You are on page 1of 13

Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Rural electrification options in the Brazilian Amazon
A multi-criteria analysis
Francesco Fuso Nerini a,⁎, Mark Howells a, Morgan Bazilian a,c, Maria F. Gomez b
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Energy System Analysis (KTH-dESA), Sweden
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Energy and Climate Studies (KTH-ECS), Sweden
Columbia University, New York, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Worldwide, approximately 1.2 billion people still lack access to electricity. Recognized by the Brazilian Government
Received 2 September 2013 as a citizen's right, access to electricity was extended to almost 15 million people since 2003 as a result of the “Luz
Revised 17 January 2014 Para Todos” (Light for all — LPT) program. However, considerable parts of the Amazon region still lack access to
Accepted 21 February 2014
electricity services, largely due to the long distances that need to be covered and to challenging topography. This
Available online 19 March 2014
paper explores electrification using selected renewable sources, both for new installations and for hybridization of
existing diesel generators. We present results from a multi-criteria analysis that explores trade-offs associated
Rural electrification with electrification options. Techno-economic, environmental, social and institutional criteria and attributes are
Multi Criteria Analysis explored. We find that renewable and hybrid systems present a number of advantages for application in isolated
Brazilian Amazon areas of the region.
© 2014 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction new connections for rural households where requested by rural
communities (ANEEL, 2011)).
In 2003 electricity access was recognized as a basic human right in In the Amazon region,2 where most of the connections are requested,
Brazil. Since then, the government has undertaken an extensive effort grid extension is, in many cases, no longer an economically feasible
to provide electricity to the entire population (Gomez and Silveira, option. This is due to the long distances between the communities and
2010). The current Brazilian rural electrification program, ‘Light for All’ the grid, as well as a relatively challenging topography. After reaching
or ‘Luz Para Todos’ (LPT), was designed to achieve universal electricity all the communities close to the national grid, each new community
access in the country. By December 2012, approximately 3 million fam- connected represents a substantial cost (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009).
ilies, representing roughly 14.7 million people, had received access to Off-grid solutions are therefore now perceived as an integral part of the
electricity (ANEEL, 2012a, 2012b). It is estimated that over 400,000 rural electrification policy in Brazil. Technologies including small-scale
new jobs have been created directly or indirectly. For this effort, the hydropower, biomass based power generation, wind, solar cells, and hy-
Brazilian government allocated significant resources with federal gov- brid systems are considered as potential solutions to achieve universal
ernment contracts reaching R$ 14.5 billion, equivalent to approximately electrification goals in the region (Ministério de Minas e Energia, 2011a).
6.3 billion US$ (Ministerio de Minas e Energia, 2013). Where connecting to the national grid is not an economically feasi-
Most of the progress to date has been accomplished by the conces- ble option, concessionaries have tried to meet the LPT targets using
sionaries1 through grid-extensions. However, significant effort is still primarily diesel fuelled micro grids (Gómez and Silveira, 2011). Diesel
needed to reach the goal of universal access to energy services. Over solutions are chosen mainly due to low capital cost, a consolidated
350,000 new connections are to be made during the years 2013–2014 supply chain in the region and a working subsidy system for the pur-
(ANEEL, 2012a, 2012b), and new connections are constantly being re- chase of Diesel (Di Lascio and Barreto, 2009). Lower capital cost implies
quired from rural communities (e.g. in 2011 alone, approx. 360,000 a clear advantage for concessionaries, as low up-front costs are small
compared to the costly fines that are applied to the concessionaries
⁎ Corresponding author at: Brinellvägen 68, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden.
E-mail address: (F. Fuso Nerini).
1 2
LPT is currently based on a government-supported private sector concession model. For the purpose of this study, the Amazon region is defined as equivalent to the North
Concessionaires, the main providers of electricity in the country, are required to fully sup- region in the official macro-region division of the country. As a result, our study covers
ply electricity services to citizens living in their concession area, guaranteeing low tariffs Acre, Rondônia, Roraima, Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, and Tocantins states. The Brazilian Am-
for low-income population (Brazilian Presidency, 2002, 2010). The government provides azon region is characterized by a very low population density, that is, about 4 inhabitants
financial support to the concessionaires in the form of both connection and consumption per square kilometer in comparison with a national population density of about 22 inhab-
subsidies. itants per square kilometer (IBGE, 2011).
