Wednesday, September 24, 2008

To dam or not to dam!

The 17th Electric Power Survey projections show that by 2012, peak energy demand in India will double from that of base year 2003/04. From 362,799 million units, the country’s annual energy consumption will be 755,847 million units. This is based on the assumption that government is able to deliver its power to all by 2012, and that utilities are able to contain their T&D losses.

The earlier survey had envisaged an addition of 1 lakh MW by 2012. It had called for a 60:40 ratio of thermal to hydel, as against the present 75:25, for optimum utilization of installed capacity. Of the additional requirement, some 16,553 MW is expected from hydro.

There is identified potential of over a lakh MW of hydro power in the country. So where is the problem?

Environment concerns stalk hydropower in India, as also anywhere else. This is because most of these are in fragile, mountainous regions where the potential for eco-damage is most. There is worry about what damming could do to the natural flow of rivers which keep large tracts of land fertile besides supplying water. Submergence and rehabilitation is a big worry. Tectonic considerations add to the woes.

It is the environmental clearances that deter potential investors from hydro sector. Often these take a long time. The technical due diligence studies calls for data like rainfall, water, etc from the last 20 years which is often unavailable. The flow data of rivers is often very old and leads to storage capacities never getting filled. Silt accumulation in reservoirs is another problem that deprives land downstream of nutrients.

It is to address this lack of enthusiasm that government policy has been drafted to make life easy for investors. The power generator has to invest only 30 percent of capital as equity while the rest comes as loan for which government pays interest! The investor gets annual fixed charge if the generation goes beyond a certain capacity index. Here, experts feel that capacity is not gauged properly beyond machinery availability and can boast a big number even when generation is very low.

While there are 55 hydro projects in different phases of construction and planning, many face opposition from environment groups. EIAs are done without sufficient attention to facts. In many difficult terrains, getting the data for EIAs is a laborious and complex step. Inefficient projects based on outdated data have meant profits for investors without any significant energy generation.

In such a scenario, more power generators are going in for run-of-the-river projects. These are projects that seek not to dam the river but to merely divert water to fall at a gradient, generate power, and return the water to the river downstream.

However, some amount of storage is required to generate sufficient flow and pressure. This water is sent down a tunnel, ranging in kilometers, before it falls on the turbines. The fact that there is no limit for storage to be defined as run of the river has meant that certain liberties are taken.

Also, there is no submergence of land in r-o-r projects.

But such projects could end up with rivers drying up in the patches where diverted. And also cause disturbances in the fragile eco-system around, by way of constructions, roads, etc.

The Pathrakadavu dam being pursued by Kerala in the Silent Valley periphery is being touted as a r-o-r project with minimal damage to the river or the forests. But viewed as a whole it lies very much in the once-envisaged wider boundary of the national park and has potential to cause considerable eco-damage. This is for a few hundred MW which can be had by addressing T&D losses, say activists.

What is the solution? Everyone wants power. With ‘dirty’ coal still being the dominant source for a few more decades at least, hydro power would seem a better option. It is clean and renewable and does not incur recurring costs, even if initial costs are high at about Rs 6 crore for one MW, and gestation period long. It has a long lifetime. True, the IPCC has raised doubts about how clean this source is by pointing that reservoirs are sources of methane, a greenhouse gas. But not many are willing to accept that.

Should we dam our rivers? Are big hydels the answer or smaller ones that do not have large storage capacity? Reservoir-induced seismicity and landslides has been evidenced at Idukki project which also caused drying of river Periyar downstream. But we need to acknowledge that dams with storage reservoirs do facilitate irrigation in many places.

Going for big or huge dams do have negative fallouts. Already there are concerns over China’s Three Gorges project which promises to deliver 84.7 bn KWh when completed next year.

Taking 17 years to build, costing $24 bn the dam is 185 mt high, 2309 m long and has 26 turbines. It has already displaced 1.3 million.

Evidences of landslides triggered by the damming construction activities, caving in of shores along the reservoir, pollution of the Yangtze river, etc are some of the concerns that predict major catastrophes ahead.

The project was meant to tame the river, increase river shipping and power generation.

Obviously, big means bigger risks even if it promises big power. Still, can we rule them out when the need for power is acute?

