a rapid rise in population all around the globe.

      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Good for population control by ZDRuX · · Score: 1
      --
      The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Good for population control by WMD_88 · · Score: 2

      You're basically right, but you're reading the numbers wrong. Those aren't birth rate numbers you linked: it's a ratio of births to deaths. Hence why the USA at 0.97 is considered falling. But the 2.15 figure means over twice as many births as deaths. Maintaining a population requires a birth rate of around 2.1, not 2.5; either way, the industrialized world is on the wrong side of the number.

    4. Re:Good for population control by vgerclover · · Score: 1

      Indefinitely constant grow is not only counter productive, is impossible. We can start controlling growth now, or growth will stop by itself in a less flattering way for the species later.

    5. Re:Good for population control by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The reason we have not run out of food is that we have engaged in an ever expanding wave of unsustainable agriculture.

      When the Ogallala aquifer is depleted in the next 30 years, the US will lose 3/4th or more of its arable farmland. High yield farming techniques strip the soil of nutrients that even chemical fertilizers can not replace. When irrigation fails, the loose stripped soil will be blown away. This is a disaster we have seen before with the dust bowl.

      I am not saying over population is to blame for this, but the over production that allows the US to export food to the world will end in our lifetime. The only thing that can be done is to reduce production now by phasing in sustainable agriculture practices, but that isn't profitable and will be very difficult to provide food for everyone so it won't happen. Even if we solve the irrigation issue with nuclear powered desalination plants pumping the pacific ocean over the Rockies, we still have to reduce production to preserve the quality of soil in the long term.

    6. Re:Good for population control by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Reduce population growth by limiting the availability of basic living necessities such as electricity and power plants?

      Not sure what you mean here, as I actually said the exact opposite, that having these will reduce population growth (in a very small way!) by offering... alternative evening/night activities at home.

      I suppose you're part of the Malthusian crowd that is suggesting we should rid of the less advantaged for some pseudo-altruistic belief that we'd be much better off if we could just have less of ourselves.

      Not at all. However, I'm with the crowd that thinks that evolution will unfortunately take care of any short term population reduction due to improved standard of living. Those that breed despite any obstacles (high standard of living is obstacle in this context) will spread their "advantageous" genes. There's no nice way to limit population growth, there are only more or less ugly ways. "Laws" of evolution are merciless.

      I don't know what it is about people these days really having some hatred towards our own species that we would openly and willingly suggest to people that they do NOT reproduce and live out their lives how they see fit, and restrain their human nature to engage in family building.

      Yes, naught resources, limiting people from having as much as they want of everything and anything... Only thing that can sustain growth is improving technology, and I very much doubt it'll keep up. But let's hope it does.

      The fact that most of the industrialized nations across the globe have a birth-rate below that what is necessary sustain a society seems to trouble no one, and is given very little discussion time. Instead, we are fed the factually wrong idea that there's an over population problem.

      As already pointed out by others, the numbers you quote don't mean what you think they mean... You're off by a factor of about two.

    7. Re:Good for population control by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The proven ways to reduce population growth are to reduce the incentives to have more kids. If your kids are your pension plan, you tend to have lots of them.

      The solutions are prosperity and urbanisation.

    8. Re:Good for population control by AlterEager · · Score: 1

      You're basically right, but you're reading the numbers wrong. Those aren't birth rate numbers you linked: it's a ratio of births to deaths. Hence why the USA at 0.97 is considered falling. But the 2.15 figure means over twice as many births as deaths.

      You're both wrong. The figure is the percentage increase in population due to excess of births over deaths or excess of imigration over emigration. A positive number means a growing population, a negative one means a falling population. All the places cited except Germany have growing populations.

      Africa is growing by around 2% a year (2 extra people per 100 people in the current population), the US is growing by about 1% a year (1 more person per 100 people in the current population).

  15. Are you a moron? by arcite · · Score: 0
    good for population control because they can put condoms on better when there is light?

    The only thing that reduces population is education. Those who are better educated have fewer children. Being able to study after dark increases one's odds to further their education. It's not rocket science.