0973-0826/© 2014 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2004). listed in Table 4. 2007). 1. 2006). macro-criteria and on the final ness of each option in the Amazonian context. However fuel cost for these • Helping people to reflect upon. In fact. but to help contextualize relevant pros and cons when supporting decision-making. analyses of past projects and interviews with regional Social and Institutional. In addition. may be two or three 1997): times greater than prices charged at gas stations (Silva et al. Nutt. It has to be emphasized that this final index is not intended both positive and negative aspects of the considered solutions. However. 2008. 2009. Methodology Following interviews with decision makers listed in Table 4 and a limited contextual literature review (Afgan and Carvalho. where electricity access Implementing one instance of this methodology requires the identi- is not available. fuel cost) as well rural population of the Amazon region. we suggest tentative conclusions. to express their . a simple multi-criteria analysis was under. Amer A schematic of the methodology is presented in Fig. This enabled index of this analysis. stakeholders. Multi Criteria Analysis sel system has been proven to be very costly for the concessionaries due mainly to the high fuel costs. All the parameters are normalized in percentages the comparison of the different electrification options across individual so as to be aggregated in the final index (0% to 100%). assessing the appropriate. once the transportation costs are considered. as the macro criteria of the analysis (e. Based on weights obtained weighted (with a weight Wi [%]) to form the respective macro- from an interview process.. fundamental objectives and corresponding trade-offs. It is • Moving the discussion away from alternatives and towards not uncommon that energy generated by privately owned diesel genera.g. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 37 Criteria for the analysis Literature search Multi Criteria Interviews with Analysis and user interviews stakeholders (MCA) to compare in the analysis Fig. Albeit limited. criteria as well as a composite index. rational and efficient. documents. price or environmen- tal controls (Schmid and Hoffmann. 2010). Criteria are this work's comparative approach (Table 2). five promising energy solutions have been chosen for A simple weighting methodology is applied (Fig. The macro criteria are in turn weighted to reach the final taken and each of the chosen systems has been evaluated. In this analysis we aggregate criteria with a simple weighting to de- This research focuses on identifying and highlighting some of the rive single values for ‘macro’ criteria. that are valued to define an objective so that planners. 2011). in many cases where concessionaries have not yet • Displaying trade-offs among candidate attributes. 2002. interviewed decision makers (DMs). Fuso Nerini et al. Economic. Also. prioritized and ranked (Amer and Daim. tors is informally sold to neighbors. were identified as most relevant (Table 1). this approach makes it possible to derive comparisons Finally. Finally the transparent assignment of weighting allows quick sensitivity analyses. 2009). The result is that the cost of diesel for isolated communities. The initial step and Daim. to indicate the “best” solution over the possible alternatives. and for the consoli. criterion. without any subsidies from the government. with no quality. A list of pros and cons for composite index which expresses an overall judgment for the options each electrification option is drawn from the analysis thereby highlighting in the region.. regulators and the public can understand the advantages and these solutions are preferred for the low capital cost. These are linked to complied with the obligation to provide universal electricity access clear criteria. Environmental. 1979). This methodology enables the conventional energy solutions for providing energy services to the comparison of alternatives both on single-criteria (e. and those in turn are given weights main positive and negative aspects of using different renewable and to arrive to the final index of the analysis. Schematic of research methodology. on the local ecosystems and a direct health impact3 on users (Rosa. namely: Technical. electricity is provided with small private diesel generators. 2011. Finally. This is accomplished through (Hobbs and Horn. approximately 80% of the households use candles and fication of various assessment criteria. Derived from national strategy ed into 5 macro-criteria.g. 2). which in the usage of private diesel generators and basic lighting systems such as turn receive relative weights. Daim et al. of electrification options on criteria. These elements are assigned kerosene lamps to have basic lighting services (IDEEAS PSA. 1. F. economics) while showing a final weighted aggregate index. The weights Wi for the analysis have been chosen pursuing a partic- ipatory approach: questionnaires had been filled out in order for the 3 Especially when those systems are located near or inside the houses. 16 criteria of this work includes a techno-economic analysis of existing electrifica. the transportation of fuel to those The MCA (Multi Criteria Analysis) methods aim to improve the quality remote locations may take several days by boat (Di Lascio and Barreto. disadvantages of alternatives dated supply system of diesel in the region. Both weights and aggregated into corresponding macro criteria. of decisions involving multiple criteria by making choices more explicit. Ilskog. The 16 criteria are aggregat- tion solutions used in the Amazon. the resulting alternatives are kerosene lamps have negative impacts on the economy of rural families. articulate and apply value judgments. small systems are extremely high as they are often powered by fuel resulting in a ranking of alternatives from the black market. maintaining the die. that do not reach LPT connection targets. Similarly.

as fuel import in the Amazon can available’ (0%) to ‘The primary energy source is locally available. and it is enough to supply be costly. Fuso Nerini et al. ranging from ‘Low/no possibility for the to communities community (e. all the needed electrical power for the community (100%) T3: Scalability System adequacy to follow rural settlement It is important that energy systems are able to Creation of an evaluation scale ranging from ‘The system cannot adapt evolution. skilled for the operation and maintenance of a operate the system. success for correct usage during its lifetime. