Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Household Energy Use in Rural sub-Saharan Africa: Are Solar Home Systems an Appropriate
Solution?

Introduction:

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is one of the poorest regions on earth, with 76% of the world‟s ultra-poor1
disproportionally concentrated in SSA countries (Ahmed et al., 2007). While it is widely recognised
that lack of access to modern energy services can seriously hinder economic and social development
(UNDP/WHO, 2009; OECD/IEA, 2010) traditional bioenergy resources still provide over 90% of
household energy needs in many SAA nations (Bailis et al., 2007). Solar Home Systems (SHS) are
currently being promoted as the primary decentralised energy solution by SAA governments. While
relating to Module 1‟s lecture on “Environment and Energy in the Global Context” this essay will
analyse the energy needs of rural households in SSA and look at whether policies promoting SHS
are best placed to provide modern energy services to the rural poor.

Energy Access in Rural SSA:

SSA is the least electrified region of the world, with approximately 89% of the rural population lacking
access to electricity, compared to 41% of those living in rural areas of developing countries as a
whole (UNDP/WHO, 2009). From Table 1 below it is clear that South Africa, a country that produces
and consumes over 60% of the electricity on the African continent (Madubansi and Shackleton,
2006), strongly skews average SSA statistics in a positive direction, often masking the true severity
of the energy access situation in many SSA countries. It is also interesting to note that even countries
that rank relatively highly in terms of overall electricity access, such as Ghana, have very low levels
of access to modern cooking fuels and Improved Cook Stoves (ICS).

There are currently no national baseline statistics for access to mechanical power 2 in SSA countries,
with only 3 countries3 providing rural data on this form of energy (UNDP/WHO, 2009). It has,
however, recently been estimated that the number is close to zero for most rural areas of SSA
countries (Bates et al., 2009). In terms of set targets for future energy access (see Table 2) national
and rural plans are lacking in all areas of energy access, with cooking fuels and ICS much more
poorly represented than electricity, and mechanical power not even registering in any national level
targets (UNDP/WHO, 2009).

1
Those living on less than half the global extreme poverty line, i.e. less than $0.54/day per capita (Ahmed et
al,. 2007).
2
Mechanical power here is defined as the effective outcome of transforming different forms of energy sources
to kinetic energy (to cause motion) and can be obtained from motorised equipment such as steam, diesel and
gas engines/turbines, electrical and hydraulic motors and renewable sources such as wind and hydro. (Bates et
al., 2009).
3
Benin (0%), Central Africa Republic (0%) and Mali (10%). Source: UNDP/WHO, 2009.

Page 1 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Table 1: Baseline Energy Access Data for Select SSA Countries

Country % national % rural % rural population % rural population relying
population population without access to on solid fuels for cooking
without without modern cooking with access to Improved
access to access to fuels* Cook Stoves (ICS)**
electricity electricity
Average SSA 74.0 89.0 95.0 6.0
South Africa 25.0 65.0 42.7 32.9
Ghana 46.0 77.0 97.7 0.3
Nigeria 53.2 74.0 92.4 6.2
Zimbabwe 58.6 81.0 96.5 2.9
Eritrea 69.0 95.0 90.9 1.5
Cameroon 70.6 55.1 97.4 2.2
Zambia 81.2 96.7 98.2 0.3
Mali 82.6 96.3 100.0 5.0
Ethiopia 84.7 98.0 99.8 2.3
Kenya 85.0 95.0 96.4 2.7
Mozambique 88.3 93.7 99.8 no data
Tanzania 88.5 98.0 99.6 no rural data (national 0.72)
Burkina Faso 90.0 93.7 98.2 1.1
Uganda 91.0 96.0 99.9 5.3
Malawi 91.0 94.5 99.8 8.5
Sierra Leone 94.9 99.9 99.3 9.0
Rwanda 95.2 98.7 100.0 no data
Chad 96.5 99.7 98.3 23.5
Liberia 96.7 99.0 100.0 no data
Burundi 97.2 99.9 99.8 1.6
Sources: UNDP/WHO, 2009; PACEAA, 2009; IEA/OECD, 2009; African Development Bank Group, 2007.
* Modern cooking fuels refer to electricity, liquid fuels, and gaseous fuels such as LPG, natural gas, and
kerosene (i.e. not traditional biomass fuels). ** Improved cook stoves refer to closed stoves with chimney, as
well as open stoves or fires with chimney or hood, but exclude open stoves or fires with no chimney or hood.
**Data only available for 30 out of 45 SSA countries.

