When will Solar make a meaningful impact on India's electricity supply?

[Manu Sharma]

Dear members,

Some may recall that I've written on a few occasions in the past against the National Solar Mission. While its assumptions about price drop in solar PV are being realised, the problems with large-scale adoption of solar in India are much deeper than its price alone. And even after the dramatic drop in PV prices I continue to hold the view that India should not pursue large scale solar PV based electricity generation in the short-term. 

I recently addressed this question on another list and I thought Green-India members may find my response useful as well. 

___________

When will Solar make a meaningful contribution to India's total electricity supply? The answer is: not in the foreseeable future under business as usual scenario. 

GOI has targeted 20 GW under JNSSM by the year 2022 while CSE projects 100 GW by 2030. With capacity utilisation of <17%, that's likely to contribute to less than 2% of India's total electricity demand by then.

 

One might take that to imply that I'm saying India's doing too little on solar but I'm just stating the facts. 

As a climate change mitigation policy direction I do not favor a big push on solar for multiple reasons, chief being: 

a) We haven't pursued serious energy efficiency and the golden rule, whether for a house or for a nation, is: energy efficiency first and renewables later. 

b) Solar power is still expensive compared to other renewable energy technologies.

c) We have a leaking bucket in the grid, ie. huge T&D losses in the region of 30% and it doesn't make sense to put expensive stuff into a leaking bucket  

d) The little known fact that Solar PV is a massive energy hog. In simple terms, to make every 100 MW of solar, you need to set up 85.2 MW* of coal power capacity. Sure, the installed capacity will generate many times that energy over its lifetime but the thermal power capacity created will keep burning coal for several decades. In a carbon constrained world can't afford that. 

I understand that this is not a popular view so I'll be happy to elaborate on any of the above. 

* Assuming 75% capacity factor (India's present average for thermal power plants). 

See calculation:

Manufacturing 1 KW PV (material + process) consumes 5600 kWh  (Knapp and Jester, 2000)

Making 100 MW PV would require 560 million KWh or an 85.2 MW of coal power plant capacity operating at 75% capacity factor (85200 KW x 0.75 x 8760 hours = 559764000 kWh)

Thanks,

Manu

____________

Manu Sharma

Climate Revolution Initiative

[Pragati Prasad]

 Dear Manu,

                   You are right. Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation has to be important priority. I was talking about Energy Efficiency and Conservation for quite few years, lot of people doesn't give importance to it.  Than Solar may be fine, when its used locally where there wont be T&D losses. Also we need to integrate Smart Grid as fast as we can. 

 

                   This is also a bigger criticism in German Solar Energy policy. Because Solar in Germany operates only for 6 Months, in Summer when demand is low. Which mean a coal and gas power plants of same (and higher, winter being peak load) capacity will run too only Six Months. And people will be paying for non-operating power plants in the form of higher Summer Electricity taxes. But

 it fine for Germany, It can sell Solar in this name to India and China. It makes a good business sense. 

With regards. 

Pragati Prasad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Green-India
to discuss India's Energy Future and Sustainable Living.
 
Green-India
http://green-india.in
 
Rules & Disclaimer (Important)
http://goo.gl/Te9d2
 
To unsubscribe, send email to
green-india...@googlegroups.com

[Sandeep Goel]

Dear All, 

Although I agree on some points, I have some personal viewpoints 

• Price for solar can and has come down because of large scale grid connected power plants. This price reduction has also reflected into making other decentralized solar applications economically viable. 
• Any technology has to be price competitive and to make solar price competitive, it is important that it is used and produced on mass scale.   
• Although solar is going to generate only 2% of India's electricity demand, but also see the impact of emissions saved by it. Wind, Solar and Biomass, small hydro should supply at least 10-15% of the total electricity demand in India to save fossil fuels. 
• I think large scale penetration of these technologies may also influence in development of other technologies. For eg. Fuel cells, Biofuels. 
• If use of a technology is stopped just because it is not well developed, is not cost effective at the moment, then the development and cost effectiveness of that technology will never become a reality. 
• I feel that large scale deployment will help in development of solar technology and I am quite optimistic about solar panels penetrating to every household to make them energy independent. 