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 Economic Ec1: Capital cost Total capital cost required to set up a plant. the The O&M costs have been estimated for each of the considered options. adapt to the growing needs of rural communities. brief description. Creation of an evaluation scale. En2: Land requirement Quantity of land necessary for system operation It is not always easy in rural areas of the Amazon The land requirements have been estimated for each of the considered to access big areas without compromising the options. economic and energy security benefits for the region and the state’ (100%) . relevance and numerical evaluation for the analysis. for the region and the state. economic or of energy security’ (0%) to and relative to national energy security ‘The large adoption of the evaluated energy system in the Amazon would have overall political. These benefits evaluated energy system in the Amazon would have some disadvantages electrification option on a large scale could be of various types such as economic. and lower capital costs can and then normalized to obtain criteria values ranging between 0% and 100%. and the government supports the under technology politically and economically. Comprehensive of the life reliability is an important advantage due to the estimation of the % of spare parts to be substituted after a number expectancy of the system and the need of logistical difficulties in providing O&M and the working years (to consider. production facilities. and then evaluated in a scale ranging from ‘The system has local ecosystem incompatible land requirement with the Amazon eco system’ (0%) to ‘No need of dedicated structures and additional land’ (100%) En3: Stress on the eco-system Direct environmental impacts of the energy Especially in a delicate ecosystem like the Amazon. 38 Table 1 Chosen criteria for the analysis. electricity in services in order to enhance the quality of life energy system to support energy services for the community’ (0%) to ‘The schools & community centers…etc. T2: Resource availability Energy source availability and ease of access Using local resources can have a number of Creation of an evaluation scale ranging from ‘The primary energy source is not locally as part of local resources advantages. plus the need of periodical specialized maintenance system. and create new productive activities linked to the energy system’ (100%) S3: Services that are possible to provide New public services that can be supplied to a It is key in the Amazon region to increase public Creation of an evaluation scale. make Support from the local institutions is crucial for Creation of an evaluation scale. ranging from ‘Both the community and the concessionary concessionary providing energy services. that could be political. F. to the system. and spreading specific technologies across the framework makes it very difficult to adopt such a technology’ (0%) to which technologies are easier to introduce Amazon region ‘There are no institutional barriers. A scale varying from 0% (non reliable) to 100% (fully reliable) was created to represent these factors. cost of operating the system is a key factor of and then normalized to obtain the criteria values ranging between 0% and 100%. if any. equipment and installation. and the sustainability have economic disadvantages of some type due to the usage of the energy system’ (0%) the considered system on the long term of the approach on the long term to ‘Both the concessionary and the community have economic advantages of some type on the long term due to the usage of the energy system’ (100%) Ec4: Accessibility to credit and subsidies Possibility of access to credit and subsidies for Ease of access to credit and subsidies for an energy Creation of an evaluation scale. refrigeration… etc. or the The economic benefits of each system directly Creation of an evaluation scale. water pumping stations. operation of the compared energy systems and then normalized to obtain the criteria values ranging between 0% and 100%. community centers. ranging from ‘The energy system cannot activities/Job creation and how the productive activities have been productive activities in order to increase the support any productive activity’ (0%) to ‘The system has the potential to stimulated from a specific electrification option quality of life of its inhabitants both support all kinds of local productive activities. ranging from ‘Considerable presence of hazardous for the health of rural communities discouraged emissions potentially harmful for the health’ (0%) to ‘Absence of harmful emissions for the health’ (100%) S2: Support to local productive Estimation of the amount of local jobs created It is key in the Amazon region to stimulate Creation of an evaluation scale. the need of exchanging batteries exchange of spare parts.g. can be an issue in remote rural areas. for instance. Ec3: Economic value Economic benefits for the community. Macro-criteria Criteria Brief description Relevance Evaluation Technical T1: Reliability Capability of the system to work in a specific In rural areas. in isolated PV systems). considering labor. ranging from ‘The current regulative political electrification option it difficult to adopt the electrification option. The support from the the current regulation framework government is not expected to change in the future’ (100%) I2: National economic benefits Which benefits would the overall Brazilian National benefits are important to push policy Creation of an evaluation scale. medical centers. projects is an issue.’ (100%) Institutional/ I1: Institutional barriers for the Which kind of institutional barriers. for influence its scalability. ranging from ‘The large adoption of the economy have from the use of a specific makers to support a solution. Finding capital for starting Rural Electrification The capital costs have been estimated for each of the considered options. difficult and time-consuming. A scale ranging from 0% (high O&M needs) to 100% (low O&M needs) was created to represent these factors. public lighting. mean the possibility to provide more people with energy services Ec2: O&M and fuel cost Costs for replacing parts. having robust systems with high Relative to the life expectancy of the system in the Amazon and on an region (Amazon). ranging from ‘The usage of the system has system on the eco-system it is key that energy systems have the lowest an high impact on the local ecosystem’ (0%) to ‘The System creates no possible impact additional stress to the local ecosystem’ (100%) Social S1: Presence of harmful emissions to health Types and quantity of emission that can be Systems with high health impacts should be Creation of an evaluation scale. Relative to the amount of specialized people needed (or not) in loco to system to work properly. social. to the growth of the community’ (0%) to ‘The system is modular and can easily adapt to the growth of the community’ (100%) T4: O&M needs Expert human resources needed on site for the Having the availability of expert human resources. fuel purchase (if any).) of its inhabitants system has the potential to support all kinds of services — public lighting. ranging from ‘It is difficult to receive the realization of the project system is key for the adoption and scalability of a governmental support for the projects’ (0%) to ‘Most of the capital certain electrification option and O&M costs can be covered by accessible governmental funds’ (100%) Environmental En1: Green House Gas — (GHG) Emissions Quantity of GHG emissions consequent to the Relevant to sustainable development issues The GHG emissions have been estimated for each of the considered options. for O&M labor. harsh environmental conditions in the region. and for Considering the limited financial resources.

