Those of us with a belief system tuned to a bit of science know that the global community has to get rid of most carbon fuel use, maybe all, by 2050, maybe earlier. This will be some journey. Where might we take a first step? Where is there any evidence that we could eliminate an entire category of carbon fuel use?

The answer is oil used for lighting in the developing world, and Africa provides a good example.

The charity that I have the privilege of chairing, SolarAid, has set up a wholly-owned social enterprise that is becoming a major retail brand, SunnyMoney. It has sold a million solar lights in Africa in the last four years, 650,000 in the last year alone. With this hockey-stick growth we have created the largest retailer of solar lanterns on a continent of 54 countries, operating out of just four of them. In doing so, we are wiping kerosene use out, creating a cascade of social good ranging from education (kids have a lot more time to study at night), through development (deferred kerosene costs create a staggering average increase in annual household income of some 20 per cent), to global warming abatement (a kerosene lantern emits an average of fully a tonne of greenhouse gas over its lifetime).

How many solar lights do we have to sell to rid Africa completely of oil use in lighting by 2020? The answer is about 250 million.

SolarAid couldn’t do that alone. There wouldn’t be a proper market if we did. But we do aim to play a lead role in this mission to eradicate the kerosene lantern from Africa in six years’ time. We reckon that leadership might amount to a 20 per cent market share: 50 million light sales, all profits recycled to the cause along the way. If so, that’s one step we have taken, and 49 to go.

If kerosene use for lighting is wiped out in Africa, so it can be right across the developing world. And that amounts to fully 3 per cent of all oil use globally, including transport.

What about all the many other uses of oil, gas and coal around the world?

Here’s the thing. The key factor in replacing kerosene lanterns with solar lights is economics. Solar is beating oil use on equal terms in lighting Africa, with no subsidies. And so it is in multiple markets for fossil fuel use today, with many more to come in the next few years. Analysts at McKinsey, AllianceBernstein and other such places say that the systemic cost reductions in manufacturing and installing solar amount to what they call a ‘terrordome’ for the business models of traditional energy utilities. These old-world companies are as a result in such trouble that they may even be in what analysts have started to call a ‘death spiral’. They say the solar cost-down trend will continue, increasingly being augmented by cost reductions in storage technology, to such an extent that that the business models of the oil and gas industry will soon begin to be undermined too.

Which brings us to the flip side of the story. Every step carbon fuel abolitionists take forward is likely to become easier in the future. This is because carbon fuels, on the whole, will become more expensive to extract over time, and the increasingly enormous amounts of cash needed to access them become ever harder to justify.

Enter Carbon Tracker, another NGO that I have the privilege of chairing. They are a think tank of financial experts, analysts who have published a series of reports since 2011 arguing that significant elements of fossil fuel resources are at risk of being stranded, particularly if policy-making continues to focus on a 2º global warming danger ceiling, and that capital expenditure planned for developing these resources is in danger of becoming money wasted.

The top 200 carbon fuel companies quoted on stock markets deploy some $670 billion a year in capital expenditures accessing and expanding reserves. If there is any risk at all of wasted capital, given these sums, investors would do well to scrutinise company investment plans carefully.

And some already are. Shareholder questions about the wisdom of capital expenditure plans, and the adequacy of dividends, began curtailing spending in many oil and gas companies in 2014. For example, they have already caused Shell to freeze plans for exploring in the Arctic for at least a year. Total has pulled out of tar sands operations once viewed as money spinners. Questions are even arising for America’s much-hyped shale drillers.

In summary, I have described two emerging trends, one at either end of the oil use spectrum. One involves the replacement of an entire category of oil use in lighting; the other shows withdrawal of funds to replace reserves of any category of carbon fuel use, large and small. I predict with some confidence that both trends will accelerate in the year ahead.

I need hardly spell out what that would mean, if true, for the prospects for clean energy use of all kinds, and hence of abating the worst horrors of climate change while promoting development. Today, many people view the notion of a journey to a carbon fuel-free future, or to global poverty alleviation, as near impossibilities. If we take a few more steps of the kind I have described, it may soon seem otherwise.

I would like to appeal to all readers to help as best they can with both missions. There is much that can be done to help SolarAid become the beacon for hope it seeks to be. Equally, there are plenty of options to exert pressure on carbon fuel companies by persuading investors to act as if the risk of carbon fuel asset stranding is real.

13 Comments on "Steps towards Fossil Fuel Redundancy"

Harquebus on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 4:37 pm 



Solar Pv does not return the total energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain them.
Things to consider when factoring energy invested include the transport of everything throughout the extensive supply chain, the smelting of ores and silicon, the manufacture of consumables, plant and machinery, sustaining a workforce and the building and maintenance of associated infrastructure, electricity consumption, etc., etc., etc.

