Bridging The Coverage-Electrification Gap PDF

Gwen Herzig Academic Enrichment Fund
September 2015
Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The

Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging
Infrastructure to Improve Quality of Life in Rural
sub-Saharan Africa
Ezra Max1 * Justin Berman2
Abstract
Rural sub-Saharans face significant logistical and financial difficulties in keeping mobile
handsets charged; as a result, despite extensive network access, cheap handset models, and
a large consumer base, phone penetration and phone usage are far lower in rural areas than
in urban ones. This misalignment, which we have termed the coverage electrification gap,
makes electricity access the major infrastructural barrier to improved rural phone distribution
and increased phone use. Expanding rural electricity access offers important benefits for
telecom firms, consumers, and development groups.
In this paper, we propose a means of providing privately funded rural electrification for phone
charging supported jointly by telecom firms, NGOs, and consumers and assess potential
electricity solutions for their suitability for off-grid phone charging applications. We present the
first quantitative analysis the effects of phone charging infrastructure on telecom revenues,
economic growth, and end-users expenditures, and the first systematic assessment of off-grid
technologies and distribution models alignment with the unique needs and opportunities for
off-grid phone charging in sub-Saharan Africa.
We outline the negative impacts of current phone charging infrastructure and analyze solar
pay-as-you-go (PAYG) installations, solar handsets, kinetic charging devices, tower-based
charging systems, and community wind systems on the criteria of costs and benefits, scalability,
likelihood of receiving government approval and funding, and community and environmental
impact to determine each systems potential as an off-grid charging solution. We demonstrate
that developing off-grid charging capacity can be both highly lucrative for private industry and
highly beneficial to quality of life. We find the greatest potential for off-grid phone charging in
solar PAYG installations, kinetic charging devices, and community wind systems.
Our work thus serves as a proof of concept and general outline for privately funded rural
electrification for phone charging aimed at policymakers, private industry, and NGOs across
sub-Saharan Africa, with the expectation that our models can be further refined by these
groups according to country-specific conditions when put into application.
Key words
Rural ElectrificationOff-GridICT/DevelopmentSub-Saharan Telecoms
1 Corresponding
author: Collegiate School; 260 West 78th Street, New York, NY 10024, United States;
emax@collegiateschool.org; 1-(212)-722-5740
2 Collegiate School; 260 West 78th Street, New York, NY 10024, United States; jberman@collegiateschool.org
Contents
1
Introduction
1.1 Effects on Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2 Effects on Development . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Effects on Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Energy Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
3
4
4
Methods of Analysis
and feasibility in low-density populations (an issue

compounded by central governments insufficient
investment in electrifying poorer rural regions.)
Without electricity, rural phone users are forced
to either use expensive and inconvenient phone
shops to operate cell phones or not operate them
at all; a users electricity costs for a minute of cell
phone use can routinely be higher than his or her
data costs for the same period, and users walk up to
50km to access charging stations (Wogan; Cheka
Bombastik; Nokia 2700 classic; Community
Power from Mobile-Charging 13). The effect is
to limit the scope and scale of rural sub-Saharan
telecom markets, since many rural sub-Saharans
either cannot purchase cell phones and plans due
to the high cost or low availability of electricity for
phone charging or cannot purchase an advanced
cell phone due both to limited disposable income
after electricity costs and to the higher energy usage
of advanced phones. Total phone penetration and
advanced phone penetration rates in rural areas lag
behind urban rates by 16 percentage points and 50
percentage points, respectively; as network coverage is widespread in rural areas, we can conclude
that poor rural electrification forms the major infrastructural barrier to greater phone use and greater
smartphone adoption.1 2 The limiting effect of poor
electrification in rural telecom markets negatively
impacts telecom firms, consumers, and development.
2.1 Criteria for Charging Solutions . . . . . . . . 5

Costs and Benefits Scalability Likelihood of Recieving Permission and Funding Community and
Environmental Impact
2.2 Assessing Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3
Results
3.1 Phone Shops and Grid Electricity . . . . . 7

3.2 Solar Pay-as-You-Go Solar Systems . . 8
3.3 Solar Handsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Kinetic Charging Devices . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Tower-based charging systems . . . . . . 11
3.6 Community Wind Systems . . . . . . . . . . 12
4
Discussion
13
4.1 Selecting Charging Solutions . . . . . . . . 13

4.2 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgments
15
1. Introduction
There is a striking misalignment between cellular network coverage and electrification across
sub-Saharan Africa. While approximately 83 percent of sub-Saharan Africans have access to cellular
networks, only 33 percent have access to electricity (Population, total; World Development Indicators: Power; Access to electricity [percent
of population]). The problem particularly affects
rural areas, where electrification rates are lower
(World Energy Outlook 2014Electricity). The
coverage-electrification gap in these regions follows logically from the difference between network
and grid technologies: while cell phone coverage
can be expanded over large areas without dedicated
infrastructure between towers and covered populations, grid electricity cannot, limiting its efficiency
1 The
estimation of rural and urban smartphone penetration was derived through weighted multiple regression for
urban population size and rural population sizes relationship
to overall smartphone penetration in major sub-Saharan markets (Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, and Uganda) with
positive-value constraints to produce an approximation of
theoretical constant rural and urban electrification in these
countries, with a .77 coefficient of determination.
2 There has been some controversy regarding phone penetration as a metric for sub-Saharan telecom markets, since
sub-Saharan phone users often own multiple handsets. Data
and calculations on phone penetration in this paper are based
on the number of connected people (not the total number of
handsets.) However, the World Banks work on phone penetration and GDP growth considers the number of handsets
in operation. For these calculations, we defer to the World
Banks view that either data set is acceptable, as phone sharing
often makes up for multiple-phone ownership (Qiang 8).
Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

Infrastructure to Improve Quality of Life in Rural sub-Saharan Africa 3/17
1.1 Effects on Industry

Growth in the sub-Saharan telecom sector has
been remarkable. Mobile subscriptions tripled between 2005 and 2009, and as a result of this explosive growth firms have tended to focus on wealthier
urban markets that, due to greater user concentration, electrification, and buying power, provided
higher returns on infrastructure investments than rural ones (Zibi 3, 6). By focusing on urban markets,
telecom firms have been able to remain profitable
for a time without addressing the needs of rural areas, and rural penetration and coverage rates have
subsequently lagged behind those in urban areas
(Population covered by a mobile 21).
With more competitors in the field and urban
markets oversaturated, the dynamics of the industry are changing. Cell phone models priced as low
as 15 USD per unit and a growing presence in rural markets demonstrates the industrys intention to
focus on mass-market appeal beyond niche urban
consumers (Zibi 4). However, rural users have less
money to spend on phones after electricity costs,
and fewer have access to the electricity to charge
them at all. The reduced penetration and quality
of handsets in rural markets compared to those in
urban markets is reflected in the average revenue
per user (ARPU) declining precipitously and the
handset subscription compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) dropping from 40 percent in the years
2005-2008 to a projected 6.7 percent in 2013-2018
(What is the Impact 10; Zibi 4-5; Sub-Saharan
African Telecoms Market). Both metrics can be
improved by addressing the electricity needs of
rural markets and thereby increasing the income
consumers can devote to buying phone models and
data and expanding charging access. Customers
interviewed have suggested that lower electricity
costs would lead them to spend more on telephony
(Community Power from Mobile-Charging 13). By
reducing electricity costs and expanding electricity
access for rural users, the telecom industry can improve handset distribution and avoid the contraction
that may otherwise prove the result of hypertrophic
urban growth (Zibi 6).
1.2 Effects on Development