2009. successful scheme could be the use of residuals from the production ly influence policy and projects decisions on rural electrification in the Brazilian Amazon.. The relevant ones for this analysis assessment. and have already been successfully employed in the Amazon. not yet been carried out. duction of energy does not have an economic advantage. 2008). 2012.e. alcohols required for production of Bio Diesel and the difficulty to Filhoa and Badr. Di Lascio and Barreto. cluded in the ‘Biomass systems’ electrification option. 2012. and see Barreto. ➢ The production and use of Biodiesel was not considered due to the 2011. and local government5) so as to reflect a diversity of (ANEEL. 2011. 2009). however. (Di Lascio and ple in rural communities where not interviewed. In fact. 2013).. 2012a. A 5 The decision makers considered covers the range of actors that are most able to direct. Van Els et al. however they have been selected as the low induced variance and ability to predict decisions (Nutt. wind power does not appear as an attrac- Ministério de Minas e Energia. 2004. It would be. Casillas and Kammen. Schmid and Hoffmann. Historically syngas 6 See Table 4 for a list of interviewed people. 2009. Gonzalez et al. due to the weak observed wind with stakeholders of the region. Algorithm. Fuso Nerini et al. the cosmetic industries) and their direct use for the pro- Decision makers where asked to quantify their relative importance of the chosen criteria trough the questionnaire shown in Annex A.. 2012. of vegetable oils in conventional energy cycles (and this system is in- and so from Government.. local of the energy potential of the electrification options in the region concessionaries. 2009). Rendeiro et al. five energy systems were chosen for the MCA (Table 2). Vegetable Oils are a very valuable product for other in- 4 dustries (i. 2007. and evaluation the Amazon. interesting in fu- ture studies to insert those population groups in the study in further researches. Bacellar and Rocha. 2010. Eletronorte. all short analysis and numerical weights are reported in Annex B. de Minas e Energia. 2011a. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 39 Fig. we chose the direct meth. 2012. Ministério import them into remote areas (Di Lascio and Barreto. preferences. REDE Empresas de Energia Eletrica. These electrification options do not cover the whole range of possible so- od of Anchored Rating Scale (ARS) for its simplicity. ➢ Gasification technologies are not considered. 2008. Matos et al.. F.. 2012).6 literature review of past electrification regimes and the typical plant cover of trees with heights that vary projects in the Amazon and other rural areas (ANEEL. among other factors. 2008. Concessionaries and Academia. 2010. semi-structured interviews tive option in the Amazon Forest.. stakeholder views. Ministério de Minas e Energia. 2. the solutions compared rely on mature technologies. Pinheiro et al. 2012b. CELPA rede. for its demonstrated lutions for the Brazilian Amazon. how that influences the weighting structure. from 50 to 70 m (Matos et al. A few considerations regarding the choice of solutions to compare: Electrification options compared in the analysis and simple load calculation ➢ Wind energy was not considered due the scarce wind resource in the Amazon: although a detailed study on the use of wind energy has Derived from national strategy documents (Eletrobras. Plovnick.4 The DMs had different backgrounds (academia. At this stage of the research peo. 2012). 1979). Quintas ➢ Systems with direct use of local vegetable oils in internal combustion et al. 2012. Blanco et al. pilot plants have failed due to technical problems of gasification . For weighting the criteria. 2004. 2010. engines are not considered due to the findings from past projects in 2011..

In addition. The possi- most of the documents of the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy in the contest of the bility of providing additional services to the rural community. Fig. the use of 60 kWh/month/household10 is considered a the final index of 69% and 65% respectively. than just the ones that is pos- Luz Para Todos program. (4 h/day for household). and to evaluate the effect of adding a renewable source to conventional sources. a basic load 11 Calculated for providing at least the following energy services: Basic lighting (3 fluo- 7 Rendeiro. Fuso Nerini et al. This representative value was used for the calculations of cer- 4. is considered in a series of criteria of the 10 To be noticed that in the renewable supply options storage systems have been consid. some waterway. namely: Scalability. 3. and to face the inter-seasonal variability (Usually a small intake structure is necessary). and residuals from the rainforest. systems in harsh Amazon conditions. Micro Hydro the resulting values. Hybrid systems From a few kW to some MW Both This system consists of a Hybridization of the DG solution with PV panels. Only one type of (diesel + PV) hybrid system (DG + PV) is considered for simplicity of analysis. Also. floating residuals of the rivers. the Biogas technology is badly accepted in the All criteria have been evaluated individually for each of the Brazilian culture. radio/television 8 Household composed of 3–4 people (average data among the states of the Amazon re. tain parameters. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 Table 2 Compared electrification options. 2011). but were not considered basic energy services to rural households in the Amazon.4 people/hh in the state of Amazonas) (IBGE. and Ser- ered. 2009).1 people/hh in the state of Amapà to a maximum of pumping for the community. the supply of energy services to one ‘standard’ household8 and all the Biomass systems and PV systems have registered the highest factors in the analysis are calculated accordingly9 in order to normalize scores in the final index. so that the load could be met when needed. a turbine and a generator. respectively 77% and 76%.40 F. ➢ Production of Biogas from human waste is not considered in the study due to the very low population densities in the region Results of the Multi Criteria Analysis (which can limit feedstock availability and affect economies of scale). production of vegetable oils. Installations and Hybrid Power Plants have an overall value for Further. battery bank. such as O&M costs. or local agriculture).e. vices that are possible to provide to communities. Land Requirement or GHG emissions. Final values of the aggregate use in the country (Di Lascio and Barreto. Various types of biomass can be used for these systems. we evaluate in Table 3. phone charging (2 h/day for household). The most common are: residuals from local agricultural production activities (i. new promising calculation showed that 60 kWh/month is more than enough to provide technological options are being developed. This social constraint has previously limited its compared systems presented in Table 2.7 However. this basis for the analyses is used in not the superior limitation of energy that can be provided for each connection. charge regulator and inverter. July 2012. index of the analysis are reported in Fig. Selected outstanding positive and negative aspects of each electrification option are then highlighted Regarding the parameter calculations for the research. Electrification option Power applications for Connected with micro-grid/ Additional comments rural communities stand alone system Diesel generators (DG) From a few kW to some MW Connected with a micro-grid This option refers to the diesel generators provided in rural areas. 59 kWh/month/household (CELPA rede. 3. Micro hydro electricity From a few kW to some MW Connected with a micro-grid These systems usually consist of a water intake. which scored an overall the medium electricity consumption for a rural isolated system of value of 53%. which corresponds closely to the index is registered to the DG systems. The private household (benchmark solution) owned diesel generators are not considered in the benchmark solution. Support to local productive activities/job creation. The lowest value for benchmark in terms of electricity supply. systems The systems are designed for the low pressure heads which typical for the region. rescent lamps for usage 6 h/day). refrigerator with low energy consumption and shared water gion are from a minimum of 3. Biomass systems From a few kW to some MW Connected with a micro-grid Systems working based on a steam cycle using biomass as a feedstock. Solar PV systems From a few W to some kW Both Generally consisting of a PV generator. sible to provide with 60 kWh/month/household. These systems are found in literature either with or without a battery storage unit.11 in this analysis due to the lack of regional experience and data. However this is 9 Due to simplicity of data handling and calculation. analysis. Personal Interview. . Values and structure of the final aggregate index of the MCA. 2011).