Best, Sandeep

 

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Manu Sharma]

Hi Sandeep,

For all your arguments, I'll just put one: If we put the same amount of investment into energy efficiency, that we are putting into solar, we could get 5X to 10X emission reductions.

I would also like to see every household get energy independent. But let's we pragmatic - with our ballooning energy consumption that's never going to be a reality. 

What we require is a massive deflation of our energy demand projections and that's only going to come through serious energy efficiency, energy conservation which require bold new policy initiatives. 

Thanks,

Manu

____________

Manu Sharma

Climate Revolution Initiative

http://climaterevolution.net

[Pragati Prasad]

Dear Manu,

 According to statistics by IBN. Our power generation was 35GW in 2005 and in 2011 its 70GW. This shows importance of Energy efficiency and Energy conservation. We need smarter homes, buildings, industry otherwise, our economy will collapse.  Already our coal requirements are dealth with mines in Australia and Indonesia. Today Indonesia has increased coal price which effected Reliance's  10GW Super Critical coal power in Nellore, Andhra. It asked Govt to revise PPA taking into revised coal costs or else it will withdraw. This again shows where we are. No solar power can replace 10GW so easily. And any future coal power is highly unreliable. 

with regards,

Pragati Prasad

[Manu Sharma]

Well said, Pragati. I completely agree. However, note that our electricity generation capacity stands at over 200 GW at present. 

Thanks,

Manu

[Teckkee shih]

Hi Sandeep,

You are much better off with energy efficiency than putting more solar
power back to the grid, especially so when there is a 30% loss during
transmission.

Most homes and buildings in India are very poorly insulated, the cost
for cooling down badly design buildings is horrendous.

GOI is better off using the investment to reduce the losses by
upgrading the inefficient transmission infrastructure than to create
more losses. Reducing the transmission losses is equivalent to
building new power plants.

Regards,
Tk

[Pragati Prasad]

Dear Manu,

You are right. I checked it again its corporate consumption of Electricity. 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151217908004202&set=a.10150159865694202.349797.31867849201&type=1&theater 

Thanks for correcting me. How much would be our peak consumption by houses and that of farmers separately. Can I get that figure anywhere? 

With regards,

Pragati Prasad

[Manu Sharma]

Sandeep, 

Remember that the following comes from head of a solar power company. TK heads altaenergy.in which is a solar power developer / installer. TK, I appreciate your candor and needless to say completely agree with your points.  

Sandeep, I understand that solar power is the mainstay of your company (Bridge to India's quarterly report on Indian solar industry costs around Rs.14,000 each) but if you retreat from commercial considerations and look at what's the best emission reduction pathway for the nation, you will realise that solar power doesn't really make sense.  

Unless we drastically reduce energy consumed by our buildings, industry and houses, we cannot think of transitioning away from coal to renewables. 

Thanks,

Manu

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Teckkee shih <sh...@altaenergy.in> wrote:

[parthi...@gmail.com]

Small correction here and the assumptions we are having here.
The transmission loss in India is only 5 to 8%. The major loss is at distribution end.
Here we should also no forget the term loss also includes theft of Electricity.

So actually speaking Electricity more than 50% of the AT&C losses is technical loss and rest is theft, which the electricity actually used but government never gets the revenue from this usage.
We can address the technical losses with improvements in infrastructure.
But also need non technical solutions to address the theft issues. Which can we achieved only through good policies and implementations of such policies.

Regards,
Parthiv

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

[Manu Sharma]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Parthiv S Mehta  <parthi...@gmail.com> wrote:

more than 50% of the AT&C losses is technical loss and rest is theft

Hi Parthiv,

I haven't seen data to support that commercial losses comprise half of AT&C losses. Are you aware of any study suggesting this or is this your personal judgement?  

