We have been saying it all along but would like to hear what you think. Is distributed decentralized generation the way to go in developing nations? Instead of setting up new costly infrastructure aimed at generating and distributing power across vast distances, does it make better sense to look at local options and off grid energy that are more workable and can happen sooner?
Even the developed nations are realising this. Perhaps it is better to learn from them and skip a few steps?
Just as with a BRT that does away with the need for more flyovers and road expansion, so also with power? With 600 million outside the grid and even the rest having to contend with unreliable supply, should the focus be on building local units?
Already a few companies have set shop in India and are catering to the rural need through a hybrid combination of sources. It could be LEDs powered by solar or even mobile phone chargers, or biogassifier kitchens that are used by a community. People are buying the gadgets not because they are worried about climate change, but because it makes sense to them.
Write in to us on what you think.
Showing posts with label distributed energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distributed energy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Do we need nuclear?
UK Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband recently unveiled the Government’s long-awaited National Policy Statements (NPSs), which promise an expansion of renewables, nuclear power and clean coal technology. Quoting the threat of climate change, he called for a transition from a system that relies heavily on high carbon fossil fuels, to a radically different system that includes nuclear, renewable and clean coal power.
One of the statements deals with clean coal as per which any new coal power station over 300 MW will have to demonstrate full carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be allowed.
However, environmental groups are unhappy about the ambitions to expand nuclear generation capacity. How does one justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs, they ask.
Of late there has also been a global call for nuclear supplying ‘clean’ base load power. How necessary is this baseload?
Any modern electricity system doesn’t rely on any plant’s ability to run continuously; rather, all plants together supply the grid, and the grid serves all loads. All power plants fail, varying only in their failures’ size, duration, frequency, predictability, and cause. Not just renewables.
Intermittence of coal and nuclear plants also occur, except that it affects less capacity at once, more briefly, far more predictably, and is easier and cheaper to manage, point experts.
Instead of building a surplus which is left idle often, a better idea may be to go for diverse sources spread over large geographical areas but managed by a reliable, intelligent power grid.
Do we need to go for massive expansion of nuclear plants? Has anyone thought about the security implications, say during the transport of fuel? Especially in a country like India where waylaying and siphoning fuel from tankers is a well-known occurrence?
One of the statements deals with clean coal as per which any new coal power station over 300 MW will have to demonstrate full carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be allowed.
However, environmental groups are unhappy about the ambitions to expand nuclear generation capacity. How does one justify building more nuclear power stations when there is no solution to radioactive waste and when international regulators are saying there are huge uncertainties surrounding the basic safety of new reactor designs, they ask.
Of late there has also been a global call for nuclear supplying ‘clean’ base load power. How necessary is this baseload?
Any modern electricity system doesn’t rely on any plant’s ability to run continuously; rather, all plants together supply the grid, and the grid serves all loads. All power plants fail, varying only in their failures’ size, duration, frequency, predictability, and cause. Not just renewables.
Intermittence of coal and nuclear plants also occur, except that it affects less capacity at once, more briefly, far more predictably, and is easier and cheaper to manage, point experts.
Instead of building a surplus which is left idle often, a better idea may be to go for diverse sources spread over large geographical areas but managed by a reliable, intelligent power grid.
Do we need to go for massive expansion of nuclear plants? Has anyone thought about the security implications, say during the transport of fuel? Especially in a country like India where waylaying and siphoning fuel from tankers is a well-known occurrence?
Monday, July 20, 2009
The next revolution?
Could the ‘inter-grid’ be the next revolution? If you are wondering what exactly this is, it is a coinage of renowned economist and social critic Jeremy Rifkin, and what he sees as the Third Industrial Revolution.
Just like the digital media and the Internet has made it easy to share information, he sees a time not too far away, when the world will be distributing energy peer-to-peer! Every person who consumes energy will also be contributing to its generation and distribution. The mammoth buildings we live in will be an active participant in this scheme. Every possible source of energy from the sun to the ocean to the wind will be harnessed and distributed, and stored. The first inter-grids will be up this year in Houston, Bouldor Colorado and Southern California.
The microgrid local generation concept alongwith economic regionalization will see a new and better socio-economic world order, Rifkin believes.
At a time when the centralized power supply system is struggling to meet the demand, localized distributed systems make perfect sense. The microgrid concept is simple. It makes buying and installing a wind or solar power generating unit as simple as any other gadget at home.
Initially a bit costly, it generates all the electricity your home needs and pays for itself in just a few years.
Your home still connects to the existing wires and power plants, but it is a two-way connection. You're just as likely to be uploading power to the grid as downloading from it. So you end up getting paid for the energy you generate at home. That goes for office buildings and others.
What do you think? Is this the ideal way to meet the energy challenge?
Just like the digital media and the Internet has made it easy to share information, he sees a time not too far away, when the world will be distributing energy peer-to-peer! Every person who consumes energy will also be contributing to its generation and distribution. The mammoth buildings we live in will be an active participant in this scheme. Every possible source of energy from the sun to the ocean to the wind will be harnessed and distributed, and stored. The first inter-grids will be up this year in Houston, Bouldor Colorado and Southern California.
The microgrid local generation concept alongwith economic regionalization will see a new and better socio-economic world order, Rifkin believes.
At a time when the centralized power supply system is struggling to meet the demand, localized distributed systems make perfect sense. The microgrid concept is simple. It makes buying and installing a wind or solar power generating unit as simple as any other gadget at home.
Initially a bit costly, it generates all the electricity your home needs and pays for itself in just a few years.
Your home still connects to the existing wires and power plants, but it is a two-way connection. You're just as likely to be uploading power to the grid as downloading from it. So you end up getting paid for the energy you generate at home. That goes for office buildings and others.
What do you think? Is this the ideal way to meet the energy challenge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