The prudent choice would be to look holistically at each project in terms of the need, economic feasibility, ecological damage and sustainability.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Go nuclear, or tighten belts?

The nuke deal is through even if new clauses continue to be slipped in and removed, irking both sides. However, this has not deterred private players in the country and abroad from making big plans for nuclear power generation in India. Expertise does not seem to be lacking, even as these players wait for the government to amend the Atomic Energy Act to allow private players.

It is prudent to wait and see before jumping into the cauldron. Questions still abound. How much will nuke energy contribute to the nation's insatiable hunger for energy? A 5 percent? At what cost? Do we have a long term plan for waste disposal?

Wouldn't it be better to first work on the existing reactors and increase their capacities from the present 40 percent to 80 percent, now that matching fuel can be had?

Wouldn't it be better still to look at ways to optimise power from our non-nuclear plants? Explore ways to enhance technical skills, speeden up the privatisation move, address the T&D losses, theft and non-payment of bills, all of which could add a 10,000 MW in five years, as against the 20,000 MW of nuclear power under the deal? Not to take sides here, but merely going step by step.

When we have premier research institutions like CPRI in the country, why not go for in-house manufacture of power equipments for turbines, blades, boilers, etc? Instead of relying totally on imports. Implementing supercritical boiler technology can increase fuel conversion efficiency of power plants from the prevailing 30 percent to around 46 percent! Prudent consumption can reduce energy intensity by 25 percent. After all, a negawatt is much more effective than a megawatt in terms of energy it saves.

Lot can be done to increase energy efficiency, reduce requirements, augment domestic resource base, and provide energy security for the 'power-hungry' nation. Nuclear measures, literally speaking.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Energy efficiency

The 1973 Arab embargo hurt the Japanese economy very badly. But as always, they tackled the situation sensibly. According to Morgan Stanley analysts, it was a focus on energy efficiency that helped the Japs bring down their oil dependency from 77 percent to 49 percent and save over $140 billion every year! Today they have invested in nuclear energy and natural gas. They have over 55 reactors and stand third in nuclear energy after France and the US.

Denmark is yet another country that was badly affected during the same time. It went into the act with a single-minded determination and went for energy efficiency and conservation. Sunday driving was banned, gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, efficiency standards for applicances and buildings, etc saw the economy revive and now, energy tech exports are a major contributor to its revenue. With 20 percent of its electricity coming from wind power, it plans to increase tax on energy so that the revenue can be used to cut personal income. Incentives all the way!

Thomas Friedman who was in Denmark recently was amazed to see energy sensors that detect motion and put on and off the lights, something which he confesses he has yet to see in the USA! And toilets with dual flush, depending on the output! What's more, 50 percent of the commuters on the road take to cycling.

Think about that. Two small nations with big visions.

Why can't we in India, the IT superpower, implement similar measures? When oil prices go sky-rocketing, what do we do? Very reluctantly we hike the price. Everything is dicatated by populist policies, after all. And what does this half-measure convey to the consumer? That all is hunky-dory, price rise is a temporary thing, and there is plenty of oil and coal waiting to be mined and exploited. In fact, according to news reports, there was a rise in petrol sales around that time!

The Bureau of Energy Efficiency has, after much deliberation, come out with labelling a few equipment, and making conservation standards mandatory for air-conditioned buildings. Lots more can be done. Much can be saved by organisations and the government by simple measures put in place. But it has to be done now, and not take yugas. We need to shake that lethargy away.
Finally, how many of us will go to a shop and look for energy conserving devices? Chances are that we will look for the price tag. Not that we are poor, we are NOT. (Definitely not the people who buy these devices.) We are simply used to cheap stuff.

It's time we remember energy is not cheap. Will not be, ever. It's time we learnt to become energy savvy, right?

Monday, September 8, 2008

Fuel standards

In an instance of conflicts on the national stand on climate change, which is that India should not be asked to take on economic burden of reducing emissions as it is the rich countries which are responsible for the accumulation, India's transport ministry has now come up with a set of norms for the road sector based on emissions from the sector. The ministry of heavy industries too plans to come up with its own standards.

Not only do these oppose the official stand but the basis of setting fuel standards is in conflict with what the Bureau of Energy Efficiency has set. The latter has prepared norms based on the mileage, and not based on emissions.