Constraints on handset penetration and advanced
handset penetration represent lost potential for economic growth and development. A World Bank
study found that every 10 percent increase in mobile
phone penetration in developing countries saw GDP
growth increase .8 percent (Qiang 7). This growth
is even more pronounced in areas lacking fixed-line
connections; thus, improving mobile phone access
in rural areas, which are poorer and have less access
to the internet, would strengthen the national economy and improve growth significantly (Qiang 8).
Anecdotally, this trend is apparent in Niger: there,
the dissemination of phones has led to greater stability in grain markets; as connectivity improved coordination and market efficiency, annual grain price
fluctuations decreased by approximately 12 percent
with the increased use of cell phones by growers
and traders (Aker 12). Basic phones improve information access and market efficiency where disseminated.
A change in the quality of phones improves
growth as well; another World Bank study found
that broadband access produces nearly twice as
great an effect on economic development as mobile phone technology (Qiang 8). Another study
found that for each substitution of smartphones for
basic phones equivalent to 10 percent phone penetration, GDP growth improved .15 percent (What
is the Impact 10). The conclusion from these data
is clear: levels of development would improve and
national economies would expand in sub-Saharan
Africa with growth in rural handset concentration
and use and a transition to smartphones in rural
areas. Poor rural electrification presents the major
limitation to achieving these changes and producing
subsequent economic growth.
However, it is worth noting that improving telecoms access alone is not a cure-all for development
needs. Two major factors can limit the positive effects of phone access from electrification: literacy
and infrastructure. Without greater literacy, particularly in English, rural sub-Saharan Africans ability
to benefit from communication and information services will remain diminished; without investment
over the long term in expanding public utilities in

rural areas, phones potential to expand economic

growth will not be fully realized (Zibi 6; Qiang 8;
Tadesse and Bahiigwa).
1.3 Effects on Consumers
The discrepancy between rural and urban handset distributions has consequences for consumers as
well. The mobile functions that sub-Saharan phone
users find most important (messaging, taking photos and videos, and mobile commerce) could all be
performed better by smartphones, and ever-cheaper
and ever-better phones paired with reduced data
costs place these improved capabilities within reach
of consumers (Poushter et al. 5). Yet despite many
polled sub-Saharan Africans expressing a desire or
intention to switch to a smartphone, the transition
from basic handsets to smartphones has been sluggish (Poushter et al. 3). While 64 percent of those
polled in the United States own smartphones, only
15 percent of those polled in sub-Saharan Africa
do; as computer ownership is even less common in
sub-Saharan Africa than smartphone ownership, it
is remarkable to consider how few have transitioned
to internet-capable devices (Poushter et al. 3). Four
out of the five most popular phones in sub-Saharan
Africa remain basic models (Fripp).
Consumer interest, network coverage, and lowcost phone models are all present in sub-Saharan
markets, but there has not been a significant shift
to smartphones due in part to the limits of electricity costs: on average, up to a quarter a of subSaharan Africans monthly income might be spent
on telecommunications; with electricity for cell
phones the most substantial portion of that bill and
smartphones requiring more electricity, poor electrification has become a limiting factor in the transition to smartphones both by reducing up-front
spending power for handsets and by increasing the
cost of their use over time (Cheneau-Loquay 19).
1.4 Energy Solutions
It is clear that expanding access to mobile technologies poses important benefits for the telecom industry, national development, and end-users. Most
Africans live in rural areas, and fixing the coverageelectrification gap in these regions will be essential
in promoting development, information access, and

prosperity. Doing so will depend on the design and
dissemination of electricity infrastructure.
Grid expansion is a slow and expensive process dependent on government supportcosts can
reach about 19,000 USD/km2 , and only a limited
amount of installed capacity ever reaches consumers,
particularly where there has been political unrest
or violence (Africa Leaping Off-Grid; Rogers).
The World Bank has identified these difficulties as
serious limitations in securing greater rural electrification (Community Power from Mobile-Charging
8). Therefore, small-scale, off-grid energy solutions may be the most efficient and practical path to
near-term electrification for phone charging.
While there are many applications for electricity other than cell phone charging and many proposed and employed off-grid technologies serving
in these capacities, it is clear that the coverageelectricity gap has not been sufficiently addressed
by past attempts at designing, scaling, and disseminating these systems. Further, it is clear that
phone charging involves unique revenue streams:
phone charging solutions could capitalize on telecom firms, consumers, and NGOs respective interests in expanding access to telephony and receive funding from all three, with telecom firms
and NGOs either subsidizing user-owned charging
solutions or installing pay-as-you-go charging solutions; further, the disrepair and corruption that have
plagued grid utilities would be evaded, since private
funders would be directly incentivized to ensure
that electricity is readily available to consumers,
whereas grid utilities benefit from new connections
rather than reliable power supply (Rogers; Community Power from Mobile-Charging 8).
Therefore, due to the particular needs and opportunities of phone charging in sub-Saharan Africa,
it is important to define a means of off-grid rural
electrification that will serve to improve and expand charging access; to do so, we assessed electricity technologies and distribution models according
to their alignment with the requirements of subSaharan phone charging.

2. Methods of Analysis
To determine different technologies suitabilities to address the sub-Saharan coverage-electricity
gap, we outlined qualities necessary for solutions
to successfully serve in this capacity and analyzed
six technologies along these criteria. Technologies
assessed were phone shops with grid electricity, solar pay-as-you-go systems, solar handsets, kinetic
charging devices, tower-based charging systems,
and community wind systems.3
2.1 Criteria for Charging Solutions
We assessed potential charging solutions on
the criteria of cost, scalability, likelihood of receiving permission and funding, and community and
environmental impact using both quantitative and
qualitative data.
We outlined four changes in phone use resulting from greater rural electrification: the increased
use of extant basic phones due to reduced electricity
costs and greater accessibility, a shift from basic
phones to smartphones due to greater disposable
income and reduced electricity costs, new basic
phone users due to expanded electricity availability,
and new advanced phone users due to expanded
electricity availability. These changes each provide
positive benefits for telecoms profitability and GDP
growth (see Table 1). We calculated the incremental revenue increase per phone and the 5-year GDP
impact per phone with each change in phone use
(see Table 2, Table 3).
Table 1. Increases in ARPU and Annual GDP Growth from
Phone Usage Changes

