Thank you for the thoughtful piece Todd. In my humble opinion, we ought to think big, not small, about progress. Better to set the goal high and miss, than set the goal intentionally low and pat ourselves on the back.
You should challenge the top 5 IAE leaders to the daily equivalent of 100 kWh limitation and see how many days they last. Might be a fun fundraiser idea that would have been live-streamed if only it weren't too low to power a laptop/webcam.
Thanks for the post Todd and for always raising the importance of achieving greater levels of energy services.
Both myself and the IEA are aligned with your points on a need of higher energy services. However, there are some misunderstanding about the methodology imho in your post. The basic bundle is a tracking point for first access (mostly to count Solar Home Systems which provide access to around 45 million people today and excludes solar sstems smaller than 10Wp as lanterns and multi-light systems), the methodology strongly encourages to track all levels of energy and types of systems separately and then clearly states: The IEA defines access to electricity as a household receiving enough electricity to power at least a minimum level of services capable of growing over time.
You can read in the report:
.. the proposed MEM does not mirror the reality of the large population gaining access for the first time who will need to start at much lower levels, which is more accurately reflected in the IEA basic bundle or even below. The values in the basic bundle might seem to start relatively low but the IEA access vision implies households will climb the energy ladder with the support of national policies and further electrification planning. Indeed, the MEM is very similar to the IEA “extended bundle” of 250 kWh per person per year. ...
Happy to discuss and align cause I am a strong defender of the use of energy for economical growth.
Thanks Gianluca. I get that. My post was not clear enough. I applaud the IEA for making the case for a ladder approach. My concern is that the UN will report a single access rate. And from the report: "The IEA defines access to electricity as a household receiving enough electricity to power at least a minimum level of services capable of growing over time. The IEA minimum level of services is defined as the “basic bundle”". This seems clear that access = basic bundle.
Does that mean that governments, the UN, and the IEA will use the basic bundle as the access rate for SDG7 progress? Seems like yes. (I had thought the IEA was using, more or less, Tier 2 as the standard. But now it looks like you've dropped it to Tier 1.)
The nuance of what IEA is trying to do w MTF is totally lost when it comes to the UN reporting a single number. That's my concern. If I'm still missing something, pls tell me.
I definitely understand and agree with your points and concerns on the SDG7.1 indicator which unfortunately is binary for low data availabiltiy reasons and - as most hh surveys have very high level questions on access - include at times also smaller lanters.
This is also why we published the guidebook to propose complementary methodologies/tools to track different levels separately and to exclude systems smaller than 10Wp trough the use of supply side data.
We probably might have had made clearer the fact that the basic bundle (that could be called pre-electrification) is for tracking current progress and not a target, which I believe must be at much higher levels . But no worries this is not changing how the SDG7 custodians track access but will eventually catalyse opportunities to discuss how to track different levels of access separately going forward.
IMHO a combination of supply data plus MTF-style surveys could do wonders but additional sustainable resources needs to be allocated to tracking at the national level.
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not - appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gaslighting and insults.
I guess I am with you on the "why"? Why couldn't we target energy access/security as The Most Important Thing and then look at policy options to get there?
"Too bad for you based on climate considerations" seems backwards IMHO.
Increasing energy consumption in communities with little or no utilization is a good policy – taking aim at the DRE industry is not. For many communities a solar lantern, multi-light kit or solar home system (SHS) is not a “gadget” but a life changing product and a pathway for the adoption of larger systems and consumption. Solar lantern and SHS consumers consistently report the significant improvement to their quality of life (see 60Decibels recent Impact Report). It will take ALL technologies to achieve energy access goals, let’s not be dismissive of small off-grid options, can they power a business? Maybe not. Can they improve a family’s quality of life or productivity? – definitely!
Thanks Sarah. I’m not sure we disagree. I’m all for using all technologies to tackle energy poverty. Solar lanterns and small home systems are great first steps on the energy ladder. My objection is equating them with modern access. They’re not. I don’t want the development community to confuse these, as is already happening with tracking SDG7. The Power Africa connections debacle is a perfect example of what we need to avoid.
100 kWh/person/day in total isn't a lot. This low goal, I think, is a way to be diplomatic and not push nations to build lots of generation and transmission out to a lot of people.
