It’ll be a while before many in the developing world will be able to do this, should they want to.
Back in the real world, meanwhile, led’s are poised to lead a revolution:
“Whatever its impact on developed countries, however, the real LED revolution will be in the developing world, where billions of people still live without access to networked electricity. Take Africa — there are about 110 million households in the region without access to the grid, compared with only 20 million who are connected. The most common way for people offline to get light is to burn something. About half of those homes use kerosene lamps for illumination, while most of the rest still use candles. More than one in ten just pile extra wood or dung on the fire if they need more light. In other words, nearly half of African households are stuck using technologies that were largely abandoned in the United States before the Civil War, and most of the rest use a technology that had passed its prime before World War I.”
The facts around filament bulbs are shocking….only 2% efficient, their use in the U.S producing half as much Carbon Dioxide as all the cars in the country.
Discussion (1 Comment)
I once read a report about how solar power can in fact be the best solution to the electric light problem in places off the grid. The fact that a lot of poverty stricken electricity deprived areas also happen to have hours and hours of daylight sun means that small, cheap photovoltic cells used to charge batteries that then power lights etc at night are perfect for these people. It is practically a one time payment, with no need for massive government investment in costly and environmentally damaging infrastructure, no bills from an electricity company for the consumer, elimination of dangerous kerosene lamps (with the associated fuel costs). It goes on…
The one thing that solar power is good at is in powering localised, low drain devices. The reason the energy companies say it is impractical is because they are trying to build vast fields of solar panels to gather huge amounts of energy which they then ship to the consumer over huge distances. They are (and here is where the journalism analogy comes in) trying to use an old method of distribution with a new method of production.
I have long said that we should all have solar panels on our roofs, wind turbines and geothermal devices on and around our buildings and that the way to power the future is to dispense with the grid and have power generated in small amounts at a local level.
We should be saying to the big energy companies who don’t like this that they can do one of two things if they want to stay in business. They can change their roles from energy ‘providers’ (repackagers and resellers would be a better description) and turn into manufacturers of renewable energy devices and make money by selling them and providing aftercare maintenance services. Or they can Fuck Off.
In reality though, they’re desperately trying to cling on to their monopolies and screwing us and the planet over into the bargain. And we’re letting them.
That’s why I will one day build/buy a house and make sure it generates it’s own power. (Not there yet unfortunately). It’s the future.
My hope is that places that are off grid will say yes to solar powered lamps, and no to companies trying to lay miles of power lines across their land. On a purely economic, business level, if you are in the renewable energy business, that is your market there. Get selling those solar panels quick before the fossil fuel companies muscle in. If I had money to invest, you could bet that’s were it would be going.