Usage Change
ARPU
Growth (per 10% pen.)
More Basic Phone Use
14%
Unavailable
2.1.1 Costs and Benefits
Smartphones Substituted
32%
.15 pts
In calculating the costs and benefits of different charging systems for funders, we assumed that
telecom firms and NGOs would either pay to install
theoretical infrastructure and have users pay a reduced rate to charge their phones or would help subsidize charging infrastructure that users purchased
themselves.4 In either funding scenario, low costs
are important: since NGOs cash flows are dependent on their donors support and telecom firms
profit margins are particularly low (ARPU decline,
greater infrastructure costs, and more saturated markets have squeezed finances,) inexpensive systems
would allow for quicker and broader dissemination
in a limited funding environment; also, since users
would either purchase charging infrastructure along
with handsets or pay for electricity along with data,
minimizing consumers costs is essential in promoting the distribution of more advanced phone models
and higher data usage, which subsequently increase
ARPU and GDP growth (Zibi 3, 6).
New Basic Users
114%
.8 pts
New Smartphone Users
132%
1.38 pts
3 We
did not address community solar charging systems

as the high cost of solar mobile kiosks made it unfeasible
for large-scale sub-Saharan electrification (Our Mobile Solar
Kiosk).
4 Solar PAYG systems feature a unique payment and distribution model; as a result, we outlined funding for these
systems slightly differently (see section 3.2).
Green Power for Mobile 15; Reed et al. 12; What Is the
Impact 10; Qiang 8
Table 2. Monthly ARPU and 5-year Incremental Revenue from
Changes in Phone Use

Usage Change
Mly ARPU (USD)
Incrl Rev (USD)
13.2
96.0
15.32
222.7
New Basic Users
13.2
792.0
15.31
918.6
Green Power for Mobile 15; Reed et al. 12; Poushter et al. 3;
Mobile Economy 10
Table 3. 5-year GDP Growth per
Basic/Advanced Phone
Phone Type
Sc.1 (USD)
Sc.2 (USD)
Basic
160
159
Advanced
8424
17107
Poushter et al. 3; Sub-Saharan Africa

[Developing Only]; What is the Impact 10; Qiang 8
We calculated incremental revenue impact as

the difference between improved ARPUs and standard ARPUs for existing phone users and as the

improved ARPU values for new phone users subtracting all operating expenses; i.e., the net change
to telecoms revenue per system installed. Since
changes in phone distribution affect GDP growth
rates, the 5-year GDP expansion per phone is determined by the number of other phones in use (Qiang
8; What is the Impact 10). In calculating each
phones economic impact, we projected that greater
electrification would lead rural handset distribution
(53 percent basic handset penetration and near-zero
smartphone penetration) to match the distribution in
urban areas (18.4 percent basic handset penetration
and 50.6 percent smartphone penetration) (Poushter
et al. 3; Sub-Saharan Africa [Developing Only]).
We calculated the bounds of GDP impact per phone
given improved rural handset distribution in two
scenarios: 1) assuming no new advanced phone
purchases and a higher rate of smartphone substitution 2) assuming no new basic phone purchases
and a lower rate of smartphone substitution. The
first scenario is predicted to expand developing subSaharan economies by a total of 135 billion USD
over 5 years, the second by 199 billion USD assuming a baseline annual GDP growth of 4.3 percent
(Sub-Saharan Africa [Developing Only]; What
is the Impact 10; Qiang 8). Using these values,
we then calculated 5-year incremental revenues for
telecoms, the 5-year GDP improvement, and the
5-year consumer savings produced by each charging system, allowing us to compare the costs and
benefits of different charging solutions over time
across distribution models. In order to determine
the probability that charging solutions produced the
projected returns, we evaluated each systems scalability and the likelihood of it receiving permission
and funding; however, other factors should be taken
into account by potential funders that will further affect actual systems returns (see Section 4.2, Section
4.3).
2.1.2 Scalability
While there is no optimal off-grid technology

for all sub-Saharan regions, it is important that
charging solutions can be widely disseminated in
a variety of markets and environments; if they cannot, the GDP impact per system will be limited,
since it increases exponentially with overall phone

penetration. We quantified scalability as the percentage of the sub-Saharan population that could be
served by a given solution according to its environmental and social requirements. Additionally, we
addressed the issue of solutions scale. Electricity
solutions that overproduce present inefficiencies in
continent-wide electrification, while underproducing solutions are less effective in improving mobile penetration and promoting a transition to more
advanced phones. Therefore, we calculated each
systems overall scalability such that all end-users
were within a 2.5km radius of the charging solution
and all had access to 5Wh of charging electricity
daily.
2.1.3 Likelihood of Recieving Permission and
Funding
From a political standpoint, it is important

in securing permission for off-grid electrification
that potential technologies focus on phone charging. Public utilities and governments may not be
inclined to allow off-grid electricity solutions to replace grid electricity, particularly in areas around
cities, where phone shops exist today and grid
electrification will eventually occur (Rural Africa
Is the Most). Since off-grid electricity and re-sold
grid electricity are already used for phone charging,
however, governments would likely be less opposed
to the expansion of solutions focused on these tolerated applications (Wogan 2013).
Telecom firms would also be more willing
to support electrification projects in which they
have a clear return on investment. Muddled or
absent revenue streams have stymied previous attempts at privately-funded electrification; therefore,
it would help in securing telecom funding to have
most or all of the solutions electricity dedicated to
phone charging (Community Power from MobileCharging 8). We assessed permissibility and fundability qualitatively, although we considered in part
the amount of produced electricity dedicated to
phone charging.
2.1.4 Community and Environmental Impact
Currently, travelling to charge phones entails

major financial losses for end-users, due either to

lost productivity from hours of walking or to the

high cost of motorized transport (Green Power for
Mobile 16). Given the difficulties sub-Saharans face
in accessing phone shops for grid-based charging, it
is important that charging solutions interfere as little
as possible with end-users lifestyles in order to improve on phone shops inefficiencies and maximize
the development benefits of phone charging access.
Quantitatively, we assessed community impact by
the distances required to reach electricity solutions
(essentially a measurement of how effectively solutions are scaled and distributed for the communities
they serve;) qualitatively, we examined user risk
and burden in operating charging solutions. We
also assessed each solutions environmental impact,
which should be minimized in order to both secure
NGO and government funding and improve quality
of life.
2.2 Assessing Technologies
We assessed five off-grid solutions for their
potential to correct the coverage-electrification gap
through cell phone charging: solar pay-as-you-go
systems, solar panels installed on users homes to
provide electricity for phone charging (and other
applications) that are gradually paid off; solar handsets, mobile phones with integrated solar panels;
kinetic charging devices, which are connected to
bicycles; tower-based charging systems, a proposed
phone charging method wherein phone towers sell
off electricity to mobile users; and community wind
systems, wind turbines equipped to charge multiple
phones each day on a pay-as-you-go basis. Additionally, we assessed phone shops powered with
grid electricity, the predominant method for phone
charging in sub-Saharan Africa, in order to provide
a baseline of current phone charging infrastructure
for comparison with off-grid alternatives.
Of these technologies, we paid particular attention to wind energy. Since small-scale turbines
generally focus on niche consumer markets in developed nations or on remote or extreme applications
for unusual placements, there were few designed
or priced for sub-Saharan conditions; however, we
found high potential for development in this technology (Mukasa et al.; Rolland and Auzane). As
such, we used estimations for turbine scale, output,