Thanks,

Manu

[Sandeep Goel]

Dear All,

I am not against energy efficiency. In fact I feel that energy efficiency should be implemented first and then a renewable energy. But the point I am trying to make is that it is not wise to wait for our government driven system to successfully implement energy efficiency into our system and then implement renewable energy. Both the technologies have to go hand in hand and solve our energy problems. 

It is not that we have not improved on energy efficiency. We have the BEE labeling program, Discoms are trying to reduce their losses, we have the PAT scheme in place, concept of green buildings is picking up, but all the renewable energy and energy saving technologies will have to be implemented simultaneously in order to achieve energy independence. 

Solar has a lot of potential in the decentralized markets, but to make it viable, it is important to use it on mass scale, accelerate its use quickly so that it is cost effective. According to me the National solar mission is a great success in attracting the attention of corporate, industry, governments and media.

Now the government should make a push to solar technology in the decentralized space through favorable off-grid policy, net metering policy in order to proliferate this price competitive and modular technology in that market.  

Best, Sandeep

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Teckkee shih <sh...@altaenergy.in> wrote:

--

Sandeep Goel
Solar Project Development - Consultant

BRIDGE TO INDIA Pvt. Ltd.
Environmental Technology - Indian Market

N - 117 Panchsheel Park
New Delhi 110017/ India

See the map here

P: + 91 (11) 46 08 15 79
M: + 91 98 91 09 19 40    

sandeep.goel@bridgetoindia.com

www.bridgetoindia.com

Follow us on Facebook 

www.facebook.com/bridgetoindia 

Follow us on Twitter

@bridgetoindia.com, @sandeepgoel85

Linkedin profile

http://in.linkedin.com/in/sandeepgoel85

_____________________________________________

Privileged & confidential information is contained in this message (including all attachments). If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please destroy this message immediately and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. This e-mail, including all attachments hereto, (i) is for discussion purposes only and shall not be deemed or construed to be a legal opinion unless expressly stated otherwise, and (ii) is not intended, written or sent to be used, and cannot and shall not be used, for the purpose of evading any and all applicable central, state or local tax or penalties. This communication, including any attachments, may not be free of viruses, interceptions or interference, and may not be compatible with your systems. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment to this e-mail. The sender of this e-mail and BRIDGE TO INDIA shall not be liable for any damage that you may sustain as a result of viruses, incompleteness of this message, a delay in receipt of this message or computer problems experienced.

[Manu Sharma]

Hi Sandeep,

You wrote: 

I am not against energy efficiency [...] Both the technologies have to go hand in hand and solve our energy problems. 

They cannot because we have limited amount of funds to invest. We're not China. 

China has twice the gold reserves, four times the GDP and eleven times the foreign exchange reserves of India. It can afford to go wrong and learn from its mistakes. Unfortunately India is not in such a position.

When you have a limited amount to invest for emission reduction, does it make sense to put bulk of your money in a reduction pathway that brings poor returns? Why not invest it all into measures that could deliver 5X to 10X returns?

Government of India does not have an obligation to support the development of a particular technology industry (solar) or to fill the bank accounts of developers and consultants tied to it. (The industry would would do well on its own without India's help.) 

The government is expected to act judiciously when investing taxpayers' money into a pathway that best safeguards the future of its citizens. Solar power is not that policy direction. 

You wrote: 

It is not that we have not improved on energy efficiency. We have the BEE labeling program, Discoms are trying to reduce their losses, we have the PAT scheme in place, concept of green buildings is picking up,

If you dig deeper into each of the initiatives you mention (and I have), you will find that there's a lot of deception and greenwashing going on. They appear to be sound measures but in reality are either seriously inadequate or have been completely ineffective. Let me briefly take each one you named. 

BEE labeling programme 

The scheme is supposed to make appliances more efficient and encourage their adoption. Whether this has happened at all is questionable at best. 

For one, isn't it logical to assume that BEE would be setting the energy labeling standards? But no, it was the industry which was invited to determine what should be termed as a three star appliance and which one should qualify for five. What do you expect when industry makes its own rules? Is it going to set ambitious standards? Of course that's not going to happen.