Table 2: Target Energy Access Data for SSA Countries

Number of countries with target data available
(out of 45 SSA countries in total)
Target Electricity Modern ICS Mechanical
* Fuels Power
National 35 13 8 0
Rural 20 6 6 5
Sources: UNDP/WHO, 2009; OECD/IEA, 2010. * Targets/objectives
vary among countries. Some countries, e.g. Botswana, Ghana, and
Swaziland aim to reach universal electricity access within the next five
to 17 years. Others have defined intermediate goals, e.g. Malawi and
Rwanda, aim to achieve 30% and 35% electrification rates
respectively by 2020 (OECD/IEA, 2010).

It is widely believed that, through the adoption highly efficient and renewable technologies, rural
households can rapidly bypass the conventional path of energy development (i.e. from wood to coal
to petroleum) and switch directly from traditional bioenergy resources to clean modern energy

Page 2 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

sources, such as electricity (World Bank, 1996; Goldemberg, 1998). With grid extension programmes
deemed financially unviable for the majority of rural settlements and micro-grid alternatives using
diesel gensets also rendered largely unviable due to difficulties in accessing spare parts, technical
support and high costs of fuel transportation (Lovejoy, 1992), SHS have become the dominant
decentralised technology used and promoted by SSA governments in order to reach energy access
targets (Wamukonya, 2007).

Solar Home Systems:

SHS are typically made up of a photovoltaic module, battery, charge controller, wiring, fluorescent
DC lights, and outlets for other DC appliances. A standard small SHS can operate several lights, a
black-and-white television and a radio or cassette player (Kammen, 1999). The size of the system
(typically 10 to 100 Wp) determines the number of „light-hours‟ available. For example, a 35 Wp SHS
provides enough power for four hours of lighting from four 7W lamps each evening, as well as
several hours of television (Foley, 1995). With over half a million systems currently in use in SSA,
concentrated in a few countries (see table 3 below), SHS account for roughly one third of the total off-
grid PV capacity installed in the region (Moner-Girona et al., 2006). Duke and Kammen (1999, 2003)
estimate that there is a potential SHS market of 63 million households in SSA.

Table 3: Status of Solar PV in Select SSA Countries.

Number of Estimated total Estimated total
Country installed SHS capacity PV capacity
SHSs* installed, kWp installed** kWp
Total SSA 557,000 9000 22,600
South Africa 150,000 3,000 11,000
Kenya 150,000 2,900 3,900
Zimbabwe 85,000 1,689 1,700
Uganda 20,000 400 1,050
Tanzania 10,000 450 1,200
Ethiopia 5,000 200 2,200
Eritrea 5,000 15 500
Somalia <100 3 100
Sudan <1,000 Negligible 400
Botswana 5,700 110 286
Zambia 5,000 100 400
Sources: Moner-Girona et al. 2006; REN21, 2010. * Reliable statistics
about the number of SHSs in use do not normally exist, except in countries
with a donor project where the focus is on results of the project. **Total PV
Capacity Installed includes SHS, water pumping, health/vaccine refrigeration,
institutional/government, and telecommunication.

Support for SHS by SSA governments is reflected in policies, substantial financial commitments to
SHS projects and continued support from multilateral agencies and private sector. These include the
World Bank (providing loans for SHS since 1994) (Miller and Hope, 2000), the International Finance

Page 3 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Corporation (aiming to secure US$50 million capital for facilitating SHS uptake), the Global
Environment Facility (US$210 million invested in SHS over last 10 years) (Wamukonya, 2007) and
several major oil companies, including Shell (committed to allocating a substantial share of US$500
million to the promotion of SHS over a 5-year period) (Shell, 2001).The prevalence of these support
schemes demonstrates the considerable backing that SHS technology is currently receiving.