The highly indebted energy poor nations that have most of the people who are still below that line have long-standing issues not including energy - institutional corruption, difficulties in eminent domain, policy flip-flopping, lack of local experts, you name it, it's probably gone wrong.
Not contradicting environmental goals is important too, and a lot of less prosperous countries have the black rocks for baseload. That doesn't bode well without a whole lotta capex.
IMO Definitely 3, opening the door for 2. Many, many governments simply aren't in a place where they can build the transmisison infrastructure needed to achieve grid based electrification by 2030, nor can they take on the risk of generation IPPs in a world where many are struggling with their debt load. The transmission projects needed for even partial achievment often dont even exist anywhere except in high level electrification plans, and many governments have intractable institutional problems in their market management which they have to resolve first. Island/mini-grids could hit the speed targets, but have their own complexitiies on governance and need massive subsidy to have politically acceptable tariffs, but that isnt available. As a result, lanterns are proposed as the solution, as # of people electrified is prioritized over 'volume' of electrification.... For what it's worth, everybody is caught in a tough situation here, and lanterns also have a lot of value, but the donor/development providers are the ones who have the most freedom of action to change course here - private businesses have to surive the way they know how to, governments are stuck between a rock (the technocratic solutions they want) and a hard place (the polticians who are voted in by number of people getting new connections or subsidized power).
I agree with you about much greater -- net zero CO2 emitting -- energy use by poor people (heck, rich people, too :))being desirable. I'm not clear what policy the proposed definitions and re-definitions will effect?
On a side note, solar lanterns are pretty cool. Especially for nomadic populations.
True. Very useful for some things. But not = modern energy access.
Thanks so much, Todd! It is so good to see people pushing to do actual good in the world.
Thank you for the thoughtful piece Todd. In my humble opinion, we ought to think big, not small, about progress. Better to set the goal high and miss, than set the goal intentionally low and pat ourselves on the back.
You should challenge the top 5 IAE leaders to the daily equivalent of 100 kWh limitation and see how many days they last. Might be a fun fundraiser idea that would have been live-streamed if only it weren't too low to power a laptop/webcam.
Thanks for the post Todd and for always raising the importance of achieving greater levels of energy services.
Both myself and the IEA are aligned with your points on a need of higher energy services. However, there are some misunderstanding about the methodology imho in your post. The basic bundle is a tracking point for first access (mostly to count Solar Home Systems which provide access to around 45 million people today and excludes solar sstems smaller than 10Wp as lanterns and multi-light systems), the methodology strongly encourages to track all levels of energy and types of systems separately and then clearly states: The IEA defines access to electricity as a household receiving enough electricity to power at least a minimum level of services capable of growing over time.
You can read in the report:
.. the proposed MEM does not mirror the reality of the large population gaining access for the first time who will need to start at much lower levels, which is more accurately reflected in the IEA basic bundle or even below. The values in the basic bundle might seem to start relatively low but the IEA access vision implies households will climb the energy ladder with the support of national policies and further electrification planning. Indeed, the MEM is very similar to the IEA “extended bundle” of 250 kWh per person per year. ...
Happy to discuss and align cause I am a strong defender of the use of energy for economical growth.
Gianluca
Thanks Gianluca. I get that. My post was not clear enough. I applaud the IEA for making the case for a ladder approach. My concern is that the UN will report a single access rate. And from the report: "The IEA defines access to electricity as a household receiving enough electricity to power at least a minimum level of services capable of growing over time. The IEA minimum level of services is defined as the “basic bundle”". This seems clear that access = basic bundle.
Does that mean that governments, the UN, and the IEA will use the basic bundle as the access rate for SDG7 progress? Seems like yes. (I had thought the IEA was using, more or less, Tier 2 as the standard. But now it looks like you've dropped it to Tier 1.)
The nuance of what IEA is trying to do w MTF is totally lost when it comes to the UN reporting a single number. That's my concern. If I'm still missing something, pls tell me.
Thanks Todd!
I definitely understand and agree with your points and concerns on the SDG7.1 indicator which unfortunately is binary for low data availabiltiy reasons and - as most hh surveys have very high level questions on access - include at times also smaller lanters.
This is also why we published the guidebook to propose complementary methodologies/tools to track different levels separately and to exclude systems smaller than 10Wp trough the use of supply side data.