Di Lascio and Barreto (2009). and requires storage Matos et al. and low O&M costs) Difficult to expand the system more than the Di Lascio and Barreto (2009). Gonzalez et al. refuse from vegetable oils) PV systems Good environmental performance. and Mature technology with high life expectancy originally installed capacity Drinkwaard et al. . Gustavsson (2000). solution due to the inclusion of the solar resource High fuel costs related to the use of diesel Ministério de Minas e Energia (2008).e. ecosystem. High capital cost Interviews with experts in Table 4. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 41 Table 3 Main positive and negative aspects encountered for each electrification option during the MCA. (2008). (2007). Sox. CELPA rede (2011). Difficult fuel supply to the communities. Bacellar possibility of using various feedstock) Appropriate gaseous emissions control and Rocha (2010). F. (2012). NOx. Fuso Nerini et al. International Energy Agency (2012). (2012). structure is inverted completely. Casillas a good managing system (No stress on the not suited to support power intensive and and Kammen (2011). Filhoa and Badr (2004). Lowest capital cost among the compared systems compared solutions Drinkwaard et al. 2012b). (2011) Can support power intensive and productive High inter-seasonal variations of the primary activities energy source The need of a small dam causes a relevant stress on the eco-system (variations of the natural equilibrium of the exploited river) Hybrid power plants Higher power output than a PV system without DG Environmental externalities related to the use Interviews with experts in Table 4.12 Even if the main goal of this research is to assess positive and In the graph in Fig. CELPA technology in isolated areas Highest O&M and fuel costs among the rede (2011). Electrification option Positive aspects Negative aspects Main references Biomass systems Good technical performances (High life expectancy. 4). (2011) High possibility of integration with local production current regulative framework activities (i. systems. (2007). HC. Blanco et al. Modular system and Ruther et al. CO. use change) Difficult to access credit and subsidies Ministério de Minas e Energia (2008). if coupled with Power limitations for economic reasons ➔ Interviews with experts in Table 4. 4. Carbon neutral technology (if there is no land system required Gonzalez et al. and Rendeiro et al. and reduced fuel costs with respect to the DG solution Diesel systems High governmental support for the use of this No resource availability in the region ➔ Interviews with experts in Table 4. (2003) Reduced capital costs in respect to the PV solution. (2011). the weights previously assigned to each electrifica- tion option where randomly exchanged among the different options. (DG + PV) Less environmental externalities than the DG of diesel Eletronorte (2010). This analysis varying the weighting structure of the sub/macro criteria while has been done to verify final result consistency even in cases where the original weighting evaluating how this might affect the final results (Fig. VOCs) 80% Value of the final index [%] 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Diesel Generators PV Biomass system Hydro power plant Hybrid Power plant Electrification option Fig. Sensitivity analysis of the results For this analysis. low land productive activities and Di Lascio and Barreto (2009) requirement) Requires both exchange and correct Low Operation and Maintenance (O&M) needs maintenance of the battery banks every and no fuel costs few years High life expectancy High average solar irradiation in the Amazon (approx. 5. Ministério de Minas e High environmental externalities (emissions Energia (2008) of CO2. (2005). Martins et al. 4 the triangles represent the starting results of the negative aspects for different electrification options in the Amazon with the guidance of the structured MCA framework. a consistency 12 A weighting matrix was created containing all possible combinations substituting analysis of the final numerical results was carried out using a sensitivity weights previously assigned to one of the criteria with those from another criteria. Results of the sensitivity analysis. Carbon neutral technology.5 kWh/m2/day) Micro hydro Good economic performance (lowest capital cost/ Low support from the government for small Interviews with experts in Table 4. Possible to produce at various capacities for this electrification option under the Pinheiro et al. installations household connected among the renewable hydro systems (b1 MW power production) ANEEL (2012a.