Justification for such support has been to remove the barriers to penetration of this technology (see
Table 4) in an attempt to level the playing field between these systems and conventional energy
carriers (Haas, 1995). It is important to note, however, that the vast majority of SHS projects have
been supported by northern aid and/or pushed by northern entrepreneurs as a technology transfer
measure (Erikson and Chapman, 1995). SHS user benefits often quoted in promotional literature
include delivering improved health services, providing modern and strong light sources that can
extend working hours, and creating income generating activities (Gustavsson, 2007). While these
benefits are associated with general strategic development goals, more often than not they are based
on a conjecture of the potentials of the technology and secondary information in development
literature. The remainder of this essay will examine the role that SHS can play in meeting actual
household energy needs in terms of energy used for cooking, lighting and communications, income
generation and productive uses.

Table 4: Key barriers to SHS penetration and consequent barrier removal options
Barrier Barrier Removal Strategies
Financial:  Micro-credit facilities for end-users and dealers
high up-  Loan schemes & revolving funds in conventional financing institutions
front capital  Removal of taxes and levies
costs high  Capital and tariff subsidies
tariffs  Fee-for-service delivery model
Technical  Train locals as technicians within projects
support for  Train users on basic maintenance
installation  Disseminate user-friendly manuals on operations and maintenance
and  Shift responsibility to service deliverer
maintenance (Service delivering agents in companies)
Limited  Large scale government sponsored projects
markets  Public-private partnerships to share costs
 Awareness raising targeting potential consumers
 Donor financed projects
 Policy including quotas for renewable energy technologies
Quality of  Labelling
technology  Standards
 Government programs selecting winners
 Regulation
Source: Wamukonya, 2007.

Page 4 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Household Energy Use: Cooking

Cooking accounts for between 90% and 100% of energy consumption in poor rural households
(Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002). Traditional biomass sources of energy tend to be only around 10%
efficient and are generally used in open hearths or simple stoves that are a major source of
concentrated air pollutants4. Today, the number of women and children dying prematurely each year
from household air pollution related illnesses in SSA is estimated at 400,000, which is greater than
the number of premature deaths each year from malaria or tuberculosis (WHO, 2008; OECD/IEA,
2010). Time spent collecting and using traditional fuels also represents a significant burden, primarily
for women, since it comes at the expense of other productive tasks, including education (Kammen,
2006).

Links between rural household energy use and women are often ignored, yet the importance cannot
be overstated. Gender issues in energy are now receiving significant attention at a micro-level in
terms of technological interventions such as improved cookstoves, biogas and solar cookers, but, as
demonstrated by the figures in Table 2 above, are yet to be addressed substantially in macro-level
policies (Kebede et al., 2010). At the household level then, electricity from SHS can have very little
impact on cooking practices in rural households and therefore cannot realistically contribute to the
reduction inefficient biomass energy use by the rural poor in SSA (Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002).

Household Energy Use: Lighting and Communications

Lighting for low-income households in SSA is generally provided by candles or low-efficiency lanterns
(IEA, 2010). Kerosene lamps are widely used but can be uncomfortably hot in SSA climates, difficult
to light, and their use can impose serious fire hazards and health risks5, as well as relatively high
costs for kerosene lamps and fuel (IEA, 2010). For the very poorest rural households firewood is
often an important fuel for lighting as well as cooking, as it does not require additional investment
(Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002). Switching to electricity eliminates many of the risks associated with
these fuels and increases lighting efficiency6.

In rural areas where installed SHS are generally small (i.e. less than 50 Wp) competing interests on
how the available energy should be used in the household are often found. Studies on the type of

4
Including particulate matter and gases such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides.
5
There is emerging evidence of links between the use of kerosene lanterns and tuberculosis and cancer
(OECD/IEA, 2010).
6
For example, a paraffin wax candle has an intensity (in lumens) of 1 and an efficiency (lumen per Watt) of
0.01, while a 15 Watt fluorescent bulb has an intensity of 600 and efficiency of 40 (Yadoo and Cruickshank,
2010).