    You still sound like a moron though.

    1. Re:Are you a moron? by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      L

      O

      L

      --
      Loading...
    2. Re:Are you a moron? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      good for population control because they can put condoms on better when there is light?

      Uh, the "theoretical group of people" was there to indicate that that part was a joke. So, I think I'm allowed to say "Woooosh".

      The only thing that reduces population is education. Those who are better educated have fewer children. Being able to study after dark increases one's odds to further their education. It's not rocket science.

      Education undoubtedly has a much large effect. However, if you've ever spent a long time with a wife/girlfriend/"friend with benefits" in an environment where there's nothing else to do, and nothing actually stopping you from having sex... Trust me, pretty soon you'll even be willing to take chances with lack of proper contraception... ;-)

      You still sound like a moron though.

      Hmm mm. It's hard to judge based on just one post of yours (didn't check others), but based on that, this actually feels more like a compliment.

  16. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by rbrander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...of you, to not know about the central problem of development we've been discovering since the 1960's. By the 90's, it was accepted wisdom and changes slowly began to be made, despite all the money to be made from selling them hydroelectric dams.

    You see, attempting to catapult unready societies into the late industrial revolution from a 1700's-era starting point kept failing and failing and failing. Books like "The Road to Hell" by aid professional Michael Maren and "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins brought out how so much of that "aid" was to benefit the givers, not the receivers. Perkins was particularly damning about hydroelectric dams and power stations being built all over the world with "aid" money all those loans that went into default. It was a straightforward recipe:

    (1) Bogus economic study of how the country would blossom and prosper if only they had power, a market would explode as soon as it was available, and the national or World Bank loan would be paid back in years. (Perkins' job - he goes over it in detail for Ecuador and Indonesia).
    (2) Local "400 families" get extravagant cuts of the action, of course, and they approve the deal, being also the government.
    (3) Dam is built, Western engineering firms do well, 400 families do well, local people are bumped off the reservoir land, sometimes at gunpoint, etc.
    (4) No market actually arises, country wasn't ready after all, loan goes into default.
    (5) People of country end up with higher taxes and lower services for about 40 years to pay back World Bank and IMF.

    High capital investments come with high risk. You can substitute "coal-fired" for "hydroelectric" if you like, it actually makes it worse since you now have to develop TWO major plants - a coal mine and a power station - with a populace that has trouble keeping a local chlorine-drip 1-man water treatment plant running reliably.

    We built up to a massively centralized economy with small numbers of very large stations and plants and factories and so forth for power and materiel production, only after more than a century of slowly scaling up from very small distributed ones. We thought we could take them straight to Big Industry, and we were wrong. And it was not an "honest mistake"; the decision to try that at all was highly affected by the profits to be made just attempting it, because others had to pay the price for the error.

  17. It doesn't take much to improve rural people by arcite · · Score: 2

    lives. Give them a $20 cellphone and a $20 solar panel with LED light and battery charger; this alone will transform their life in a multitude of ways.

  18. Since they're cooking with fire, need BioLite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://biolitestove.com/BioLite.html

    BioLite is a revolutionary stove that makes cooking on wood as clean, safe and easy as modern fuels while generating electricity to charge cell phones and LED lights off-grid.

    Since they're already cooking with fire, might as well charge their lights/cellphones at the same time, with an improved cooking stove

  19. Also by arcite · · Score: 1

    There are many NGOs building up skills so that the locals can learn to become technicians to assemble the solar lights, cookers, chargers, ect... using the basic raw materials - which also has the added benefit of providing employment and ensuring sustainability. When things break down, you need someone in the village who has the spare parts and know-how to fix it.

    1. Re:Also by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Imho thats the real difference between this and other "solutions" the first world throws at africa. Infrastructure solutions like these solar panels can actually be installed, maintained, and used readily with minimal outside help.