namely that.13 tutional schemes for providing energy services to the rural population are necessary (Gómez and Silveira. Marcos Gallardo GEDAE — Universidade Federal Do Pará Researcher.0032 (hydro).0159 (biomass) 16 See Table 3 for a more comprehensive list of pros and cons for each electrification • Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the institutional macro criteria: Min σ = option. Max σ = 0. with modest values of standard deviation from the original results of each technology: • Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the technical macro criteria: Min σ = 0.0085 (PV) generators consumption in the region of 350 g fuel/kWh (Di Lascio and Barreto. in the economic and social scales. Indeed. Group of Studies and Development of Energy Alternatives (GEDAE) 09/07/12 Eng: Fares Maluf Neto Eletrobras Head director of the program PRODEEM MCA. Max σ = 0. Under the current regulatory framework diesel gen set solutions There are a number of possible areas for further work. for most cases analyzed with a different applied to the concessionaries that do not reach LPT connection targets weighting structure. 2012). with low capital cost and could be added to the analysis.0072 for Biomass Systems). However such systems have some clear advantages. 2010). 0. other types of hybrid solutions diesel systems are a well-known technology.09 (DG) 17 e. sil fuels to remote communities which can cost up to approximately One of the key findings that emerged from the multi-criteria analysis 500$/year for each serviced household.. Max σ = 0. on a large scale. new have been adopted mainly due to some key advantages they present electrification solutions could be included into the analysis. Grupo de Energia. in the context of the program Luz Para Todos 02/07/12 Eng.42 F.0066 (PV). Group of Studies and Development of Energy Alternatives (GEDAE) 05/07/12 Prof. In the Amazon region. to a maximum of σ = the energy user's choice (Howells et al. 2012). These systems are the most convenient short ample could be the inclusion of the connection to the national grid term solution for trying to meet LPT program targets of universalization of those communities that are located within some relatively low within the short governmental deadlines.14 and the costly fines that are a level of robustness. and an average diesel 0. even when completely reversing the nomic trade-off exists between the high operation and maintenance weighting structure. Max σ =0. In this context new insti- 0. mini-. Angelandre Quaresima CELPA — Centrais Eletricas Do Parà Responsible for the Luz Para Todos program at CELPA 02/07/12 Alvaro Bressan CELPA — Centrais Eletricas Do Parà Director of CELPA 03/07/12 Jorge Silva Junior Eletronorte Technical Assistant for the Luz Para Todos program 03/07/12 Giorgiana Pinheiro CELPA — Centrais Eletricas Do Parà Responsible for the alternative energy projects at CELPA 04/07/12 Prof. This indicates costs of diesel systems in the long term.15 Other key advantages of is intuitive. The key limitations for the implementation of renewable and Discussion hybrid energy solutions are their high initial investment cost.0061 (PV). 13 The same analysis has been done for the evaluation of each criteria (the analysis pre- sented in the main text has been done on the final results of the analysis). It remains challenging for the Amazon region to introduce new and the lack of long term incentives for the concessionaries to im- locally sourced and renewable forms of electrical energy generation plement them. This research energy sources thereby erasing (for fully renewable systems) or helped support policy and investment decision-making related to diminishing (hybrid systems) the need to purchase and supply fos- the implementation and use of these new electrification options.17 lower environmental and health impacts. proved energy security in an area where reliable supply can be an environmental and institutional criteria while coming second to lowest issue due to climatic and other factors (Di Lascio and Barreto. . Manoel Fernandes Nogueira EBMA — Universidade Federal Do Pará Researcher.0058 (PV). changes in system size (growth and interconnection of micro-. the lack of a mature supply chains for renewable options in the region.01 (biomass) existing local agriculture. the dispersion of the results is relatively small in the short term. Fuso Nerini et al.0001 (PV). Thus an eco- It becomes clear that. Biomassa & Meio Ambiente — EBMA 05/07/12 Prof. Date Interviewed Organization Position 25/06/12 Eng. this technological different levels. 2009. for instance16: the support and creation power solutions present drawbacks when compared to renewable or of new productive activities that can support rural communities on hybrid solutions under most of the criteria. Second. In fact. have failed to take into consideration the high fuel costs. Max σ = 0.g. 0. and similar re- sults where found. Gonçalo Rendeiro EBMA — Universidade Federal Do Pará Coordinador. the final results remain consistent. while also moving away from the current situation First. and the lines represents the range of solutions that where maintenance among the villages. or coupled to the sustainable production of vegetable oils or to σ = 0. diesel fuelled using local sources include. In- • Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the economic macro criteria: Min σ = ternational Energy Agency. In addition. and national-grids) as well as changes in consump- tion patterns. • Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the social macro criteria: Min σ = 15 With an average household electricity usage of 60 kWh/month. Biomassa & Meio Ambiente — EBMA 26/06/12 Giselle Rodriguez Cattanio Eletronorte Lawyer for Eletobras 26/06/12 Eng. Igvi Chavaglia Eletronorte Coordinator of the program Luz Para Todos in the state of Parà 26/06/12 Prof. Grupo de Energia. This policy failure (governance/informational) tends (Ranging from values of standard deviation of a minimum σ = 0. First.0035 to push the energy use pattern in a sub-optimal manner and distorts for the evaluation of Hybrid Power Systems. these distance from the grid. 2009). / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 Table 4 Interviewed experts during the analysis. concessionaries obtained when varying the weighting system. it would be useful to devel- with a consolidated supply chain for fuel distribution and systems op a dynamic analysis allowing for fluctuating performance or cost parameters. Luiz Fernando Galiza dos Santos Eletronorte Assistant of the coordinator of the program Luz Para Todos in the state of Parà 25/06/12 Eng. One ex- for the concessionaries. for isolated areas of the Amazon. fuel costs are considerably lowered through using local predominantly reliant on fossil fuel based generation. On the other hand. Antonio Josè De Abreu Neves Eletronorte Electrical Engineer.03 (DG) 14 See Introduction section. Wilson Negrao Macedo GEDAE — Universidade Federal Do Pará Researcher. with the usage of biomass systems coupled for to the necessary removal of floating • Varying the weights of the criteria to arrive to the environmental macro criteria: Min objects from the river. and im- option offers the worst results when graded with all of our technical.