The move is being opposed by not only the power industry but also the environment ministry which sees this as a case of the two sectors being taken for a ride by the interests of developed world. Already it has struck down a proposal by the auto industry to come up with emission based norms.

The legal implications aside, the question to be asked is: who is right?

With fuel prices on the rise and a peaking of production almost here, obviously there is a crying need for fuel standards in the country today. Many of the bigger private vehicles run on cheap diesel meant primarily for public transport. Some of the imported makes have not been modified in tune with fuel efficiency standards prevailing in Europe. In the process, not only do they guzzle fuel but also emit polluting gases.

But, should we have norms based on carbon emissions or mileage?

True, we are slowly reaching a stage where aspirations are being fulfilled. But when talking of per capita figures and the need to sustain the economic growth we are so proud of, what percentage of the population is one catering to, in protecting our 'rights' to pollute? How many of our 1.2 billion own cars and bikes?

Or as the environment ministry argues, are emission figures not consumer friendly? Is it that our vehicle users can only understand if you talk of mileage?

Even so, can we afford to ignore emissions, in the light of hard evidence of the damage that continues to be wrought on the planet? Simply because someone stabbed the body first, can one condone subsequent stabs?

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Subsidies on fossil fuels

Why is there no concerted effort towards renewable energy in India? This, despite fiscal incentives. One big reason is the subsidies given on fossil fuels.

At a recent UN meet on climate change at Ghana, a UN report noted that a cut in subsidies could cut greenhouse gas emissions by six percent and also increase world economic growth! It quoted energy subsidies at a total of $300 billion a year.

In India, the report said that LPG subsidies alone totalled $1.7 billion in 2008. Meant to benefit the poor, these are mostly being used by the higher income households!

While it is necessary to enable the power for all motto, the practical question to ask is if this is possible with the present system. Would a better alternative be to have decentralised power with a distribution system catering to surrounding areas? It can be done, we have the werewithal. So why then?

Monday, September 1, 2008

Welcome to the world of energy


Are we really powerless?

Aug 2008, Bangalore

The rains come a bit late and the government promptly announces load shedding. A few days later, it pours and within two days, prayers have been answered and we are in for a season of plenty. Reservoirs are nearing the danger mark in storage. Even as consumers lug the diesel sets back to the store, power cuts are back. And it's still raining.

It goes without saying that a two digit growth rate can be sustained only with a sustainable power sector. At the present installed capacity of 1,43,000 MW in the nation today, we are still short of 13 percent in meeting peak demands. While our oil imports have crossed Rs 200,000 crores, our coal imports are slowly rising. From a net exporter to one who imports 45 million tonnes, the trend is not very encouraging. Our coal reserves will not last for more than 45 years.

Now combine that with rising international prices for coal at $180 per tonne, up by almost 125 percent. Selling such costly power at the low prevailing consumer tariffs do not attract private investors.

Projections show a power shortfall of 43,000 MW by 2012 and a doubling of that by 2017.

How on earth are we then going to meet the commendable yet ambitious target of power for all by 2012? Energy is everyone’s right. Why should 45 percent of the households in a fast developing economy be deprived of power?

So, can we continue with our business as usual scenario? Or do we need to tighten belts? Turn our power utilities into commercially viable units by more privatisation?. Or go in for more renewables? Cap the staggering 34 percent losses in transmission and commercial collections? Or look at short-gestation projects? Do we need nuclear power?

Over 50 percent of our power generation is coal based. And the trend will continue. With it will rise our carbon footprint, the burden on an already panting planet. Do we ignore the implications in our reluctance to give up the envied growth figure?

Suggestions and measures are many. But these often fail to see the big picture. For instance, the investment based incentives in wind energy has seen many players come in, but plant load factors continue to be low and power generation nothing to boast about. Despite the large economies of scale, the costs have not come down. Clearly, this indicates a need for performance based incentives as against investment based ones.

Why have the government's APDRP and RGGVY schemes not delivered on their expectations? Do we need more power reforms or more implementation?

There are so many issues blocking the flow of energy. Join our discussions and contribute to a better understanding of the situation, out of which innovative solutions are sure to come.

After all, there is no reason why anyone should remain in the dark in the world’s largest democracy.