      Dumping a bunch of unmaintainable infrastructure down there won't ever get anywhere, but if everyone got together and made a bunch of really durable "just good enough" solar panels with really simple and easily repairable parts and just flooded the place with them then a whole lot more could be accomplished.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  20. Another moron by arcite · · Score: 2
    How are poor rural people supposed to build a coal power plant? Just like cell-phone towers are able to leap-frog technologies and provide ICT solutions to remote places, solar power provides the possibility to be independent from the government and promote sustainability.

    Solar panels are also being used to sterilize drinking water, cook, and even more exciting - provide refrigeration. Many batches of vaccines in the past have gone bad because of lack of refrigeration. Refrigeration also helps to preserve food nutrition.

    To quote the Mosquito Coast, "Ice is civilization"

  21. Nice comment by arcite · · Score: 1

    You live up to your namesake. ;)

    1. Re:Nice comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who else is called BadAnalogyGuy? and what does he do? Make animal based fart jokes?

  22. A cheap solar panel can run an iphone by arcite · · Score: 1

    Or any number of other kinds of mini-computers. Smartphones are becoming very popular in Sub Saharan africa.

  23. CFLs vs LEDs by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    Yup, CFLs and LEDs offer about the same efficiacy (lumens/watt) although most people prefer LEDs because colour temperature is warmer (less blue in the mix). However a 155V/230V AC operating CCFL is cheap to produce - the active components are only two transistors. Cheap AC operating LED lamps use capacitive droppers and typically have short life (see FTC lawsuit: www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/09/lightsofamerica.shtm ).

    What's happening here is that the solar/battery system is low voltage only (so low cost), driving LEDs through probably just a resistive dropper and providing 5V USB outputs to charge the phones.

  24. In the third world, not in Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last time I checked Mongolia is in the heart of Asia. This technology is currently benefiting select African countries as well as at least one country outside Africa according to the article.

  25. Re:Link Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not... you've gotta register for their bullshit, but once you've jumped through that bloody hoop article is free.

  26. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by Zumbs · · Score: 1

    Sometimes it is even worse than that. The plant may be built, but crucial infrastructure is left out, or it is built at a terrible location. The plant may not even work. All to often these "aid" schemes are little more than direct aid to engineering firms (based in an Industrialized country) and bribes to local leaders. Helping developing countries industrialize is not an easy task. First of all, it requires that the aid giver is genuinly interested in helping them industrialize (instead of, say, enriching local corperations). Second, it requires that the local government in the developing country wants the country to industrialize, and that other key groups support this drive. Improved literacy could help the people put pressure on their government to get their act together.

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  27. Also this proves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also this proves that security thru obscurity is INDEED a Myth!

  28. The problem for the west is volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People keep saying why is it practical for the poor and not for richer countries? Look at it this way, an average home uses several thousand kilowatts a day. They are powering a 4 watt LED. Also the story mentions an $80 solar panel powering four bulbs and recharging cell phones. That $80 might have been 10% of their annual income. Say a US family family makes 50K a year, low side of middle class. Would you run out and drop 5K on a bank of solar panels? Even though it's maybe 10% of their income it may be 200% of their disposable income or more in poorer countries. Most people can actually aford solar power to set it up it's just most want it to be cheaper because of the hassle. For the poor it's their only source of power so it's a godsend. People in the west are spoiled by easy access. Over a 30 year run you save a bundle with solar panels but people expect to pay them back too quickly. 10 years is the average I hear which for most you might as well say a 100 years. Part of the problem is people move too often. Few people live in the same house for 30 years so they'll never see the benefit. It's not the expense it's modern life that is holding back adoption of solar and alternative power sources.

  29. Mongolia -- panels everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Mongolia I saw plenty of gers (Mongolian word for "yurt") with A) solar panel, B) satellite dish, C) TV and/or radio in the middle of nowhere out on the steppes. Not only that, but they also had cell phone coverage near villages of only 1000 people or so, and people used their solar panel to charge the phones.

  30. So many questions. by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    The article makes absolutely no sense. There are no supporting details.