and pricing (see Table 4) from a forthcoming paper
on turbine design to provide an approximate price
point for comparison with other charging solutions.
Table 4. Wind Turbine Scale, Output, and Cost
Turbine Radius (m)
Output (w)
Cost (USD)
.85
47
244
1.21
93
257
1.48
138
267
Max and Berman
3. Results
We assessed each technology and distribution
system on the outlined criteria, drawing data for
analysis from general trends and specific examples.
3.1 Phone Shops and Grid Electricity
Phone shops remain the most popular method
for phone charging in rural sub-Saharan Africa
(Community Power from Mobile-Charging 8). Phone
shops operate by reselling electricity to rural users
near grid limits. Grid inefficiencies, inefficiencies
of scale, and shop owners leverage over rural users
make electricity extremely expensive.
Shop users pay around 38 USD/kWh for electricity, compared with the average US grid rate of
.10 USD/kWh and the average sub-Saharan grid
rate of .14 USD/kWh (Wogan 2015; State Electricity Profiles; The High Cost of Electricity).
Travel costs make the real cost of phone charging
even higher: shop users travel up to 50km to access phone shops, risking safety and losing working
hours for each phone charge (Community Power
from Mobile-Charging 14). Despite high electricity prices, phone shops pay-as-you-go distribution
model is appealing for consumers, who enjoy being
able to buy electricity in discrete quantities according to their need and ability; one may consider that
phone data is similarly sold in minutes by most subSaharan vendors, rather than in contracts as in more
established telecom markets (Wogan 2015; Cheka
Bombastik). Improvements to grid capacity, grid
size, and transmission are necessary to bring phone

shop charging to a sufficient penetration and low

enough cost to impact ARPU and GDP; the massive expenses involved in strengthening, expanding,
and updating the grid to the levels necessary for
improved electrification make phone shops a financially unfeasible solution for sub-Saharan phone
charging.
The phone shop models scalability remains
limited without grid expansion. Even at current
phone shop density (assuming phone shop users
are within 50km of phone shop installations), only
45 percent of the general sub-Saharan population
can access phone shop charging at all (Szabo et al.;
Africa: Population Density Overlaid).5 To improve
rural phone distribution, the grid would have to be
extended to the remaining rural sub-Saharan population and significantly expanded in areas where
grid lines currently exists in order to place users
within 2.5km of phone shops. In addition, about
6MW of added capacity would be required to support new phone users, in practice likely more due
to the transmission inefficiencies caused by grid
expansion (The High Cost of Electricity). Thus,
the grid shop model cannot be scaled without major
grid overhauls.
Permission for expanding phone shop charging would theoretically come easily, as phone shop
charging supports public utilities and is non-disruptive
to current market dynamics. Additionally, all electricity generated and used is directed toward phone
use, reassuring telecoms funders. However, the unlikelihood of government funding for initial grid
expansion makes the ease securing permission and
funding irrelevant.
Phone shops have a highly negative community impact; users face difficulties in accessing
phone shops, often risking safety and losing productivity in travelling to keep phones charged (Community Power from Mobile-Charging Services 18).
Further, phone shops cannot expand to the extremely
poor or more rural segments of society due to the
5 We
produced this estimation by overlaying gridline and

population density maps on raster graphics editing software,
removing all pixels within 50km of grid lines, counting pixels
of each density in these areas, and then taking the upper range
of the calculated population.
limitations of their cost and scalability, so the negative community impact will not be mitigated without technological improvements. Environmental
effects are not a primary concern with this technology; while grid electricity is often dependent
on fossil fuel, grid fossil fuels use represents the
OECD norm and present a cleaner alternative to
the diesel-based generators and biomass stoves that
contributes far more heavily to pollution and illness
on the continent (Hutton ix).
3.2 Solar Pay-as-You-Go Solar Systems
Pay-as-you-go solar systems provide electricity at the household level; panels are installed for
consumers at an up-front cost, after which point
users pay only for the electricity they require. Eventually, after the system cost has been paid off (generally within 18 months of purchase) electricity
is free for users (Wogan 2013). These models
are popular in more rural areas, and there are at
least 50,000 PAYG subscribers across the continent
(Wogan 2013).
Table 5. 5-year Incremental Revenue per PAYG
System
Change in Phone Use
Incrl Rev (USD)
195
445
New Basic Users
1587
11837
Wogan 2013
Table 6. 5-year GDP Growth per PAYG
System
Phone Type
Sc.1 (USD)
Sc.2 (USD)
Basic
281
280
Advanced
14818
30036
Wogan 2013
Each PAYG system can produce around 5 watts

of power in peak solar conditions. Assuming that
such conditions exist for roughly 8 hours each day,
noting systems non-phone charging applications,
and considering that battery capacity is limited,
we estimate that on a sunny day a given system

Table 7. 5-year Consumer Savings
per PAYG System

Phone Type
Savings (USD)
Basic
504
Advanced
424
Wogan 2015; Wogan 2013
could devote 10-12Wh of electricity to phone charging. If users were to devote more electricity than
this to phone charging, more household appliances
would have to be turned off unless PAYG systems
were purchased specifically for this purpose, in
which case their up-front cost (around 10 USD)
would limit telephony investment and subsequently
dampen impact on ARPU and GDP by reducing
the penetration of advanced phones. Using our
estimated 12Wh limit, we calculated the 5-year
incremental revenue, 5-year GDP growth, and 5year consumer savings per system for a joint NGOtelecoms-consumer purchase scenario (see Table
5, Table 6, Table 7). We assumed that consumers
would pay 10 USD of the 88 USD total as in the
current pricing scheme and that the rest of the systems cost would be shared by the telecom firm and
the NGO/NGOs, with continuing consumer spending for the first 18 months (approximately 1 USD a
weekthe standard rate) and phone purchase after
6 months (Wogan 2013).
As a solar technology, PAYG systems are highly
scalable. To operate at the optimal 5W output assumed above, they require approximately 1000
kWh/m2 of annual solar radiation; accordingly, they
could be expanded to nearly the entire continent
(Wogan 2013; Map: Meteotest Global Solar).
However, areas experiencing rainy seasons may find
lowered electricity output, forcing users to either
charge and operate phones less or turn off other appliances and creating a possible drawback for either
telecom firms or NGOs.
Permissibility may be an issue for PAYG systems near existing grid infrastructure, particularly
if grid consumers switch from unreliable utilities
and high tariffs to off-grid solar technology, as has
been observed in some sub-Saharan communities
(Parker). However, these issues become less signif-
icant farther from the grid. PAYG systems might

face difficulty in securing telecoms financing, since
there is no guarantee that produced electricity powers phones; further, since PAYG systems must be
installed before phones are purchased in order to
improve advanced phone penetration, no electricity
could go toward charging phones for the first few
months.
While PAYG systems community impact would
generally be positive (travel distances would be
eliminated, and charging power would be available
throughout the business day,) the risk of damage
(photovoltaic cells degrade over time) or theft (panels must be placed outside) falls to the consumer
after the system is paid off (Community Power from
Mobile-Charging 21). Additionally, due to the complexity of photovoltaic cells, repairs are not feasible
for panel owners. Environmental effects are negligible.
3.3 Solar Handsets
Solar handsets are mobile phones with attached
solar panels (they often include a means for conventional charging.) Users thus purchase phone
charging solutions along with their handsets.
Solar handset prices vary with handset type;
while up-front costs for handset models technically
go toward telephony, the cost of integrated solar
technology means that the higher purchase price
for solar mobile phones does not directly translate into higher ARPU and GDP growth. Standard
solar handsets cost aroun 25 USD, while smartphone models cost around 145 USD (Samsung
Solar Guru; Samsung S7550 Blue Earth). Using
these data, we calculated the incremental revenue,
GDP impact, and consumer savings per phone (see
Table 8, Table 9, Table 10).
Scalability for solar handsets is high; handset
models can charge (albeit more slowly) on cloudy
days, and thus necessary sunlight conditions are
present throughout nearly the entire continent yearround (Samsung Blue Earth S7550).
Solar handsets would also find funding and
permission easily; since all of the electricity solar handsets generate would be dedicated to phone
charging, telecom firms would be inclined to help

