Solar photovoltaic (PV) on atolls: Sustainable development of rural and remote communities in Kiribati

Fuelling the Pacific: Aid for renewable energy across Pacific Island countries

“…For older projects in particular, Jafaar concludes that 'renewable energy technologies have largely failed to develop into viable alternatives to conventional approaches' [8, page 307]; an International Renewable Energy Agency report similarly writes that' 'many of the past [renewable energy] systems deployed in the picts PICTs [Pacific island countries and territories] have not performed according to expectations', although the success rate has improved in the past years, according to their report [3, page 4]; see also e.g. [20,21]. Studies put forward several reasons to explain the underperformance of past projects, including lack of finance, lack of capacity, lack of awareness, and lack of institutional frameworks, e.g.…”

Sustainability assessment and implementation design of distributed energy micro-generation for lighting in Western Kenya

“…One of the common renewable distributed energy technology for meeting lighting needs is a photovoltaic cell battery recharge system [15] (see [16] for examples in Grameen Shakti in Bangladesh and [17] for example in Kiribati). Photovoltaic cells are ideally suited to meet this demand because of the generally low power requirement for lighting.…”

Solar Photovoltaics in Pacific Island Nations: An Analysis of Rural Household Electrification Strategies in the RMI and Vanuatu

“…In fact, this strategy often aims to make the SHS inaccessible to end-users in order to prevent mistreatment, with only the utility's technician having access to the PV equipment; yet alterations and abuse still frequently occur. Consequently, RESCOs hinder user participation and ownership of the SHS, in that end-users are not able to design or expand their systems with changing energy demands, nor are they able to maintain and repair the systems as required (Mala et al, 2008).…”

“…Although both the direct and indirect benefits of SHSs have been well-documented in the short-term, the long-term benefits, in terms of sustainable development for users, remain unforeseen in PICs and to a large extent globally (Mala et al, 2008;Nieuwenhout et al, 2001). In fact, most rural SHSs in PICs have not been evaluated in terms of the appropriateness of the technology or its long-term effects on beneficiaries, nor have there been extensive comparisons between the various electrification strategies and their contribution to project permanence (Ilskog, 2008;Mala et al, 2008). Rather, the literature has generally focused on identifying the numerous barriers, technical options, and donor experiences for RE technology rollout in PICs, with a focus on recommendations at the national and regional levels.…”

“…Indicators have been developed in the literature on rural electrification by the following: Ilskog (2008), who created thirty-six indicators for sustainability evaluations of projects worldwide (see Appendix 3). Mala et al (2008), who developed five indicators (suitability, effectiveness, livelihood resilience, livelihood diversification, and environmental protection) to evaluate the contribution of projects towards sustainable livelihoods. Chow (2010), who applied social, economic, and environmental sustainability indicators to various stages of project life-cycles (see Appendix 4).…”