    She travelled 3 hours by motorcycle taxi and waited three days to charge her cell phone? How many things are wrong with that picture?

    She spent $80 on solar panels primarily to charge a cell phone? Again, what is wrong with that picture?

    Sounds like there is a market for cell phone charges that are either hand cranked, solar powered, or apparently motor-cycle powered. What would solar cell capable of keeping a cell phone fully charged cost?

    What is the cost break-down of this lighting system? How much is being spent on the solar cells? How long are the storage batteries going to last? What are the competing technologies?

    If a village of 20 homes needed a few watts (25W?) of power each day for 4 hours after sundown every day, what else could be purchased for $1600 plus the cost the ongoing cost of replacing the storage batteries?

  31. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    I agree. The thing I find so funny is how the write up claims this trend is now "exploding".
    I remember reading about small bio gas setups in India in the 80s and maybe the 70s. Small solar lights? Yes leds make that a lot more practical.

    But to be honest large dams do tend to do more than just make power. They can help with seasonal flooding and with irrigation.
    The can also cause other eco problems as well so they are not all sunshine and bunnies.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  32. This is a spot halogen VS "spot" LED by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    In this case I have both halogen spots and LED replacements in the fittings and they seem to be about equivalent. What I will have to do, to be more thorough, is to remove all bar one 50W halogen and one 7W LED, point both at a wall, and take a photo to compare the brightness and area of the spots .

    FWIW, I also had some older (single LED) 3W LEDs and they aren't a patch on these newer ones, so maybe the tech has moved on.

    1. Re:This is a spot halogen VS "spot" LED by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Or maybe your older LED bulbs have faded with age, which is something that happens to them.

    2. Re:This is a spot halogen VS "spot" LED by dwywit · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you could also take a note of the aperture & shutter settings (and all the other metadata) of the photos. A picture will give a good visual reference, but a camera will make all sorts of exposure adjustments depending on what it "sees", including colour temperature. At least the aperture and shutter settings will provide a more accurate reference to "brightness".

      Even better, take a reading on "auto" or "program", note the settings, switch to manual, set shutter speed, and adjust aperture only. As each full stop is effectively double (or half) the previous settings, you should get some reliable results.

      Oh, and do all this in very low ambient conditions, or your observations will be very much affected by the light coming in the window.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:This is a spot halogen VS "spot" LED by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Or maybe your older LED bulbs have faded with age, which is something that happens to them.

      No, they were always disappointing :-)

  33. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by rbrander · · Score: 1

    Your "exploding' in the 70's and 80's was like the "explosive growth" of Apple II computer sales, into the hundreds of thousands, then, gasp Millions, at the same time. The exponential was slower for this than computers, though. We are now up to the start of the "explosive" growth of the IBM PC DOS era when the cheap clones hit, mid-80's. Still to come: the "explosive" growth after Win95 and the Internet made everybody get one. I'm predicting that for post-2015 when the LED's have really dropped in price and improved in colour quality and efficiency, plus the usual incremental solar improvements.

    Every part of an exponential curve looks back on the previous bit as "before the explosion *really* started".

  34. Not sustainable for large urban centers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad it's not sustainable for large urban centers; only under developed area can benefit from this. It looks more like a scene from from a novel about the future where people have scarce electricity in the daytime and at night electric usage is at a barer minimum and go to sleep on the floor with your extended family. Computers, ac, etc- be damned. Obama's man, John Holdren, wants to do this all over the world. Rather than high tech future, Holdren wants us to live like Grizzly Adams LOL.

  35. Need for capital? by Arnold+Reinhold · · Score: 1

    One thing in the NYT article that did not make sense was the claim the large amounts of capital are needed to make this happen. If local people can afford the solar units and they pay for themselves in a few months, what's holding the wide scale deployment up?

    1. Re:Need for capital? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      To build a power grid and generating stations, you'd need to gather the money from all those local people to pool it. And in countries like Kenya, rife with corruption, once you do that, the people in charge of said pool are quite likely to help themselves to very liberal amounts from it - so end result is a few richer politicians, and still no electricity. Even if you get the grid built, it then has to be run - and there again corruption enters the picture, giving poor service for high prices.