Page 5 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

appliances found in households with SHS show that TVs are extremely common7 and often provide a
strong incentive for the purchase of SHS (Nieuwenhout et al., 2001). In a study of rural households
with SHS in Kenya, Jacobson (2004) found that in many cases watching TV is prioritised before
children‟s studies and in virtually all cases before use by women for educational or income
generating purposes.

A number of studies have concluded that lighting systems installed alongside SHS create more time
in the day for women to complete household chores (van der Plas and Hankins, 1998; Murphy,
2001). Considering the fact that most rural women‟s workdays begin prior to sunrise, one has to
question whether or not lighting systems actually add to the workload of many rural women.
Moreover, it has even been argued that those technologies providing only lighting and access to TV
to rural households, rather than energy for cooking, are inherently biased against women (Murphy,
2001). The effects of SHS on education are also unclear, with studies indicating both increased time
spent on reading and writing and decreased time spent on studies (Nieuwenhout et al., 1999). While
the latter is argued to be a consequence of access to TV8 television has also been found to improve
foreign language skills and general awareness of the situation in the country (Richter, 1999,
Gustavsson, 2007).

Furthermore, while studies9 reporting the favourable cost-effectiveness of SHS have been
instrumental in motivating donors and governments‟ commitment of resources to SHS, there is now a
large body of evidence suggesting that this is not necessarily the case10. In reality, SHS have been
found to provide a limited energy service at relatively high costs per unit (Drennen et al., 1996). The
upfront cost of a typical 50 Wp SHS are usually several times higher than the average gross national
income (GNI) per capita in most SSA countries (see Table 5), and thus not affordable to the majority
of rural households. In the limited areas where self-organised markets for SHS do exist, only tiny
systems (5-20Wp) are typically installed and individual components bought one at a time in order to
make the systems more affordable. In contrast donor supported projects and programmes typically
focus on larger, higher-end systems, with minimum quality standards, and therefore tend only to be
disseminated among rural middle class households willing to take up loans for financing (van der
Vleuten et al., 2007).

7
Studies include Reinders et al., 1999; Morante and Zilles, 2001; Nieuwenhout et al., 1999, 2001; Jacobson,
2004; Ranniger, 2004; and Gustavsson, 2007.
8
Time spent watching TV depends on the size of the SHS but can reach up to five hour a day (Nieuwenhout et
al., 1999).
9
Including studies by Foley, 1995; World Bank, 1996; Miller and Hope, 2000; and Martinot et al., 2000a,b.
10
Evidence presented by Cowan et al., 1996; Wamukonya and Davis, 2001; Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002; van
der Vleuten et al., 2007.

Page 6 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Table 5: Cost of SHS in Select SSA Countries

Estimated SHS Cost GNI per capita, % of estimated cost of

Country (50 Wp), US$ * 2006 ** SHS per GNI per capita
South Africa 550 2,800 20
Kenya 550 370 149
Eritrea 650 200 325
Uganda 730 280 260
Ethiopia 750 150 500
Tanzania 850 300 283
Ghana 850 280 304
Zambia 1200 350 342
Sources: Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002; Moner-Girona et al., 2006. *Solar PV system cost includes solar panel,
battery, 4 lights, charge controller, installation materials, and installation. ** GNI per capita figure overestimates
rural incomes by including the high income urban residents. Rural inhabitants of SSA are far poorer than their
urban counterparts and their income flows are often less regular.

Household Energy Use: Income Generation and Productive Uses

Without access to modern electricity or adequate mechanical power biomass is still the dominant
energy source used in SSA in many micro-rural enterprises, including beer brewing, fish smoking,
baking and tobacco curing (Karekezi and Kithyoma, 2002). While development objectives such as
income generating opportunities are frequently put forward as reasons for the promotion of SHS, in
reality there is very little evidence to show that SHS have any direct impacts on income generation at
a household level. Available evidence suggests that the use of provided by electricity SHS in income
generating is mostly indirect and more often than not marginal (Nieuwenhout et al., 1999;
Wamukonya, 2007). Examples include access to SHS-generated lighting being used to extend time
spent making handicrafts for later sale or extended business operating hours (Wamukonya, 2007).