Here is what I would do:
1: Forget economics. It is “fatally” flawed. It has polluted the planet, poisoned us all, does not factor physics nor the environment and is what has got us into this mess in the first place.
2: Implement national and encourage international population reduction strategies. One way or another, nature will drag us back to sustainable levels and it won’t be pretty.
3: Properly manage our finite resources which, are currently being pillaged.
4: Reduce consumption using quotas and not with unfair taxation. We can not shop our way to sustainability.
5: Plant lots and lots of trees. Massive scale reforestation will help the climate, rainfall and be a valuable renewable resource for future generations.

banjo on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 5:09 pm 



Africa starts replacing lightbulb power by solar. Estimate by 2020. Assuming no growth in existing demand. Jevon damn you.

So if Africa can do light bulbs by 2020 we can do cars trucks aluminum smelters agriindustry the Internet hospitals airports sewage air conditioning etc eyc by when?

FRAC it we will burn everything lignite shale tar sands remember in Greece population was chopping down trees from memory not hearing their homes with solar light bulbs.

But sure drink the kool aid Corno cup

sunweb on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 5:19 pm 



Leggett has an emotional and financial investment in solar. That however does not make solar a true viable solution. Solar and wind capturing devices are not alternative energy sources. For the physical devices – for wind, photovoltaices, solar hot water, hot air panels – the sun and wind are there, are green, are
sustained. The devices that are used to capture the sun and wind’s energy are an extension of the fossil fuel supply system.

Arthur on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 6:16 pm 



Sunweb, you forgot to post that link to the spanish study that claims that solar has an eroei of 2 or something.

JuanP on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 7:35 pm 



Arthur, sunweb may have been talking about this book:
http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/

JuanP on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 7:45 pm 



These lights are pretty cool for certain uses. You charge the user replaceable AA batteries in the lamp with a built in PV during the day and use the lamp at night. They have one model that has a power in/out USB plug through which you can recharge the batteries with a USB adapter or plug and charge your phone from the lamp’s batteries and solar panel. They are good, tough lamps at a reasonable price. I own two, I recommend them to campers and preppers.

JuanP on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 7:49 pm 



The included AA batteries are rechargeable NiCd, but I replaced mine with Sanyo Eneloop NiMH for better performance and it made a big difference. I also recommend the Sanyo Eneloop batteries.

Davy on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 8:57 pm 



Juan, I am going to check out the Sanyo Eneloop NiMH. I use lots of rechargeables at the farm and I am looking for performance.

Makati1 on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 9:25 pm 



Extend and pretend, but in time, all will end.

We have passed the point of no return on climate change. We can now only make it even worse, if there is anyting worse than extinction.

Solar, giving light to those without, is also growing here in the Ps with government help. We have commercial electric on the farm, but we will also have a solar panel system on the roof for when the commercial electric fails. Also, a vertical wind turbine system, as backup for the solar, is in the plans.

Currently, I am watching typhoon Glenda outside my window here in the city. It will bring about 2+ inches of Manila’s annual ~60 inches. On the farm this would translate into ~1,500 gallons to refill the cistern which backs up the well and the two springs. The farm side of Luzon, on the Pacific, averages 120 inches of rain per year. and does not have a rainy season or dry season. Just a fairly even spread of storms over the year.

GregT on Tue, 15th Jul 2014 11:14 pm 



Solar lighting is great alternative, but it still requires fossil fuels in resource extraction, refinement, manufacturing, distribution, and eventual replacement. It also requires investment money, which also is dependant on fossil fuels.

A great transitional source of light. One that will not last longer than a decade or two at most, post carbon.

Kenz300 on Wed, 16th Jul 2014 9:47 am 



Solar Industry Uniquely Poised to Help Fight Climate Change

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2014/05/solar-industry-uniquely-poised-to-help-fight-climate-change

JuanP on Wed, 16th Jul 2014 10:30 am 



Davy, I have been using AA and AAA rechargeable batteries every day for more than 35 years and I use them for everything I can. I own around 150 of them and six chargers. If you are still using NiCd, you must replace them all for NiMH, because they are better in every way. If you are using NiMH, please try the Sanyo Eneloop, for the same reason.
Good batteries need a good charger, and I recommend the La Crosse Technology BC-700 Alpha Power Battery Charger, which can charge, discharge, refresh, and test the batteries. Sells for $50 at Amazon.
They usually sell Eneloops at Costco, too, since you posted a link to Costco earlier.

sunweb on Wed, 16th Jul 2014 11:09 am 



Arthur – I tried to post various URLs and they wouldn’t go. Here I will try again. New scientific studies show it takes years to payback the energy used in solar electric devices. EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) says it takes energy – mining, drilling, refining, transporting, installing, maintenance, and replacement parts – to make the devices necessary to capture solar energy.
Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment by Prieto, Pedro A., Hall, Charles 2013.
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-1-4419-9436-3
and http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
also
Energy in Australia: Peak Oil, Solar Power, and Asia’s Economic Growth
By Graham Palmer. 2014. SpringerBriefs.