Table 8. 5-year Incremental Revenue per Solar
Handset
Change in phone use
Incrl Rev (USD)
89
174
New Basic Users
785
870
Samsung Solar Guru; Samsung S7550

Blue Earth
Table 9. 5-year GPD Growth per Solar
3.4 Kinetic Charging Devices

Kinetic charging devices,6 which connect to bicycles to produce electricity for phone charging, are
a testament to the uneven development between
sub-Saharan communications and electrification as
Africa has leapfrogged into the mobile era, with
users charging mobile phones through body strength.
The technology has seen both North-South development efforts and small-scale production by local entrepreneurs (Green Power for Mobile 23; Kenyans
Create Bicycle Powered).
Handset
Phone Type
Sc.1 (USD)
Sc.2 (USD)
Basic
160
159
Advanced
8424
17107
per Solar Handset
Table 11. 5-year Incremental Revenue per Kinetic
Charger
Change in Phone Use
Incrl Rev (USD)
91
217
New Basic Users
787
913
Phone Type
Savings (USD)
Basic
288
Dugdale
Advanced
248
Table 12. 5-year GPD Growth per Kinetic
Charger
fund their dissemination and utilities would not be

concerned about losing grid consumers or potential
grid consumers.
Community impact from solar handsets is mixed.
Charging distances are eliminated; however, maintenance and security pose problems for solar handset
owners. Solar handsets are worth more than standard handsets, and are thus riskier for users to own
in case of damage or theft; as mobile banking proliferates, phones become even more valuable to users
(Green Power for Mobile 21). As a result, users
likely would not want to part with their phones and
leave them unattended; since phones must charge
for roughly 4 hours for 40 minutes of talk time and
8 hours of standby time, and this charging must be
done during daylight hours, rural users would lose
working hours guarding their phones or risk their
phones being damaged or stolen (Green Power for
Mobile 21). Environmental effects are negligible.
Phone Type
Sc.1 (USD)
Sc.2 (USD)
Basic
160
159
Advanced
8424
17107
Dugdale
per Kinetic Charger

Phone Type
Savings (USD)
Basic
290
Advanced
250
Kinetic charging solutions tend to be low-cost,

with bike chargers available for as little as 4.5 USD.
Bike chargers can generally provide around 2.5
hours of talk time for each hour of cycling, making
about one full charge available per phone each day
assuming normal cycling habits (Dugdale). Using
6 We
did not assess hand-crank chargers due to their inefficiency (at maximum, .5kWh of electricity can be produced
daily.)

these data, we calculated the incremental revenue, cost at 1.5 USD/kWh, end-users subsidized rate at
GDP impact, and consumer savings per unit (see .5USD/kWh, and overhead for a single employee to
Table 11, Table 12, Table 13).
distribute the electricity at 50 USD/month (Mebane;
Bicycle charging scalability is moderate, with Standing Still but Going). From these numbers,
an approximate 10 million sub-Saharan bicycles on we calculated the 5-year incremental revenue for
the road and the highest bicycle concentrations in telecom and 5-year GDP impact per tower and the 5East Africa (Hamilton; Green Power for Mobile 23). year consumer savings from tower-based charging
However, bike owners tend to be wealthier than non- systems (see Table 14, Table 15, Table 16) assuming
bike owners, which might make phone ownership 41 users per tower (see next paragraph.)
and the likelihood of phone or smartphone purchase
Table 14. 5-year Incremental Revenue per Tower
slightly higher (Hamilton).
Charging System
Politically, kinetic charging is a non-disruptive
Change in phone use
Incrl Rev (USD)
technology, and western technology firms investMore Basic Phone Use
990
ments in developing it further demonstrate faith that
Smartphones Substituted 6127
its electricity directly impacts phone charging.
New Basic Users
29527
While charging distances are eliminated with
34663
kinetic charging devices, their ability to integrate
Standing Still but Going; Access Methods in
seamlessly into bike owners lifestyles seems to be
GSM 15; De Wit, Carvalho, and De Miguel 3; Mebane
somewhat overstated. The inconvenience of charging phones with bicycles has led some owners of
kinetic charging devices to hire others to peddle Table 15. 5-year GPD Growth per Tower
their bike and keep their phones charged for them, Charging System
suggesting a disconnect between predicted perforPhone Type Sc.1 (USD) Sc.2 (USD)
mance and the kinetic chargers usefulness in real
Basic
6544
6519
world application (Green Power for Mobile 23). EnAdvanced
345364
701387
vironmentally, the chargers effects are negligible.
3.5 Tower-based charging systems
Tower-based charging is a proposed solution
to poor electrification in areas around cell towers
wherein telecom firms sell off electricity from standalone cell towers to local users. Under this plan,
electricity for charging would be offered at subsidized pay-as-you-go rates, making electricity more
affordable for end-users.
Towers mostly operate from diesel power, although there has been some effort to shift to renewable energy in recent years. Renewable energy
entails a high up-front cost and slow payoff; since
telecom firms are expected to sell off tower infrastructure in the medium-term as the sub-Saharan
telecom market matures, they may be hesitant to
invest in renewable power installations (Keohane).
Accordingly, our cost estimations for tower-based
charging assume that diesel generators are used
and have already been purchased. We place diesel
Access Methods in GSM 15; De Wit,

Carvalho, and De Miguel 3
per Tower Charging System

Phone Type
Savings (USD)
Basic
292
Advanced
252
If tower-based charging systems provide electricity more efficiently than phone shops, scalability
is inherently limited, since phone users must live
near towers if they are going to avoid the difficulties of travelling to charge phones. Therefore, each
tower can only provide electricity to a fixed proportion of the mobile users it covers. With 7,0009,000 users per tower and a maximum GSM range
of 35km, each tower only has approximately 41
people within a 2.5km radius (assuming even user