a The authors thank the Federal University of Parà and Eletronorte special thanks to all those who provided their time and expertise for providing valuable support during the research period in the during the semi-structured interviews in the Amazon region Amazon. F. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 43 Acknowledgments University of Catalonia. . The used questionnaire1817 18 The ARS approach uses a continuous scale to encourage the decision makers to make fine discriminations in an attempt to create interval scale properties in the weights assigned. We are grateful to Prof. Enrique Velo of the Polytechnic (Table 4). Annex A. which express their view of its importance. Semida Silveira of the Royal Insti- tute of Technology for their guidance during this analysis. Fuso Nerini et al. Finally. The DMs are asked to draw a line from each of the criteria to a point on the linear scale. and Prof.

Fuso Nerini et al.44 F. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 .

Fuso Nerini et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 45 .F.

/ Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 . Fuso Nerini et al.46 F.

it remains possible to see different patterns of response amongst different stakeholders. depending on the considered stakeholder group. 19 When two criteria are listed it means that those where considered almost equally important. Afterwards the final weights where calculated as an average of the results from the different stakeholder groups. Stakeholder group Governmental institution Academia Concessionary Highest weight Lowest weight Highest weight Lowest weight Highest weight Lowest weight Macro-criteria Economic Political Technical Political Economic Social Technical Resource Availability Scalability Reliability Scalability Reliability Scalability Resource availability O&M needs Economic Capital cost Economic value Capital cost Possibility to access to Capital cost Economic value O&M and fuel cost O&M and fuel cost credit and subsidies O&M and fuel cost Environmental Green House Gasses Land requirement Stress on the eco system Land requirement Land requirement Stress on the Emissions eco-system Social Institutional barriers National economic Institutional barriers National economic Institutional barriers National economic for the technology benefits for the technology benefits for the technology benefits Considering these differences.1 was established after analysis of the compiled stakeholder questionnaires. as shown in the sensitivity analysis in the Sensitivity analysis of the results section. In Table B.1918 Table B.1 The final weights used for the MCA. Macro criteria Relative weight Criteria Relative weight Technical 22% Reliability 26% Resource availability 27% Scalability 20% O&M needs 28% Σ 100% Economic 22% Capital cost 27% O&M and fuel cost 29% Economic value 22% Possibility to access to credit and subsidies 22% Σ 100% Environmental 20% Green House Gasses Emissions 36% Land requirement 30% Stress on the eco-system 34% Σ 100% Social 17% Presence of harmful of emissions for the health 32% Support to local productive activities/Job creation 33% Services that are possible to supply to the communities 35% Σ 100% Institutional 19% Institutional barriers for the technology 59% National economic benefits 41% Σ 100% Σ 100% Though this effort was limited. Table B. it is important to note that the different weighting systems of stakeholder groups under consideration do not affect the consistency of the final results.2 we can see the criteria which was given the highest and lowest weight among the different criteria categories for each stakeholder group. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 47 Annex B. . It was calculated in a two steps process: first the weighting system for each stakeholder group was calculated as an average of the results for each single interviewed member of that stakeholder group. F. Fuso Nerini et al. Considerations on the final weighting system for the analysis The weighting system shown in Table B.2 Most and least important criteria for each criteria group.

