Universally Accessible Energy Will Be Worth The Cost

Illustration for article titled Universally Accessible Energy Will Be Worth The Cost

Millions of people live without access to electricity or modern fuel for cooking and heating, but the problem can seem too daunting to tackle. How much would it cost to bring rural communities or countries with limited infrastructure onto the grid?

Advertisement

According to new research it would cost at least $65 billion a year from now until 2030, which is sort of a lot, but not really given that this amount totals only three to four percent of international energy investments right now. The study factors in the cost of implementing "green" or clean-combusting cooking fuels, but notes that the environmental impact of this expansion would be negligible even if everyone adopted fossil fuels for cooking.

The study, published in Environmental Research Letters, includes costs like power generation, grid expansion and infrastructure maintenance, but also factors in policy costs like subsidies on new stoves. More than 40 percent of the world population could benefit from clean burning stoves, and the researchers estimate that improved stoves would reduce accidental deaths by between 0.6 and 1.8 million, while improving quality of life for millions more. Shonali Pachauri, the lead author on the paper from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), said:

Our analysis indicates that without new policies and efforts, universal access to modern energy will not be achieved by 2030. Actually, for cooking, the situation may even worsen . . . [But] the scale of investment required is small from a global perspective.

Advertisement

If China adds as much power to its electric grids every year as the developing world, broadly defined, would require in total for basic needs (21 to 28 gigawatts), than this is definitely something that should be happening. [PhysOrg]

Image Credit: Gail Johnson/Shutterstock

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

stevenmcmahon
Did not agree just bc i clicked

The truth of the matter is that anything that will save or extend lives must be balanced out with something that will reduce population. We are already overpopulated on this planet, and until mandatory birth control becomes the norm, anything that helps create more life expectancy, especially in countries where the population is not self-sustainable, will only lead to more issues. More burden on productive nations to pay for the needs of indigent populations, etc.

Eventually people will be required to have one offspring then be fixed. One from two will be the perfect formula until populations are reduced to a level which is globally self sustainable. After that we can reach the perfect utopia where there are only a few million people on the planet but all the work is done by AI or robots. Which would make every citizen of the planet a King in his own right. Of course a lot would need to change in order to foster a peaceful, self sustaining population fed by the need to improve upon peoples' standard of living instead of using vast populations to enrich few.