      The locals, of course, know all this as well, so they'd very much rather spend the money directly on what works for them, even if it's less efficient on large scale.

  36. Works in the US, the other third world by DCFusor · · Score: 1
    Like here. I've been off the grid for decades -- that "wait for the cheap and more efficient PV panels" thing was always promoted by the opponents of solar, not the fans, and thanks, 30 year old panels in my systems may as well be new given how they perform. I run computer networks, a machine shop, and 4 buildings on my campus this way, use mostly CCFL, a few leds mainly nightlights, and even some halogens for when I need really good color rendering. The biggie is refrigeration, here, there, everywhere -- everything else you can decide not to turn on if it's a bad energy day. Doesn't hurt to keep the freezer in the unheated outbuilding in the shade...

    See my site, linked below, there's some pix of my system with some other systems soon to be featured under the alt energy forum. What's happening in the third world is what I call "leapfrogging" -- they're going to skip entire expensive steps in energy development. Good for them! They will also be skipping the control a monopoly power company (aptly named for more than one meaning of the word power) over themselves. Double good. I'm not particularly a greenie, though it works out that I'm much more green than most of them (heat off my own woodlot too for example) -- for me it was the power and control issue that got me going, and heck, if a world class engineer can't pull it off, then who?

    Funny thing, you know who makes just about the best panels for the money (taking TCO into account, panels that only live a couple years need not apply) -- Solarex, who is owned by, you guessed it, BP of all people. They know the music is going to stop, so they are reserving a chair. That tells you more than their astroturfing about endless oil, no such thing as global warming etc -- follow the money....

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  37. This village of mine glows with a renewable power! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

    Sorry I had to.

    --
    But... the future refused to change.
  38. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    But biogas systems have not changed in a very long time. The pick up on these really seems to be too slow and I would love to know the reason why.
    Solar plus LEDs make perfect sense but biogas?
    Heck a BBC sitcom from from the 70s involved a couple with a biogas powered generator in the basment!
    I think it was called the Goode Life.
    And community hydropower dates back to the local mills all over New England and I believe England.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  39. Major problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about how easy it is to steal someone's PV generator? Most places in semi-rural Africa you can't leave the gas generator outside at night (when not in use) because it WILL get stolen. I still think these things need to be cheaper, cheap enough that you can bring (affordably) truck full of 10,000 of them to a village and hand them out to everyone--when everyone has it, the incentive to steal will go down. Of course, thefts will still occur, but removal of the "have/have not" motivation would strongly curb stealing. This line of devices is FAR better than centralized distribution: "semi-rural" or "rural" Africa is DECADES away from western-style electrification just from an infrastructure standpoint.

  40. Step by step. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    “You leapfrog over the need for fixed lines,” said Adam Kendall, head of the sub-Saharan Africa power practice for McKinsey & Company, the global consulting firm. “Renewable energy becomes more and more important in less and less developed markets."

    Much like wireless "leapfrogged" the need for a heavy infrastructure.

    Yet while these off-grid systems have proved their worth, the lack of an effective distribution network or a reliable way of financing the start-up costs has prevented them from becoming more widespread.

    Microloans.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  41. Damages caused by mini dams by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    " 'mini' hydroelectric dams that can harness the power of a local river for an entire village"

    These 'mini' hydroelectric dams can destroy an entire migrating fish fauna because of the power for a village. The migrating fish tend to be the staple food for the neighboring villagers, too...

    America and Europe have long since understood the , but can afford building fish ladders.

    Not to speak of all the stagnant water, which harbor bilharzia and malaria. Don't forget the rotten acidic waters it produces which erodes high quality steel in a few years.

    The side effects?! Brrr...

  42. The villages "Glow"? by Brafil · · Score: 1

    I believe the Ukrainian government might want to say something about the risks of that.

