Long time since we wrote something. We got home safe and have started to acclimatize to the cold. We’re not sure we’ll ever acclimatize to the darkness, but that might apply for all Swedes. ;)
Now that we got some perspective of everything we’re so grateful for this opportunity, again thanks to everyone making this happen!
The study showed that the HiLight was very useful to the inhabitants of Nova Esperança, Terra Preta and Caioé. Below we have presented some of our results and conclusions.
The HiLight cannot replace diesel generators, gasoline generators, or stationary solar panels. The reason for this is the need of larger electrical appliances such as television, refrigerators, and freezers.
The microclimate in the communities is suitable for solar power. Shadowing does not constitute a problem. The study was conducted during the dry season. How humidity and rain affects the feasibility of the HiLight needs to be evaluated further.
The HiLight will, in the three studied communities, replace diesel lanterns and single-use batteries. The HiLight was mainly used as a light source and to charge cellphones. The households participating in the study used between one to two liters of diesel per month for their diesel lanterns, responding to 2.62 to 5.24 kg CO2 emissions. All participants replaced the diesel lantern with the HiLight. The HiLight could also decrease some use of diesel generators.
A mixture of AA, AAA and D batteries for different electronic devices was avoided in two ways. Firstly by replacing the flashlight usage with the light from the HiLight. Secondly when recharging batteries in the USB battery charger instead of using the single-use batteries they used before. Between 12 and 36 batteries per month and household was avoided when using the HiLight. During the technical lifetime of the HiLight (3 to 10 years), it would replace between 432 and 4320 batteries.
The HiLight resulted in avoided costs from both the diesel lanterns and the single-use batteries. In Terra Preta and Nova Esperança the use of the HiLight resulted in an avoided cost between R$ 20 to 25 per month and household, which gives a payback time for a HiLight of 16 to 20 months. In Caioé, the avoided cost for a household was R$ 120 to 375, which gives a payback time of 1 to 3.5 months. The HiLight could also lead to increasing health of the community members, which could from an environmental-economical perspective lead to lower hospital costs. Note: (R$ 1=3 SEK)
Payback time for households in Nova Esperança and Terra Preta.
Payback time for households in Caioé.
A benefit for the communities is that the HiLight works outside of the generators operating hours. It is therefore a complementary electricity source, which increases the redundancy. The HiLight also reduces noise pollution from diesel generators, decreases indoor pollution from the diesel lanterns, and decreases the fire hazard that the diesel lanterns usually constitute.
The HiLights were distributed to key people in the community. The participants in the study were frightened that the product would break and therefore they only used it themselves. Tendencies of selfishness were also shown. One HiLight per household is suggested, if the introduction of HiLights should to be beneficial to all the community members.
The common opinion of the athours and CECLIMA is that the HiLights will be beneficial for communities until they get a continuous electricity supply from a stationary energy system, a solar panel system preferred over diesel generators. For some communities this might not happen until year 2023, and until then HiLight is a feasible solution. Combined with a battery charger to charge batteries for equipment that cannot be charged via USB (CHARGE!!!), the environmental, social and health benefits will be many. For this use the HiLight is considered a feasible solution.
Did you actually read it all? OMG! :P
Feel free to comment. Thank you guys for the support!:)
Klara and Pao