concentration) (Access Methods in GSM 15; De

Wit, Carvalho, and De Miguel 3).
Securing permission for tower-based charging
solutions should not be a challenge, since these
systems already produce off-grid electricity for private consumption. However, the funding and operation of tower-based charging systems might be
negatively impacted as sub-Saharan telecoms shift
owning towers to renting towers. Telecoms have
a direct interest in expanding electricity access, as
lower electricity fees translate into higher spending on data and increased ARPU; revenue from
electricity sales are secondary. Tower management
services, however, have a less direct incentive in
higher ARPU. While telecoms might stop renting
tower space if revenue in an area drops sufficiently,
tower owners are not incentivized to increase ARPU
beyond this threshold level; since tower owners thus
would benefit from electricity revenue more directly
than from telecoms revenue, they would be incentivized to charge as much as possible for electricity
without losing telecoms business.
For the consumer, the impact of tower-based
charging is dependent on the distribution of other
electricity options and on tower ownership models. If other charging solutions exist and all users
are not drawn to the central hub of base towers
for phone charging, then the individuals for whom
tower-based charging is efficient would self-select
and use the service; if, however, towers are the
only way to charge phones, phone users would be
forced to travel. Similarly, if towers remain in telecom firms ownership or provisions are made to
incentivize higher ARPU for tower management
services, users electricity prices would likely remain low; otherwise, tower-based charging could
lead to pricing policies that hurt the consumer. Environmentally, the diesel-based generators used in
tower charging are problematic; a standard tower
site can produce approximately 240,000 lbs of CO2
each year (Vincent 1). This pollution negatively
impacts local ecology, and users could face health
issues due to frequent exposure to exhaust during
phone charging (Hutton ix). NGOs might therefore
be hesitant to help subsidize diesel fuel-based tower
charging operations.
3.6 Community Wind Systems

Community wind systems provide wind-powered
charging to consumers from a centralized installation through a PAYG pricing model, much as gridbased phone shops do, although higher scalability,
saturation, and efficiency improve on the phone
shop model. Wind energy is generally underdeveloped in sub-Saharan Africa (Mukasa et al. Abstract). While several African countries have very
promising potential for wind energy, installed capacity remains low. In addition to the high-wind
regions of Eastern Africa, Southern Africa, and
coastal areas, many low-wind areas have high-wind
pockets: for example, although its national wind
speed average is low, Ethiopias mountainous regions have sufficient wind speeds for large turbine
projects (Mukasa et al. 3). Wind potential is even
greater for small-scale turbines of the kind used
for phone charging; due to scale and output requirements, they need less wind and can operate in
smaller, isolated pockets.
There are three main causes for the lack of
installed wind capacity in sub-Saharan Africa: new
wind technology has not been proven, wind data to
ensure investments are scarce, and the public sector
has done little to promote wind energy (Mukasa et
al. 8). Small-scale wind turbines for phone applications can address each of these issues: involved
technology is much simpler than that for larger turbines and has been proven and widely installed;
wind speed requirements and investor risk are far
lower, so wind conditions need not be so carefully
vetted, particularly as turbine installations can be
moved to better locations if they consistently underperform; and the unique private sector, non-profit,
and consumer interests in phone charging should
be sufficient to make wind energy for this application a profitable enterprise without government
subsidies. Wind charging systems also avoid the financial difficulties involved in larger wind projects:
the costly grid overhauls required to expand capacity, create smart systems, and install redundancies
are not necessary for off-grid charging installations;
additionally, small-scale wind turbines can be more
easily manufactured locally, cutting costs by up to
25 percent (Mukasa et al. 12).

Wind energy can be offered at relatively low

costs; according to our price estimations, installations provide power at rates of 3.3 USD/W (Max
and Berman). We calculated the 5-year telecoms incremental revenue, 5-year GDP impact, and 5-year
consumer savings for wind charging systems assuming that consumers paid .5 USD/kWh for electricity
and that operations overhead was 50 USD/month
(see Table 17, Table 18, Table 19).
Table 17. 5-year Incremental Revenue per Wind Charging System
Change in phone use
Incrl Rev (USD)
738
5875
New Basic Users
29274
34411
Standing Still but Going; Access Methods in GSM 15;

De Wit, Carvalho, and De Miguel 3; Mebane
Table 18. 5-year GPD Growth per Wind
Charging System
Phone Type
Sc.1 (USD)
Sc.2 (USD)
Basic
281
280
Advanced
14818
30036
Max and Berman
per Wind Charging System

Phone Type
Savings (USD)
Basic
292
Advanced
252
Exact data on small-scale wind energy scalability are unavailable. As stated, reliable wind data
are scarce and anomalous pockets supporting wind
installations are many, making it impossible to calculate the population living in areas with sufficient
wind conditions based on current data resolution
(about 50km). We did find a correlation between
windy nations and nations exhibiting large coverageelectrification gaps, however; of the 14 windiest
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 7 had more than
twice the sub-Saharan average ratio of people with
network coverage to people with electricity access

(Map: Wind Resource Maps; World Development Indicators: Power; Access to electricity
[percent of population]). Additionally, areas with
low or non-constant sunlight tend to be those with
higher wind availability; wind installations could
therefore complement solar charging installations,
providing power during windier, cloudier weather
while solar systems operate on calmer, sunnier days
(Rolland and Auzane 6). While broader sub-Saharan
wind uptake has lagged, the potential efficiency of
such a system has led to its use in off-grid phone
shops (Community Power from Mobile 29; Rolland
and Auzane 9).
Since all electricity from community wind systems is dedicated to phone charging, and wind systems function most effectively in flatter areas away
from developments, utilities and central governments would be unlikely to object to wind turbine
installations for phone charging. Telecoms would
also be sure that infrastructure investment impacts
phone use.
The community impact of wind energy is also
positive; charging distances would be reduced, albeit not eliminated, and productivity would improve. Noise pollution has been identified as a
potential ecological problem with some small-scale
turbines (National Renewable Energy Laboratories
2). Through placement and design, however, noise
issues can be mitigated: by placing turbines in public areas which already see foot traffic, as is advantageous for operations, there should be minimal
impact on ecology; careful blade design can significantly reduce noise pollution (National Renewable
Energy Laboratories 1).
4. Discussion
4.1 Selecting Charging Solutions
We found the strongest development potential
for solar PAYG systems, kinetic charging devices,
and community wind systems.
All assessed charging solutions produced similar incremental revenues per handset, although solar
PAYG systems lagged in GDP impact and consumer
savings somewhat. Given the theoretical nature of

these calculations and the fact that systems real

revenues and performances will likely vary in application, we did not find meaningful differentiation
between charging solutions in respect to costs and
benefits.
Solar PAYG systems and solar handsets were
the most scalable charging systems, followed by
kinetic charging devices. Wind charging scalability is unknown without improved wind data, but
the World Bank and the Alliance for Rural Electrification have highlighted wind chargings high
development potential. Tower-based chargings low
scalability limits its applicability to a very small
number of phone users, and subsequently reduces
its potential to provide meaningful improvement to
the broader problem of low electrification.
While PAYG systems were less likely to receive government permission and telecoms funding
for expansion, we believe that their potential to improve quality of life through non-phone charging
capabilities would lead to stronger NGO support, in
part making up for these limitations.
Solar PAYG systems, kinetic charging devices,
and community wind systems all produce positive
community impacts; since the primary goal of expanding charging access is to improve development,
the negative impact of solar handsets and towerbased charging on users quality of life greatly reduces their potential as development tools and their
suitability for expanding sub-Saharan electricity access.
Ultimately, the combination of these factors
led us to exclude solar handsets and tower charging systems as potential means for expanding rural
charging access. Solar handsets, by virtue of being compact and user-owned, forced users to take
on high risk or lose productivity in their operation.
Tower charging, due to limits in scalability, the high
likelihood that the cash flows and incentives that
make expanding rural electricity access appealing
to private funders would be eliminated by changes
in tower ownership, and negative environmental
and user health impacts, reached few users, could
only provide them with positive financial impact
for a short period of time, and entailed negative
long-term impacts. We thus found that solar PAYG
systems, kinetic charging devices, and community