  43. This doesn't match my experience by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure I agree on your efficiency there. I have replaced 60+W incandescents with the curly CFLs that used something like 15W and am now replacing THOSE with LED that use 8W and are rated as "40W replacements". Except that they produce as much or more light than the CFL in the right fixture! In one case in particular the change in brightness was striking and a very large improvement.

    I am using the $30 Sylvania "Ultra LED" lights which are new and part of their High Performance Series. Lowes, in the US, sells these cheaper than anyone I've found BTW. In a "can" fixture in the ceiling in my bathroom they proved to light instantly as compared to the slow glow curlies and to provide MORE light. In the light fixtures on my porch however they proved too directional and created bad shadows. In my normal bathroom sconces they work awesome and in my nightstand lamp they also work great. Used in a freestanding torch sort of light they threw too sharp a shadow line as most of the light went up and not out. I have yet to find one of either CFL or LEF that can replace a single bright 100W incandescent in a ceiling fan I have. :-(

    I have begun using some other LEDs in a pendant fixture that used to use incandescent and it's working okay but not as well as the Sylvania bulbs. The LED is a much whiter\bluer light than CFL in my experience so far but they are WAY cooler and use way less juice. The cost is a bit rude but so far they seem to be holding up very well - for the price they had better.

    In any case for efficiency I'd argue on the side of LED over CFL for sure based on my experience. Perhaps if I wasn't driving them from 120v mains that wouldn't be the case and I realize that in the case of running them off of a battery they aren't using 120v. I'd still argue for LED though since they are much less fragile!

    What I'd really like to know is how well the Sylvania Ultra LED floods work. The price of admission has been too high for me to try them yet but if they work well I have several 150Watt floods I'd LOVE to dump! These are on motion sensors and swapping them so high in the air would be a chore but the overall cost savings long term might be worth it if someone could vouch that they don't suck :-)

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  44. Carrying Capacity by koona · · Score: 1

    Otherwise called Ecological footprint

    I have always hoped, at least, that a significant number of slashdoters were imbued with a bit of earth respect, and earth sense.

    It may well be that I have been wrong.

    A goodly proportion of Mongolian yak herders, and Angolan mamas' concerned about the education of their kids will instinctively know the concept of carrying capacity. From when they were hunters, from the production of their yaks, from the very vigour of the kids.

    Any rancher with a brain knows that a piece of land is best grazed with a critical eye on the most sensitive sites on it. The sensitive sites are like the proverbial Canaries in the mineshaft. It is true liberties can be taken in this regard, but ultimately nature catches up.

    The ground will only put up with a certain amount of mistreatment before it begins a negative feedback loop in direct response.

    So what really ticks me is that most, not all, of the comments on this topic, on /. of all sites, don't get the simple fact that we as a species are reaching towards Carrying Capacity.

    Me here in Canada, you there in Usa, and you in Germany are going to have to cut that ecological footprint 5% per year until it is down to 25% of what it is right now. Figure it out, what will that really mean? Do you doubt that what I suggest is true?

    At the same time it is not fair, or just, to promote what is clearly an unsustainable expectation among the less historicaly favoured peoples of the world.

    YES, I have lived with kerosene lanterns for decades of my life, and no my kids were never inept enough to sustain any consequential injury, relied on solar panels, butchered horses for jerky, you name it.....

    I am too disturbed to continue at this time, but I would like to say that over the past, say a year, my estimation of the survival intelligence value afforded by /. commenters has lessened some

  45. For those of you who don't understand... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    Why is this a big deal? I have seen a few posts here that don't understand this, that don't understand why someone has to use up DAYS of time to charge a phone, why kerosene isn't good enough etc. The best was the guy who thinks solar is crap because his big dollar system only runs a few lights, a TV, computer, and bummer can't run the stove. Seriously?!

    READ THIS! -> http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50799

    ^^ That's a damn good story about a couple who took a trip through The Democratic Republic of Congo in a Toyota Landcruiser. Dude when you have to bribe someone to ferry you across a river using a battery borrowed from a village far away just to start the damned engines you know you are NOT in the developed world anymore. When a broken down truck sits in place with people living in it and guarding it for a YEAR while awaiting replacements parts you know things are fucked up.

