6 The Status and Future of Charcoal in the Energy …
209
6.6 Optionality in the Energy Mix: When
Consumers Choose Charcoal Over
Modern Alternatives
The demand for any source of energy depends on the function desired by
the consumer. One does not pay for electricity for its own sake. Rather,
one spends money to obtain light, mobility or food (Lovins, 1976). For
this reason, energy sources compete as free or traded commodities within
the same market, and consumers choose one fuel over another for the
same purpose. Energy consumption, thus, depends on differentials in the
desired usefulness between fuel types. For instance, in cooking, one may
choose between electricity, LPG or biomass, depending on factors, such
as availability, convenience, price and reliability. Khellaf (2018) observed
that in 84% of all sub-Saharan residences, biomass use outweighs all
other alternatives combined. The use of charcoal is often linked to a
lack of modern alternatives. However, in markets where consumers have
various options (Owen, van der Plas, & Sepp, 2012; Akpalu, Dasmani,
& Aglobitse, 2011), charcoal consumption persists even when alternatives, such as LPG and sawdust briquettes, were cheaper. This means
that for any energy alternative, the consumption does not depend on its
availability and price alone.
It has been shown that in Zambia, Mozambique and Rwanda,
increased electricity generation has not decoupled the societies from
the intensive use of charcoal (Owen, van der Plas, & Sepp, 2012;
Sedano et al., 2020). Indeed, Owen, van der Plas, and Sepp (2012)
recommended that African energy policy should have provisions that
acknowledge and sustain biomass as a fuel, owing to its importance to
local economies and the failure of electricity to successfully supplant
biomass. In their assessments of energy in South Sudan and Tanzania,
respectively, Mugo and Ong (2006) and Lokina and Mapunda (2015)
discussed the notion of an ‘energy ladder’, where households switch
from biomass to modern alternatives as their income increases, further
suggesting that poor consumers are often left out of the commercial
energy ladder because they turn to options like dung and leaves as
wood and charcoal become scarce. Asfaw and Demissie (2012) made
209
6.6 Optionality in the Energy Mix: When
Consumers Choose Charcoal Over
Modern Alternatives
The demand for any source of energy depends on the function desired by
the consumer. One does not pay for electricity for its own sake. Rather,
one spends money to obtain light, mobility or food (Lovins, 1976). For
this reason, energy sources compete as free or traded commodities within
the same market, and consumers choose one fuel over another for the
same purpose. Energy consumption, thus, depends on differentials in the
desired usefulness between fuel types. For instance, in cooking, one may
choose between electricity, LPG or biomass, depending on factors, such
as availability, convenience, price and reliability. Khellaf (2018) observed
that in 84% of all sub-Saharan residences, biomass use outweighs all
other alternatives combined. The use of charcoal is often linked to a
lack of modern alternatives. However, in markets where consumers have
various options (Owen, van der Plas, & Sepp, 2012; Akpalu, Dasmani,
& Aglobitse, 2011), charcoal consumption persists even when alternatives, such as LPG and sawdust briquettes, were cheaper. This means
that for any energy alternative, the consumption does not depend on its
availability and price alone.
It has been shown that in Zambia, Mozambique and Rwanda,
increased electricity generation has not decoupled the societies from
the intensive use of charcoal (Owen, van der Plas, & Sepp, 2012;
Sedano et al., 2020). Indeed, Owen, van der Plas, and Sepp (2012)
recommended that African energy policy should have provisions that
acknowledge and sustain biomass as a fuel, owing to its importance to
local economies and the failure of electricity to successfully supplant
biomass. In their assessments of energy in South Sudan and Tanzania,
respectively, Mugo and Ong (2006) and Lokina and Mapunda (2015)
discussed the notion of an ‘energy ladder’, where households switch
from biomass to modern alternatives as their income increases, further
suggesting that poor consumers are often left out of the commercial
energy ladder because they turn to options like dung and leaves as
wood and charcoal become scarce. Asfaw and Demissie (2012) made