Jul 11, 2015
Hi Nonhlanhla, Thanks for the project proposal. If further developed, I believe it could make an excellent addition as an Energy Systems aspect of a regional contest. As is, however, your proposal needs considerable work to be included in a regional contest. While your proposal could satisfy the energy systems sector of a regional proposal, the five other sectors have so far been omitted. I hope you'll take the time to construct a full proposal including the six sectors. I might also recommend moving your proposal to another regional contest if you intend to expand upon it. Based on your proposal content, the Other Developing Countries contest is more fitting, as Zimbabwe is not included among the list of nations in the Other Developed Nations contest. Finally, I believe you may be underestimating the costs for the pyrolysis plant. While I am unfamiliar with the construction of such plants, USD 26,000 seems incomprehensibly low. Are you sure this figure is correct? I hope to see a more complete version of this proposal in the near future! Best, Dustin Fellow, MIT Climate CoLab
Aug 10, 2015
Thank you for submitting your proposal to this Climate CoLab contest. Because you had submitted it before July 18th, the contest Judges and fellows were able to review your proposal and provide you with some feedback, which we have included below. We hope that you will use it to further develop your work before the August 31 deadline. On that date at midnight Eastern Time, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will then select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award. The Winners will receive a special invitation to attend selected sessions at MIT’s SOLVE conference and showcase their work before key constituents in a workshop the next day. A few select Climate CoLab winners will join distinguished SOLVE attendees in a highly collaborative problem-solving session. In addition, if your plan is included in one or more winning global plans, you will receive Climate CoLab Points, and the top point-getters will receive shares of a cash prize of $10,000. Thank you for your great work and good luck! 2015 Climate CoLab Judges & Fellows Judges' Feedbacks Judge: Pedzi Makumbe Feasibility: The proposal is quite feasible. The team might want to have some ideas on how they can secure the waste. There is deforestation in Seke, so there might be a firewood shortage. Villagers are having fewer and fewer cows, hence depending on the capacity of the proposed generation, there might be a shortage of cow dung Novelty: The ideal is not earth shattering, but quite novel in its own way. Is it really better than solar. Solar options seems to have captured the lighting electricity demand, and the economics are increasingly favorable. Check some products from Econet Solar. I presume electricity from the proposal could be used for cooking, refrigeration and so on. Perhaps the team can emphasize this angle in order to boost the innovativeness of their proposal and why it would succeed in a place like Seke. Impact: The impact would be tremendous. I urge the team to look into some of the benefits of cleaner cooking, refrigeration etc in telling the impact story. I think more could be said. Presentation:The proposal is well written, but could benefit from some pictures and graphics Fellows' feedbacks Fellow: Leslie Labruto The proposal is strong, and the need for more pyrolysis plants in developing countries is high. While the concept itself is not radically new or innovative, the application to Zimbabwe is unique. I would like to understand more from the proposal about the current status of bioenergy in Zimbabwe. I am also curious about the $10k US plant costs, as this seems very low. Overall, the plan is well thought out. I would also like to see more detail about the sorting of the materials upstream. For example, how would the wood and dung be collected? Would it be pulled from traditional waste streams or would it be collected elsewhere on its own? How much would this cost? To address scalability, what other countries have access to these inputs coupled with a lack of bioenergy supply? This would help us understand how scalable the idea is. Lastly, the pitch mentions that biomass is largely untapped. The author would need to justify this claim given that biomass is being tapped and according to the IEA, biomass represents 10% of the world’s energy supply (cited: https://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/subtopics/bioenergy/). I would do a fact check on this to enhance the validity of the proposal.
Aug 12, 2015
Hi Nonhlanhla, You may find the following link to JANICKI BIOENERGY somewhat related to your proposal as it is a currently funded project which seem to have a few similarities to your proposal. http://janickibioenergy.com/index.html The following link shows Bill Gates drinking reclaimed sewage water which is produced through (what I believe to be) a pyrolysis regimen which also provides electrical energy. https://youtu.be/bVzppWSIFU0 Warmest regards, Michael
Aug 27, 2015
Impact Assessment Fellow
Hi Nonhlanhla My name is Sophia, I'm an Impact Assessment Fellow at CoLab. Using the EN-Roads Model we assumed: Land Use at 10% (due to less deforestation) Cost reduction in biomass at 40% (due to plants) By Year 2100 the reduction in CO2 is 0.63 Gigatons of CO2 This will be visible on the Impact Tab. Let me know if you have any questions.