wind systems provided the greatest potential of the
examined technologies for expanding phone charging in sub-Saharan Africa based on the outlined
criteria.
4.2 Limitations
Our goal in quantifying the financial and economic benefits of expanded electricity access was
primarily to demonstrate the potential of electricity infrastructure improvements to promote development and improve quality of life while providing high returns for for-profit funders across subSaharan Africa. As such, we did not take into account local economic or sociopolitical conditions
that may affect real-life application, assuming that
NGOs and telecom firms, with expertise on their
own markets and populations, would be able to
further refine our model to more accurately reflect
results in practice on a country-by-country basis.
Therefore, while we have established a general
model showing infrastructures positive impact on
telecom finances, development, and consumers, it
is important to consider that our theory is not precise in modeling charging infrastructures actual
impact on specific nations when determining policy.
Additionally, we do not take into the account here
larger infrastructure investment needed to support
new phone users, which will determine telecoms
actual profits.
4.3 Implications
Our findings clearly indicate that there is strong
potential for privately funded off-grid charging infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa and that expanding access to phone charging entails clear benefits
for development and consumers. Further, we determined that technologies currently exist to serve in
this capacity. With our process for rural electrification outlined, further work remains its institution.
First, higher resolution data on rural phone users
will be required to determine the best placements
and practices in operation for charging solutions
for specific communities and to calculate more accurately the costs and benefits of installations for
different funders. Our general model for financial

and economic impact must also be further refined

and adapted according to these data to improve its
accuracy and applicability. Secondly, NGOs and
central governments must work together to ensure
that improved access to information and communication technology translates into improved development and quality of life. Realizing the development
potential of off-grid charging technologies will require software and infrastructural investments. Software applications must be designed for rural users
allowing multilingual access to technological and
informational resources, particularly for users without literacy or proficiency in English, in order to
ensure that marginalized users see the development
benefits of increased phone access (Tadesse and
Bahiigwa). Long-term infrastructural investments
in rural areas will be necessary to maximize the
growth potential of increased connectivity (Zibi 6).
These factors will be key in translating the findings
of this paper into fair, stable, and effective development policy.
2014. Web. 11 July 2015.

Africa: Population Density Overlaid by Urban Spatial Extents, 2000. Socioeconomic Data
and Applications Center. NASA, n.d. Web. 4 Aug.
2015.
Aker, Jenny C. Mobile Phones, Markets, and
Firms in Sub-Saharan Africa. What are the Economic and Social Impacts of the Mobile Phone Sector in Developing Countries? Spec. issue of Private
Sector and Development 4: 10-12. PROPARCO.
Web. 8 July 2015.
Cheneau-Loquay, Annie. The Impacts of the
Mobile Phone Sector on Development: Mixed Results? What are the Economic and Social Impacts
of the Mobile Phone Sector in Developing Countries? Spec. issue of Private Sector and Development 4: 17-19. PROPARCO. Web. 8 July 2015.
Cheka Bombastik. Vodacom Tanzania. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 9 July 2015.
Community Power from Mobile-Charging Services. London: GSMA, 2011. GSMA. Web. 12
July 2015.
De Wit, Martin, Antonio Carvalho, and Diego
Acknowledgments
De Miguel. Sub-Saharan Markets Outlook: SurWe wish to acknowledge Tim Sebunya of Muvival of the Fittest. Oliver Wyman. Oliver Wyman,
tima Capital, Steve Howden of IHS Africa, Ugo
n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.
Landry-Tolszczuk of Windiga Energy, Inc. as well
Dugdale, Addy. Nokias Bicycle Charger
as David Kastan of Yale University and Dalia Cohen
Kit Could Be the Worlds Smartest Peripheral for
of Ecocash for their help in researching and develDumbphones. Fast Company. N.p., 3 June 2010.
oping this project; Mackenzie Weygandt-Amoroso,
Web. 11 Aug. 2015.
Alexander Mathis, and Joel Greenwood of Harvard
Fripp, Charlie. Africas Top-Selling Mobile
University for their patience, kindness, and assisHandsets. IT News Africa. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 July
tance as we refined our ideas and manuscript; and
2015.
the Gwen Herzig Academic Enrichment Fund and
Green Power for Mobile Charging Choices
Collegiate School for their generous support of our
2011. N.p.: GSMA, 2011. GSMA. Web. 12 July
work.
2015.
Hamilton, Richard. Can the Buffalo Change
Refereces
Africas Bicycle Culture? BBC. N.p., 15 Mar.
Access Methods in GSM. N.p.: GSMA, n.d. 2012. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.
Helman, Christopher. How Much Electricity
Programmers United Develop Net. Web. 12 Aug.
Do Your Gadgets Really Use? Forbes. N.p., 7
2015.
Access to Electricity (percent of Population). Sept. 2013. Web. 24 July 2015.
Data, World Bank. World Bank Group, n.d. Web. 8
The High Cost of Electricity Generation in
July 2015.
Africa. AfDB: Championing inclusive growth
Africa Leaping Off-Grid. BERC Blog. Berke- across Africa. African Development Bank Group,
ley Energy and Resources Collaborative, 22 Oct. n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.