With the vast majority of Africa‟s ultra-poor participating in some form of subsistence farming11 it is
widely argued that agriculture should be the lead sector for reduction of poverty in SSA (Diao et al.,
2007; World Bank, 2007), with focus falling on stimulating smallholder food productivity
(Christiaensen and Demery, 2007). For those involved in subsistence agriculture access to electricity
is not a high priority, but rather access to mechanical power to provide basic services such as
irrigation, water pumping, food and agricultural processing, and basic value-addition and income
generating activities isof far higher value. Access to mechanical power can thus help to shift the rural
poor from a subsistence existence into more productive communities where people are able to
enhance their livelihoods through their own efforts (Bates et al., 2009). It is therefore believed that

11
For example in Benin, 95 % of the agricultural economy is assured by small farmers using subsistence
techniques and in Namibia, 90% of the population in communal farming areas (which covers approximately
41% of the country's land area and is composed of smallholder subsistence farmers) are directly dependent on
subsistence agriculture for a living.. Source: FAO, 2005.

Page 7 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

access to mechanical power should be given far greater recognition as a poverty reduction strategy
than is currently reflected in national energy policies (Table 2).

Conclusions:
An overwhelming majority of poor rural households in SSA lack access to even the most basic
modern energy services. In efforts to improve the situation many governments have set national and
rural energy access targets for the future, however these policies are found to be strongly biased
towards the provision of electrical services, rather than energy for cooking or mechanical power.
Despite significant backing from governments, multilateral agencies and the private sector SHS are
found to only provide a very limited service to rural households for a relatively high cost and are
therefore not considered an appropriate technology for ultra-poor households. Instead efforts should
first be focused on delivering improved efficiency cookstoves and mechanical power for productive
uses in order to improve welfare and reduce poverty.

Research for this essay has been limited by the lack of documentary information on actual
experiences of households with SHS. Relatively few projects and programmes have been monitored
and those studies that do exist tend to concern only the first 1-2 years of the projects, even though
much relevant information can only be obtained after a longer period. In addition, negative
experiences with SHS are rarely reported, thus leading to a noticeable bias towards promotional
reports in the SHS literature. Furthermore, while literature on SHS use in SSA is available to a certain
extent, the vast majority of studies originate from experiences of developing countries in other parts
of the world (particularly Asia) where baseline socioeconomic conditions are generally not so severe
and thus not necessarily comparable to those of ultra-poor SSA nations.

While there is now growing acceptance among academics that the provision of electricity is not
necessarily a sufficient condition for economic and social development, this view is not widely found
outside the academic literature and certainly not shared by those responsible for generating national
energy policies in SSA. Instead electricity is still regarded as a symbol of modernization and progress
with politicians promising communities electricity in order to win votes. The consequent political
pressures to fulfil election promises therefore often outweigh economic rationales. So, while a radical
shift is needed, away from policies centred on electricity provision and towards those more
adequately tailored to suit actual household energy needs, it is believed that this shift needs to be
lead by international level organisations in order to overcome these national level pressures.

Further research:
In order to gain increased insight into the use of SHS at the household level further and extended
monitoring and evaluation activities are required. Monitoring needs to be continued beyond the initial

Page 8 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

installation stage of SHS projects and continued for at least the duration of time that the SHS is
installed. Specific areas for where further research into the impacts of SHS is necessary include the
relationship between SHS-generated lighting and the workload of women and the effects of SHS on
education. Finally with mechanical power so vastly under-represented in the energy literature a fuller
informational baseline and specific methodologies relating to the scope, needs, applications, gender
aspects, challenges, constraints and impacts of mechanical power clearly need to be developed in
order to enable better quantification of the sector and the formulation of appropriate development
strategies and targets in the future.

