When energy is being discussed, it is either security or mix that is discussed, not the energy access, or energy poverty. Is it because the poor have no voice?
Indoor smoke inhalation kills more people ever year (around 1.4 million people) than malaria does. Also, while the mortality incidence from AIDS and malaria are projected to decrease in coming years, deaths from indoor smoke inhalation are expected to rise.
If the aim is to improve access, decentralised power must play a large role, one in which communities have a stake. Yet, when it comes to research, it is most always the advanced combustion systems, or commercial fuels, and large centralized power facilities that are discussed. This, even though more than 3 billion people rely on wood, charcoal, and other biomass fuels for the bulk of their energy needs.
Do we need as much "cutting edge" research as socially relevant solutions? Or what experts refer to as mundane science.
Driving down the cost of clean energy, so that industrial nations can replace their incumbent carbon infrastructure with renewables, is inextricably linked to closing the global energy gap and expanding energy access to the world's poor, as many see it. Delivering the energy poor the means to control their own destiny through expanded access to clean and affordable electricity must be an explicit element in efforts towards decarbonization. Do you agree?
Access must be an integral part of security.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment