Energy consumption, saving

potential and policies in domestic

cooking in Developing Countries
Michael Grupp, Synopsis
Lodève, France

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 1

 Table of contents

• Status quo: the different cooking fuels -

consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
• Focus on cooking in developing countries
• Discussion of fuel options: how to reduce
emissions and save costs
• Impact monitoring and use-based incentive
schemes

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 2

Global consumption of different cooking fuels
Coal
7%

Crop rs
24%

Wood 3-stone
48%
Dung
8%

Charcoal
1%
Electricity
3% Wood stove
LPG Kerosene Root 6%
1% 1% 1%

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 3

Global GHG emissions by different cooking
fuels
Coal
16%

Crop rs
10%

Wood 3-stone
Dung 45%
3%
Charcoal
2%

Electricity
9%
LPG
Kerosene Wood stove
3% Root
4% 6%
2%

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 4

 Cooking: the GHG facts

· Cooking contributes around 5% of global GHG

· Most emissions are caused by biomass in

developing countries (non-sustainable wood, low
efficiency cooking appliances, high number of
users - but potential for low-cost improvement)

· Cooking in industrialised countries emits less

GHG (less users, cleaner fuels, more efficient
appliances).

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 5

Option 1: Gas fuels (traditional and renewable)

• Pros: clean, cheaper than

electricity, lower start-up
investment

• Cons: safety reputation,

traditional gas fuels need
centralised production and
distribution chain

• Traditional gas can be

Prototype hydrogen cooker
replaced by bio-gas or
hydrogen.

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 6

 Option 2: Liquid fuels (Kerosene and biofuels)
• Pros of Kerosene: cheaper than
electricity, lower start-up investment
for supplier, extremely low start-up
investment for user, can be marketed
in small lots

• Cons of Kerosene: smell, safety (fire

and toxicity), needs centralised
production and distribution chain,
Plant oil cooker (U. of Hohenheim)
needs minimum consumption density

• Kerosene can be replaced by bio-fuels

(no smell or toxicity problems)

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 7

 Option 3: Solid fuels (3-stone fires, coal,
charcoal and biomass stoves)

• Pros: free, respectively

cheaper than electricity,
high acceptance for
traditional stoves

• Cons: massive contribution

to GHG and indoor air
pollution, local
deforestation for wood.
Improved wood stove (Vesto)

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 8

Option 4: No-fuel stoves (solar)

• Pros: zero GHG emission,

convenient if used right

• Cons: needs change of cooking

habits, no stand-alone system,
initial investment, stoves need
product development and
efficient low-cost
production/distribution/after
sales organisation

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 9

 Option 5: traditional grid / electric cooking

Pros: locally clean, polyvalent, convenient, high

user acceptance

Cons: high GHG emissions, expensive for user and

utility (traditional grid), very low overall
efficiency, lack of generating capacity in DC, low
return on investment (poor clients)

Conclusion: electric cooking will remain limited to

wealthy, high user density situations.

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 10

 “Satellite grids”

Many users in Developing Countries will never be

connected to the traditional grid. Their electricity needs
- except for heating and cooking - can be met by
Distributed Generation and local grids

Intelligent grid functions such as data transfer, intelligent

metering and two-way billing could be provided for by
local mini-grids

Satellite grids: local grids could be synchronised by sat

link in order to become active parts of an external grid -
at acceptable cost.

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 11

 User acceptance - the critical issue

• New cooking techniques have a poor acceptance

record (coal vs wood, microwave, solar…)

• Acceptance is a complex issue (tradition,

convenience, cost, supply, safety, image, …)

• Acceptance can be improved by incentives

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 12

 Incentives to boost user acceptance

• Incentives must be directly related to impact - hence to

clean cooker use rate

• Incentives must be directed in priority at the user (in

contradiction to usual practice), not at the professional

• Collateral effects, e.g. by subsidising fuels instead of

use, must be avoided

• Use rate must be metered for impact assessment - but

how ?

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 13

 The clean cooker use incentive scheme

• Cooking with low GHG

heat sources is recorded on
Sat link (option)
line and converted via
Electricity use
carbon value
Electricity meter

Clean cooker • Users get paid for GHG

Local grid
reduction by free local grid
Emission counter
electricity (pre-paid meter)
Other clean appliances

Use meter • Pros: acceptance; adapted

to low density locations.

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 14

 Open questions

• Technical, financial and user related feasibility of local

and satellite grids

• The dynamics of small grids - are they stable ?

• The technical characteristics and cost potential of

tamper-proof use meters

• The institutional reaction to the concept

• Will the user give it a try ?

• Will the concept work in the real world ?

Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 15
 Conclusions
• Cooking in Developing Countries causes important GHG
emissions and high costs

• The market for clean RE cookers is still immature

• User acceptance is still poor - and hard to establish

• Efficient incentives must be based on actual use rates

• Use rates can be metered and rewarded via an avoided-

emission-for-electricity scheme, on a prepaid meter basis

• Local grids run either by utilities, investors or users can be

synchronised to the traditional grid by satellite control
(“satellite grids”) which keeps all future options open.
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 16
Michael Grupp (Synopsis) - Milano 2006 17