Niklas Vahlne Erik Ahlgren Energy and Environment Division of Energy Technology

1. Fuel Choices for Cooking in Rural VinhPhuc Province in Northern Vietnam – an energy ladder case study Niklas Vahlne Erik Ahlgren Energy and Environment Division of Energy Technology Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg Sweden

2. Biomassuse in developingcountries • Mainlyused for cooking • Still a largeshare of primaryenergy • Problems: • Indoor air pollution • Time consuming and backbreaking • Inefficientuse of resources • Contributing to global warmingthrough black carbon and methane emissions

3. Biomassefficiency potential IEA 2008

4. The energyladder Natural Gas Electricity • Description of householdsfuelusedepending on socioeconomicfactors • Income • Education (etc) • Urban/rural • Critique of energyladder • Multiple fuels • Different fuels optimal for different types of cooking LPG Kerosene Coal Wood Agricultural residues Leaves Dung

5. Whystudy the energyladder? • A description of households’ energychoices gives valuableestimations for the need and the possiblelevel of succes for: • Policy options • Technological options • Improvedcookstoves • Biogas • Basis for scenarios • Energy demand • Emissions

6. Weighted Energy ladder • Multiple fueluse is often norm in developingcountries • Needsmethodology that positions household on energyladderbased on: • Whatfuels that are used • The amount of usefulenergy that are provided by the different fuels • Weighting: • Overall efficiency • Reducedemittedparticles • Based on weight(kg)

7. Aim • What are the impacts of income, land area and geography for fuelchoice in the studied area? • Howwellcanthesefactors be used to describe a weighted multiple fuelenergyladder? • Is the climbing on the energyladderdepending on naturalconditions? • Delta • Hill • Mountain

8. Method - Survey • Case study in northern Vietnam • Energy survey: • Income, education, mainsource of income, fueluse for cooking, attitudes, electricityuse and appliances, agriculturaluse etc. • 240 households • 6 communesdivided over three areas in Vinh Phucprovinces • Delta, Hills and Mountain areas • Data used in this study: • Householdincome • Land area used by household • Fuelsused for cooking (and amount of thesefuels) • Attitudes

9. Method - Regression • Foreachvillage • For whole area: • Variables allowed to differbetween: • Delta • Hill • Mountain • Regression performed on: • Amount of usefulenergy from: • Agricultural residues • Boughtfuels • LPG • Weightedenergyladder I = Income HI = High Income L = Land area

10. Results - Survey

11. The energyladder Natural Gas Electricity • Fuelused in the studied area: • LPG • Coal • Wood • Agricultural residues LPG Kerosene Coal Wood Agricultural residues Leaves Dung

12. Results – FuelPreference • 202 of the 240 respondents eitheruse LPG as the mainfuel or would like to. • A further 11 would like to cookmore with electricity. • Only 8 households that usewood or agriculturalresidues as mainfuel are content.

13. Results – Residues and BoughtFuels • Amount of residues: • Correlates with the amount of land the householduses • This effect is smaller in the hills • No effect in the mountains • Amount of boughtfuels: • Income is important for usingmorecommercialfuels, • The effect of income is less in the hills and mountain region • In mountainsonly high incomehouseholdsbuyfuel • Land has a negative effect in delta and hill area, • But not in the mountain area

14. Results - LPG • Amount of LPG: • Income is important • Becomesmoreimportantwhen a thresholdlevel is reached (needsmoreanalysis)

15. Collectedfuelwood • A possibleexplanation for the different effect of income and land in the differen areas is the possibility of fuelwoodcolllection. • Average area fitswell with share of usefulenergy that comes from collectedfuelwood Mountains Hills Delta

16. Results • In mountains: • Mostenergy is from collectedfuelwood • Only high incomehouseholdsbuyfuel • In Hills and Delta: • Income is positive for buyingmorefuels • Household land area is negative • Buteffect is smaller in placeswherefuelwoodcollection is possible

17. Proposedmodel I = Income HI = High Income L= Land area H= Hills M= Mountains Or use information about householddensity

18. Results – Weightedenergyladder • Weightedenergyladder: • Incomeimportant (Morecommercialfuels) • High incomeimportant (LPG) • Income less important in hills and mountains • Land area negative effect (agriculturalresidues) • Less effect in hills (Collectedwood) • No correlation in mountains (Collectedwood) • Hills and mountain area lags behind • High level of explanation: • R2=0,65 (although much of variation on village level!)

19. Findings • Incomeexplainmuch of the fuelchoice, iftakingintoaccount: • Multiple fueluse • Localavailability of freefuel: • collectedfuelwood • agriculturalresidues • The effect of fuelswitching is accelerated after a householdreach a thresholdincomebecause it is mainly after this level that households start to use LPG

20. Possible policy implications • The climbing on the energyladdermight be very different in areas in the same province • Policiesmighthave different level of succeswithin the same province • Need for technology options might be different for areas in the same province

21. Collectedfuelwood • A possibleexplanation for the different effect of income and land in the differen areas is the possibility of fuelwoodcolllection. • Average area fitswell with share of usefulenergy that comes from collectedfuelwood • By usingaverage land instead of hill and mountain variables furtheraccuracycould be achieved Mountains Hills Delta Energy laddersurveyimplications: Surroundinghouseholds or area information important for energyladder

22. Thank you for listening