Hutton, Guy. Evaluation of the Costs and BenOur Mobile Solar Kiosk. African Renewable
efits of Household Energy and Health Interventions Energy Distributor. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.
at Global and Regional Levels: Summary. Geneva:
Parker, Gillian. Rolling Blackouts Prompt
World Health Organization, 2006. World Health Some South Africans to Go off Grid. Voice of
Organization. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.
America News. N.p., 10 Feb. 2015. Web. 4 Aug.
Kenyans Create Bicycle Powered Phone Charger 2015.
from Scrap Metal. The IFTF Blog. Institute for
Population Covered by a Mobile Network in
the Future, n.d. Web. 27 July 2015.
Africa. What are the Economic and Social ImKeohane, David. Mobile Towers: The Next pacts of the Mobile Phone Sector in Developing
Big Investment Opportunity in Africa? Beyond Countries? Spec. issue of Private Sector and DeBRICs. Financial Times, n.d. Web. 13 Aug. 2015. velopment 4: 20-21. PROPARCO. Web. 8 July
Map: Meteotest Global Solar Dataset. Map. 2015.
Global Atlas. International Renewable Energy Agency,
Population, Total. Data, World Bank. World
n.d. Web. 23 July 2015.
Bank Group, n.d. Web. 8 July 2015.
Map: Wind Resource Maps of the Global AtPoushter, Jacob, et al. Cell Phones in Africa:
las. Map. Global Atlas. International Renewable Communication Lifeline. N.p.: Pew Research, 2015.
Energy Agency, n.d. Web. 23 July 2015.
Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes and Trends.
Max, Ezra, and Justin Berman. Developing Web. 9 July 2015.
Small-Scale Wind Solutions for Sub-Saharan Phone
Qiang, Christine Zhen-Wei. Mobile TeleCharging. N.d. MS.
phony: A Transformational Tool for Growth and
Mebane, Alexandra S. High Costs of Diesel Development. What are the Economic and Social
Pushing 1 dollar/kWh Pave the Way for African Impacts of the Mobile Phone Sector in DevelopSolar Surge. Linkedin. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Aug. ing Countries? Spec. issue of Private Sector and
Development 4: 7-9. PROPARCO. Web. 8 July
2015.
The Mobile Economy: Sub-Saharan Africa 2015.
Reed, Matthew, et al. Africa Telecoms Out2014. London: GSMA, 2015. The Mobile Econlook 2014. London: Informa Telecoms and Media,
omy. Web. 12 July 2015.
Mukasa, Alli D., et al. Development of Wind 2015. Informa Telecoms and Media. Web. 1 Aug.
Energy in Africa. Tunis: African Development 2015.
Rogers, David. The Electrification of Africa.
Bank Group, 2013. Working Paper Series. pdf file.
National Renewable Energy Laboratories. Acous- Global Construction Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 11
tic Tests of Small-Scale Wind Turbines. By P. Migliore,July 2015.
Rolland, Simon, and Baiba Auzane. The PoJ. Van Dam, and A. Huskey. N.p.: n.p., n.d. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Web. 4 Sept. tential of Small and Medium Wind Energy in Developing Countries. Brussels: Alliance for Rural
2015.
Nokia 2700 classic. Phone Arena. N.p., n.d. Electrification, 2012. Alliance for Rural Electrification. Web. 17 July 2015.
Web. 9 July 2015.
Rural Africa Is the Most Expensive Place on
Nyakarundi, Henri. ARED: Questions about
Earth to Charge a Phone. Fusion. Fusion, 6 Mar.
your Platform. 22 Apr. 2015. E-mail.
Offord, Dominic. The Mobile Consumer: 2015. Web. 23 July 2015.
Samsung Blue Earth S7550 Review. Phone
Smartphone Usage and Behavior Survey 2012. Informa Telecoms and Media. Informa, n.d. Web. 4 Arena. N.p., 5 Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Aug. 2015.
Samsung S7550 Blue Earth Mobile Phone
Aug. 2015.
Onishi, Norimitsu. Weak Power Grids in Technical Specifications. Mobile Prices Bot. N.p.,
Africa Stunt Economies and Fire Up Tempers. NY- n.d. Web. 3 Aug. 2015.
Times. N.p., 2 July 2015. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.
Samsung Solar Guru. Mobile Prices Bot.

N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Aug. 2015.

- - -. Pay-as-You-Go Solar Energy Finds SucStanding Still but Going Backwards. The cess in Africa. Scientific American. N.p., 22 Nov.
Economist. N.p., 21 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Aug. 2013. Web. 22 July 2015.
World Development Indicators: Power and
2015.
State Electricity Profiles. N.p.: n.p., 2015. Communications. Data, World Bank. World Bank
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric- Group, n.d. Web. 8 July 2015.
World Energy Outlook 2014Electricity Acity. Web. 27 July 2015.
Study Reveals African Mobile Phone Usage cess Database. International Energy Agency, 2014.
Stats. IT News Africa. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 July Microsoft Excel file.
Zibi, Guy. The African Mobile Phone Market:
2015.
Sub-Saharan Africa (Developing Only). Data, Beyond the Boom Phase, between the Promise and
World Bank. World Bank Group, n.d. Web. 8 July Uncertainty of Maturity. What are the Economic
and Social Impacts of the Mobile Phone Sector
2015.
Sub-Saharan African Telecoms Market Set to in Developing Countries? Spec. issue of Private
Top USD65 Billion by 2018. Analysys Mason. Sector and Development 4: 3-6. PROPARCO. Web.
8 July 2015.
Analysys Mason, n.d. Web. 11 July 2015.
Szabo, S., et al. Energy Solutions in Rural Africa: Mapping Electrification Costs of Distributed Solar and Diesel Generation versus Grid
Extension. IOPScience: n. pag. Institute of
Physics. Web. 3 Aug. 2015.
- - -. Transmission Lines at Continental Level.
Map. PNG file. gridlines
T., Nick. Did You Know That Samsung Launched
the First Solar-Powered Cell Phone? Phone Arena.
N.p., n.d. Web. 9 July 2015.
Tadesse, Getaw, and Godfrey Bahiigwa. Mobile Phones and Farmers Marketing Decisions in
Ethiopia. World Development Review (2015): n.
pag. Science Direct. Web. 13 Aug. 2015.
Tortora, Bob. Africa Continues Going Mobile. Gallup. Gallup, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2015.
Tower Power Africa: Energy Challenges and
Opportunities for the Mobile Industry in Africa.
London: GSMA, 2011. GSMA. Web. Sept. 2014.
Vincent, Ani. Measuring the Environmental
Impact of Power Generation at GSM Base Station
Sites. Academia: n. pag. Academia. Web. 13 Aug.
2015.
What Is the Impact of Mobile Telephony on
Economic Growth? London: GSMA, 2012. GSMA.
Web. 12 Aug. 2015.
Wogan, David. Charging a Mobile Phone
in Rural Africa is Insanely Expensive. Scientific
American Blog Network. Scientific American, 26
Nov. 2013. Web. 9 July 2015.

Bridging The Coverage-Electrification Gap PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Bridging The Coverage-Electrification Gap PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gwen Herzig Academic Enrichment Fund

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The

1.1 Effects on Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and feasibility in low-density populations (an issue

2.1 Criteria for Charging Solutions . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 Assessing Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1 Phone Shops and Grid Electricity . . . . . 7

4.1 Selecting Charging Solutions . . . . . . . . 13

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

1.1 Effects on Industry

1.2 Effects on Development

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

rural areas, phones potential to expand economic

in promoting development, information access, and

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

Phone Usage Changes

Growth (per 10% pen.)

More Basic Phone Use

2.1.1 Costs and Benefits

New Basic Users

New Smartphone Users

did not address community solar charging systems

Changes in Phone Use

Mly ARPU (USD)

Incrl Rev (USD)

More Basic Phone Use

New Basic Users

New Smartphone Users

Poushter et al. 3; Sub-Saharan Africa

We calculated incremental revenue impact as

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

While there is no optimal off-grid technology

since it increases exponentially with overall phone

From a political standpoint, it is important

Currently, travelling to charge phones entails

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

lost productivity from hours of walking or to the

such, we used estimations for turbine scale, output,

Turbine Radius (m)

Max and Berman

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

shop charging to a sufficient penetration and low

produced this estimation by overlaying gridline and

Incrl Rev (USD)

More Basic Phone Use

New Basic Users

New Smartphone Users

Table 6. 5-year GDP Growth per PAYG

Each PAYG system can produce around 5 watts

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

per PAYG System

Wogan 2015; Wogan 2013

icant farther from the grid. PAYG systems might

Bridging the Coverage-Electrification Gap: The Potential Of Privately-Funded Phone Charging

Incrl Rev (USD)

More Basic Phone Use

New Basic Users

New Smartphone Users

Samsung Solar Guru; Samsung S7550

Table 9. 5-year GPD Growth per Solar

3.4 Kinetic Charging Devices

Table 10. 5-year Consumer Savings