mme. Energy Policy 2010. 257–61. regulatory and market 2004. Rocha BRP.oecd-ilibrary. eneprice-data-en. Romijn H. [Online] Available at: http://www. Gomez MF. boosting PV: the electricity access: the case of the Amazon region. fuel cell–batteries hybrid system for use in the Brazilian Amazon. The delivery of low-cost. Dev 2011. Technol Soc 2009. Renew Energy 2012. para a Amazônia. Pinjo AC. 3rd World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion. Peng Y. Programa Luz Para Todos. Lei n° 10. amazon with decentralized generation. Quintas M. Atendimento ao Arquipèlago do Marajo. economic feasibility.15(6):3196– Schmid A. IEA energy prices and taxes statistics. Macedo EN. Correia JdC. A Viabilidade do uso de energias alternativas para atendimento do Marajò. Decision Support System for micro-hydro power 2005. 37. [Accessed 2 January 2012]. aspects — State of Pará. 2010. 2011. Power Electronics Specialists Conference. Plovnick A. Energy Policy 1997. Comparing methods for weighting decision criteria. Pinho J.15:420–35. Energia e Desenvolvimento Sustentavel para a Amazonia Rural ulation policy. Nutt PC. Casillas CE. Jimenez B.438. Mesquita Eletronorte. [Online] Available at: http:// Ministério de Minas e Energia. [Accessed 2012]. Silveira S. Kammen DM. IEEE 36th. electrification: case study based on biomass solid waste considering the Brazilian reg- Di Lascio MA. 2000. Renovável E Distribuição Por Microrredes. 2007. Martins DC. Power generation database. Status report. Badrb O.mme. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012.htm. [Accessed 1 January 2012]. Oliveira M. cfm?idArea=527&idPerfil=2. Horn GTF. PESC '05. Blanco CJC. ANEEL. low-carbon rural energy services. Brazilian Presidency. 1979. Severino The Brazilian experience of rural electrification in the 357–75. Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod 38:6713– Centrais Termoeletricas a Biomassa.shtm.37(1):379–86. / Energy for Sustainable Development 20 (2014) 36–48 References Howells MI. p. Analysis of two schemes using micro hydroelectric Silveira S. 2002.aneel. Biomass resources for energy in North-Eastern Brazil. Energy Sustain 2010.212 de 20 de Janeiro de 2010. Tecnologias de Energias Renováveis Soluções Energéticas www. Analysis on the feasibility of biomass power Filhoa PA. Ilskog E.27(8):739–55. 2008 [Brasilia].16:1450–61. Pinho. Indicators for assessment of rural electrification — an approach for the compar- ANEEL. resources in the Amazon. Vianna JNDS. USA: Ohio State University. Schmid A.XII(3):25–33. Demanda De Projetos Especiais De Geração Descentralizada Com Energia REDE Empresas de Energia Eletrica. 2011. 2009. Increasing human development in isolated communities through Ruther Technical and economic analysis of a PV/diesel hybrid Bacellar AA. Energy Sustain Dev 2012. MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Blanco CJC. Brasileira. [Accessed Available at: http://luzparatodos.25(3): Van Els RH.eletrobras. Selection of renewable energy technologies for a developing county: a IDEEAS PSA. Renewable energy in Rural Amazonia. Emissions from small biomass boilers. [Online] Available at: http:// Berkeley. IBGE.asp.htm. 2011. Barreto EJF. Technology assessment for clean energy technologies: Pinheiro G. plants in the Amazon region under a sustainable development perspective. estatistica.38:6251–60. Replacing diesel by solar in the Amazon: short-term economic Gonzalez WdA. Energy Policy 2008. 2009. [Online] www. Gómez MF. Delivering off-grid electricity systems in the Brazilian Amazon. IDEAAS and PSA: replication in the Amazon. Rüther R. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection.14(3):232–7. Montenegro A. Oliveira A.48 F. . Renew Energy 2011. 2012. Informativo n° ANEEL.14(2):283–95. Environ Dev Sustain 2012. Manual de Operacionalização LPT — 2011 a 2014.77(1):51–67. 2006. 2010.36:2665–73. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012. Energy Sustain Dev 2011. Afgan N. International Energy Agency. Rural electrification of the Brazilian Amazon — achievements and Rosa F. Giorgiana P. A research on the use of energy Sustain Dev 2008. Informativo N. Hobbs BF. Swedish National Testing and Silva S. Amer M. Camacho JR. 2007. 2010. Energy Policy 2010. [Online] Available at: ANEEL. Economic evaluation and optimization of a photovoltaic– Research Institute. 2012]. Energy Policy 2010. Daim TU. ison of apples and pears. case of Pakistan. Energy Policy 2004. Silveira S. Eletrobras programas. Lei n° 12. feasibility of PV-diesel hybrid systems. http://www. Macedo EN. [Online] Available at: http:// Ministério de Minas e Energia. Mesquita ALA.16(2):155–67. in rural electrification: Insights from Micro Hydro projects in Bolivia. 2012. [Online] Available at: http://www. Brazilian Presidency. luzparatodos. Ministerio de Minas e Cutting on diesel.32(7):881–98. Gustavsson L. USA: University of California. Yates D. Daim T. 2012a. potential of hybrid diesel/PV system in existing mini-grids in the Brazilian Amazon.asp. et al.htm. Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Borges LEP. Rendeiro G. Fuso Nerini et al. Wood-fuel biomass from the Madeira River: a sustainable option system Applied to rural electrification for isolated communities in Northern for electricity production in the Amazon region. Hoffmann C. Energy Matos FB.36(6):1678–84. 2013.38(6):2729–38. Atlas de Energia Eletrica do Brasil. (Paper 932). Brazilian region. 2011. Brazil. Secretan Y.ibge. Sustainable management model for rural the case of the Pacific Energy 2002. [Online] Available at: http://www. Rodrigues P. 2003. Calabashes for kilowatt-hours: rural energy and market failure. Gómez MF. 2012. Guimarães SC.planalto.30(3):232– Bazzo E. Rendeiro G. Kirkels power (MHPs) in the Amazon with environmental sustainability and energy and data/Pages/LUMIS32AB99AAPTBRIE. CELPA rede. Statistics. 2011. Businness. A learning-based approach to understanding success itations in Santo Antonio. Appl Energy plants adding to the electric power system — economic. STANFORD Graduate School of lessons. a case study of its advantages and lim- Drinkwaard W. de 26 de Abril de 2002.