References:

African Development Bank Group (2007) East Africa Energy Sector Challenges and Opportunities.
Invest in Renewable Energies, East Africa Conference. September 2007, Frankfurt, Germany.
Ahmed, A. U., Hill, R. V., Smith, L. C., Wiesmann, D. M. and Frankenberger, T (2007) The World’s
Most Deprived: Characteristics and Causes of Extreme Poverty and Hunger. Washington:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Bailis, R., Ezzati M., and Kammen, D. M. (2007) Health and Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Biomass
and Fossil Fuel Energy Futures in Africa. Boiling Point. 54: 3-8.
Bates, L., Hunt, S., Khennas, S., and Sastrawinata, N. (2009) Expanding Energy Access in
Developing Countries: The Role of Mechanical Power. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Christiaensen, L. and L. Demery (2007) Down to Earth: Agriculture and Poverty Reduction in Africa.
Washington: World Bank.
Cowan, B., Banks, D., and Geerdts, P. (1996) Solar Home Systems: Techno- Economic Study
Annex. Energy and Development Research Centre, University of Cape Town.
Diao, X., P. Hazell, D. Resnick and J. Thurlow. (2007) The Role of Agriculture in Development:
Implications for Sub‐Saharan Africa. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Drennen, T. E., Erickson, J. D., and Chapman, D. (1996) Solar power and climate change policy in
developing countries. Energy Policy. 24(1): 9-16.
Duke, R.D. and D. M. Kammen (1999) The Economics of Energy Market Transformation Initiatives.
The Energy Journal. 20(4): 15-64.
Duke, R. D. and D. M. Kammen (2003) Energy for Development: Solar Home Systems in Africa and
Global Carbon Emissions. Climate Change for Africa: Science, Technology, Policy and
Capacity Building. Pak Sum Low: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
FAO (2005) Women, agriculture and rural development: a synthesis report of the Africa region. Food
and Agriculture Organization. [Online] Available from:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0250e/x0250e03.htm [Accessed 12 October 2010]
Foley, G. (1995) Photovoltaic Applications in Rural Areas of the Developing World. World Bank
Technical Paper No. 304. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Page 9 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Goldemberg, J. (1998) Leapfrog energy technologies. Energy Policy. 26(10): 729-741.

Gustavsson, M. (2007) Educational benefits from solar technology-Access to solar electric services
and changes in children‟s study routines, experiences from eastern province Zambia. Energy
Policy. 35: 1292-1299.
Jacobson, A. (2004) Connective Power: Solar Electrification and Social Change in Kenya. Berkeley,
CA: University of California. (p. 344).
Haas, R. (1995) The value of photovoltaic electricity for society. Solar Energy. 54(1): 25-31.
IEA/OECD (2009) World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Kammen, D. M. (1999) Promoting appropriate energy technologies in the developing world.
Environment. 41(5): 11-15.
Kammen, D. M. (2006) Bioenergy in developing countries: experiences and prospects. In: Hazell, P.,
Pachauri, R.K. (Eds.), Bioenergy and Agriculture: Promises and Challenges. Focus, 14.
Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Karekezi, A., and Kithyoma, W. (2002) Renewable energy strategies for rural Africa: is a PV-led
renewable energy strategy the right approach for providing modern energy to the rural poor of
sub-Saharan Africa? Energy Policy. 30: 1071-1086.
Kebede, E., Kagochi, J., and Jolly, C. M. (2010) Energy consumption and economic development in
Sub-Sahara Africa. Energy Economics. 32: 532-537.
Lovejoy, D. (1992) Electrification of rural areas by solar PV. Natural Resources Forum. 101-110.
Madubansi, M. and Shackleton, C. M. (2006) Changing energy profiles and consumption patterns
following electrification in five rural villages, South Africa. Energy Policy. 34: 4081-4092.
Martinot, E., Cabraal, A., and Mathur, S. (2000a) World Bank/GEF solar home systems projects:
experiences and lessons learned 1993–2000. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Martinot, E., Ramankutty, R., and Rittner, F. (2000b) The GEF solar PV portfolio: emerging
experience and lessons. Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper No.2. Washington, DC:
Global Environment Facility.
Miller, D. and Hope, C. (2000) Learning to lend for off-grid solar power: policy lessons from World
Bank loans to India, Indonesia and Sri-Lanka. Energy Policy. 28. 87-105.
Moner-Girona, M., Ghanadan, R., Jacobson, A., and Kammen, D. M. (2006) Decreasing PV Costs in
Africa: Opportunities for Rural Electrification Using Solar PV in Sub-Saharan Africa. Refocus.
7(1): 40-45.
Morante, F. and Zilles, R. (2001) Energy Demand in Solar Home Systems: The Case of the
Communities in Ribeira Valley in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Progress in Photovoltaic
Research and Application. 9: 379-388.
Nieuwenhout, F. D. J., van Dijk, A. L., van Dijk, V. A. P., Lasschuit, P. E., van Roekel, G., Arriaza, H.,
Hankins, M., Sharma, B. D., and Wade, H. (1999) Monitoring and evaluation of solar home
systems: experiences with applications of solar PV for households in developing countries.

