Projected impact

A case you can sanity-check.

We lead with the mechanism, show defensible ranges, and name the methodology. Every figure here is projected and exists to be tested in Phase 1 — that rigour is the point.

Ranges, not single numbers
A defensible range beats a precise figure that invites challenge.
Mechanism before figures
We explain how income rises before showing any number.
Calibrated to comparables
Anchored to known sector references, especially for carbon.
Trader income

How income rises

Three mechanisms, in plain terms: a longer working day, a new paid service, and lower fuel spend. We model each separately before combining them.

Projected
1.5–3×
Evening hours addedLonger trading into peak footfall.
Projected
15–40%
Lift in daily takingsAdded hours + one new service.
Environment

Displaced fuel & carbon

A unit that replaces generator hours avoids fuel burn and emissions. We calibrate carbon to measured benchmarks, not best-case assumptions — carbon is the easiest figure to overstate.

Projected
0.3–0.8t
CO₂ avoided / unit / yrCalibrated range, displaced generator use.
Projected
40–70%
Lower energy costVersus equivalent generator fuel spend.
Gender & livelihoods

Who benefits

Market micro-trade in these communities is led substantially by women. More reliable power supports existing livelihoods and lowers the barrier to adding a service.

Projected
60–75%
Women among target tradersIndicative of market composition.
Local economy

Jobs & activity

Swap points, unit servicing, and logistics create local roles. We'll quantify these conservatively as the pilot defines the operating footprint.

Projected
4–8
Local roles per swap hubOperations, servicing & logistics.
How we'll measure this

Phase 1 exists to test these projections.

Baseline trader income, hours, and fuel spend before deployment
Metered unit usage and swap frequency in the field
Carbon avoided, calibrated against measured sector benchmarks
Independent review of method before any figure is published