    This guy's accounts of what it was like to make this trek to include just how clueless damn near everyone was he asked concerning conditions speaks VOLUMES. People here, including myself, bitch about organized religion and whatnot but wow over there that seems to be one of the only halfway stable support systems going on.

    After reading that I understood just how important some simple things can be when you can't just flip a switch and make it happen. The corruption down there just really screws everyone too :-(

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  46. LED's Not Yet by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    I just bought a 4-pack of BR30 form factor 65W light equivalent, 15W power consumption CFL bulbs to replace 75W halogen floods. Yeah they take a minute or so to ramp to full light output and they're not dim-able (no dimmer on this circuit). Their total price was $4.80, which included an energy company instant rebate. The light is nice and soft, the 4 of them take less power than just 1 of the previous bulbs, these lights are typically left on for a minimum of 15 minutes up to a couple of hours at a time, I air condition more than I heat in this climate, and the 4 bulbs total cost what a single halogen replacement would have set me back. Given the expected longer CFL lifetime as well, this was just an impossible deal to beat. I'd love an equivalent LED replacement someday, but seriously at this price how long before LEDs can compete with this?

    At the same time they were selling a 4-pack of those bare 60W equivalent twisty CFL bulbs for $0.99 after energy company rebate. That's cheaper than 60W incandescent bulbs! This was at Costco last weekend.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  47. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by rbrander · · Score: 1

    I think some of that comes down to "zero maintenance" vs "any maintenance". Not a knock on the customers overseas; customers here run their appliances into the ground all the time, if they are "any maintenance".

  48. It is odd by b4upoo · · Score: 2

    Sometimes the poorest of the poor lead the way. Adoption of efficient lighting methods reminds me of the tendency of slum dwellers to recycle every item almost endlessly. One pair of pants may be used by three kids growing up. No beer can is safe in the trash from the poor scavenging for aluminum. Folks who are better off lack motivation.

  49. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by voidzero · · Score: 1

    I'd say the resulting (planned) situation is worse than point 5. As Joe Stiglitz, former World Bank Chief Economist says [0], due to the conditionalities of the loan, privatisation of resources and infrastructure is mandated:
    "By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school 'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules."
    When the loan can't be paid (due to lack of double digit growth), extra conditions are imposed such as provision of military bases and favoured access to natural resources. Of course, the interest on the loan is not cancelled, merely deferred.

    It's quite suspicious that the four step plan (the conditionalities) that the IMF espouses for each country results in riots that further drive down the price of that country's assets:
    1. Privatisation (Briberisation)
    2. Capital Market Liberalisation
    3. Market Based Pricing
    4. Free Trade

    1. "Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.
    And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign. ...
    Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation."
    2. "In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
    "The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries."
    3. "At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."
    The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.
    And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings,

  50. Re:Wow, that's amazingly obtuse by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    My point was that most of this stuff has been around for a long time. The problem with alternative energy is that so far it has gone in and out of fashion. When I was a kid in the 70s the government was all about building wind mills, solar panels, and biofuels. Then oil dropped in price, more power plants went to coal from oil and so on.

    Now in the US at least the same thing is happening. I have a friend that works in a power companies Solar and Wind division. They are the biggest in the nation. Guess what they have found. Very few people are willing to pay extra for renewables.
    Natural gas has come way down and that is where the action is.

    His company is betting on Nuclear long term. Since the build times and capital costs are high they are starting now. They see that as the only economical way to really reduce carbon output.
    They will keep the Solar and Wind going as a long term project but they are not looking at new projects. The build time is low enough that they can just wait until they see where the market is going.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  51. Coons ftl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was from all the nigger foreheads?

  52. Even a tiny one should be overkill by BraksDad · · Score: 1

    ...small solar systems now deliver useful electricity at a price that even the poor can afford....

    Would it have a white dwarf in the middle?

    --
    Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."