Page 10 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN), p. 157. [Online] Available from:

http://roo.undp.org/gef/solarpv/docs/bgmaterial/Misc%20PV%20Papers/ECN%20-
%20Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20SHS%20with%20applications%20of%20solar
%20PV.pdf [Accessed 01 November 2010]
Nieuwenhout, F. D. J., van Dijk, A., van Roekel, G., van Dijk, V. A. P., Hirsch, D., Arriaza, H.,
Hankins, M., Sharma, B. D., Wade, H. (2001) Experience with solar home systems in
developing countries: a review. Progress in Photovoltaic Research and Application 9. 455-474.
OECD/IEA (2010) Energy Poverty: How to make modern energy access universal? Special early
excerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2010 for the UN General Assembly on the Millennium
Development Goals. Paris: International Energy Agency.
PACEAA (2009) Review of national frameworks for involvement of agroindustries in rural
electrification. Poverty Alleviation through Cleaner Energy from Agro-industries in Africa.
PACEAA Deliverable D1, April, 2009.
Ranniger, H. (2004) Solar Electrification by the Concession Approach in the Eastern Cape: Phase 1:
Baseline Survey. Cape Town: ERC (Energy Research Centre), University of Cape Town. (p.
46).
Reinders, A. H., Pramusito, M .E., Sudradjat, A., van Dijk, V. A. P., Mulyadi, R. and Turkenburg, W.
C. (1999) Sukatani revisited: on the performance of nine-year-old solar home systems and
street lighting systems in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 3: 1-47.
REN21 ( 2010) Renewables 2010 Global Status Report. [Online] Available from:
http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revised%20Sept201
0.pdf [Accessed 29 October 2010]
Richter, M. (1999) Impact Analysis of Renewable Energy Supply Systems in Several Project
Locations in Inner Mongolia. PR China on behalf of SMA.
Shell, (2001) Our Approach to Alternative Energy. [Online] Available from:
http://www.shell.com/royal-en/content/0,5028,25551-51055,00.html [Accessed 30 October
2010]
UNDP/WHO (2009) The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries: A Review Focusing on
the Least Developed Countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: United Nations
Development Programme.
van der Plas, R. J. and Hankins, M. (1998) Solar electricity in Africa: A reality. Energy Policy. 26(4):
295-305.
van der Vleuten, F., Stam, N., and van der Plas, R. (2007) Putting solar home system programmes
into perspective: What lessons are relevant? Energy Policy. 35: 1439-1451.
Wamukonya, N. and Davis, M. (2001) Socio-economic impacts of rural electrification in Namibia:
comparisons between grid, solar and unelectrified households. Energy for Sustainable
Development Journal. 5 (3).

Page 11 of 12
Alice Hubbard Module 1: Introduction Bryce Gilroy-Scott

Wamukonya, N. (2007) Solar home system electrification as a viable technology option for Africa‟s
development. Energy Policy. 35: 6-14.
WHO (2008) The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Bank (1996) Rural Energy and Development: Improving Energy Supplies for Two Billion
People. Washington DC: The World Bank.
World Bank (2007), World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Washington:
World Bank.
Yadoo, A. and Cruickshank, H. (2010) The value of cooperatives in rural electrification. Energy
Policy. 38(6): 2941-2947.

Page 12 of 12