We probably might have had made clearer the fact that the basic bundle (that could be called pre-electrification) is for tracking current progress and not a target, which I believe must be at much higher levels . But no worries this is not changing how the SDG7 custodians track access but will eventually catalyse opportunities to discuss how to track different levels of access separately going forward.
IMHO a combination of supply data plus MTF-style surveys could do wonders but additional sustainable resources needs to be allocated to tracking at the national level.
Thakns,
Gianluca
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
What I know follows.
What do you know that’s different?
Published (SubStack, X, MS Edge, YouTube (banned), PAPundits, et. al.)
Peer reviewed (by the world)
Undisputed (so far)
ISR at ToA = 1,368 W/m^2.
From the Sun’s perspective Earth is a flat, discular, pin head.
To average that discular energy over a spherical surface divide by 4.
(disc = π r^2, sphere = 4 π r^2)
1,368/4=342.
(Not even close to how the Earth heats & cools + this is Fourier’s model which even Pierrehumbert says is no good.)
Deduct 30% albedo.
(Clouds, ice, snow created by GHE/water vapor.)
342*(1.0-0.3)=240.
Deduct 80 due to atmospheric absorption.
(If this were so ToA would be warmer than surface.)
Net/net of 160 arrives at surface.
Per LoT 1 160 is ALL!! that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 LWIR (by remaining diff) = 160
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not - appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gaslighting and insults.
This very much recalls
"Carbon Based Prohibition "
which appeared in REason Magazine 16 yeaRS AGO !
https://reason.com/2008/07/23/carbon-based-prohibition/
I guess I am with you on the "why"? Why couldn't we target energy access/security as The Most Important Thing and then look at policy options to get there?
"Too bad for you based on climate considerations" seems backwards IMHO.
Increasing energy consumption in communities with little or no utilization is a good policy – taking aim at the DRE industry is not. For many communities a solar lantern, multi-light kit or solar home system (SHS) is not a “gadget” but a life changing product and a pathway for the adoption of larger systems and consumption. Solar lantern and SHS consumers consistently report the significant improvement to their quality of life (see 60Decibels recent Impact Report). It will take ALL technologies to achieve energy access goals, let’s not be dismissive of small off-grid options, can they power a business? Maybe not. Can they improve a family’s quality of life or productivity? – definitely!
Thanks Sarah. I’m not sure we disagree. I’m all for using all technologies to tackle energy poverty. Solar lanterns and small home systems are great first steps on the energy ladder. My objection is equating them with modern access. They’re not. I don’t want the development community to confuse these, as is already happening with tracking SDG7. The Power Africa connections debacle is a perfect example of what we need to avoid.
100 kWh/person/day in total isn't a lot. This low goal, I think, is a way to be diplomatic and not push nations to build lots of generation and transmission out to a lot of people.
The highly indebted energy poor nations that have most of the people who are still below that line have long-standing issues not including energy - institutional corruption, difficulties in eminent domain, policy flip-flopping, lack of local experts, you name it, it's probably gone wrong.
Not contradicting environmental goals is important too, and a lot of less prosperous countries have the black rocks for baseload. That doesn't bode well without a whole lotta capex.
Politics is the art of the believed possible.
IMO Definitely 3, opening the door for 2. Many, many governments simply aren't in a place where they can build the transmisison infrastructure needed to achieve grid based electrification by 2030, nor can they take on the risk of generation IPPs in a world where many are struggling with their debt load. The transmission projects needed for even partial achievment often dont even exist anywhere except in high level electrification plans, and many governments have intractable institutional problems in their market management which they have to resolve first. Island/mini-grids could hit the speed targets, but have their own complexitiies on governance and need massive subsidy to have politically acceptable tariffs, but that isnt available. As a result, lanterns are proposed as the solution, as # of people electrified is prioritized over 'volume' of electrification.... For what it's worth, everybody is caught in a tough situation here, and lanterns also have a lot of value, but the donor/development providers are the ones who have the most freedom of action to change course here - private businesses have to surive the way they know how to, governments are stuck between a rock (the technocratic solutions they want) and a hard place (the polticians who are voted in by number of people getting new connections or subsidized power).
I agree with you about much greater -- net zero CO2 emitting -- energy use by poor people (heck, rich people, too :))being desirable. I'm not clear what policy the proposed definitions and re-definitions will effect?