Second, all industries / energy consuming products get more efficient with time as technology improves. India's energy intensity, for example, has reduced 30% from 1994 to 2007. Who is to say that efficiency improvement (if any), in appliances covered by this scheme, has been the process of technological evolution or has resulted because of the scheme. Finally, what is the evidence that consumers have purchased greater number of more efficient appliances compared to what would have happened under BAU? There are several other criticisms such as the scheme doesn't reward appliances that represent efficiency breakthrough and it doesn't discourage consumption and so on. 

T&D losses

You said "Discoms are trying to reduce their losses." Yes, they are. State Electricity Boards are trying too and the central and state governments have been trying on top of them to reduce Transmission and Distribution losses. But have any of them succeeded? 

The Ministry of Power set up Accelerated Power Development Programme (APDP) to bring down Aggregate Technical & Commercial (AT&C is basically T&D+theft in simple terms) loss down to 15% by the year 2012 as “last means for restoring the commercial viability of the Distribution Sector.” Eleven years later the losses are almost as big as they were in 2001. 

In between, APDP was renamed APDRP to bring in the term "reform" element and then renamed again to R-APDRP or Restructured APDRP. As if renaming itself would somehow make it successful. Here are a couple of graphs that illustrate the scale of India's T&D loss. 

Left: This is where we stand in T&D loss as percentage of total output among the top eight energy generating nations (2008).

Right: Expected T&D loss by 2022 (billion units) compared with energy generation through solar power in the same year and total electricity delivered to consumers in 2011-12 (generation minus T&D loss). 

That's correct. India will lose through T&D, more than 20 times the electricity generated by solar in the year 2022. We will lose about as much electricity that year as we all consumed over the last year. (Assuming we will make little or no improvement in reducing T&D loss over the next thirteen years. Considered at 25%.)

Aren't you outraged? Is it enough to say the govt is trying to fix this? Were you aware of the scale of this problem?

Perform Achieve & Trade (PAT)

We have discussed this in the past on Green-India, see post titled The Truth About Energy Efficiency Mission. I'll offer a key flaw in this scheme that was not discussed in the earlier post (though I've mentioned it in part under criticism of energy labeling above). 

Any aspirational energy efficiency "target" the government sets up in its policy for the industry has to be additional to status quo. That is, it must improve upon what the industry would achieve on its own without that policy being in place. This additionality is critical for the target to be meaningful just as in CDM, in theory, one needs to demonstrate additionality of emission reductions achieved by the project (though it's never followed in practice). 

So if we view PAT scheme targets from additionality perspective, it is truly additional? Absolutely not. BEE has set up targets based on past performance of the industry and has not taken into account improvements that happen naturally over time with technological improvements. The target or reduction in energy consumption is a mere 4% over a four-year period. 

But govt's own reports show that on average industry will reduce its energy intensity at the rate more than 2% annually. So you see, the so-called "target" in PAT is lower than what would happen without any intervention by the govt.! 

You might ask why would the govt do that? Well the main agenda is to promote economic activity which this scheme will do best. There are estimates of INR 70,000 crore changing hands. But is it really helping us reduce our energy consumption? Who cares as long as the everyone is making money and it contributes to the GDP! 

Green buildings

The Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) by BEE is as unambitious as all the above schemes. It sets low targets. It's not mandatory and BEE has no idea when will they be able to make it so. Two of the biggest problems with ECBC is that we don't have the capacity to implement it nationwide at present and BEE isn't doing anything to radically ramp it up. Second, BEE has no control over how states implement the scheme and its unwilling to do anything about it even though it is empowered to take punitive action under the Electricity Act 2003 which led to its formation. 

Commercial buildings that are going for IGBC or other certifications are doing it purely out of commercial interest. Nothing wrong with that except the actual energy performance of many of the buildings is not drastically different from conventional ones. Although green building certifications are increasing rapidly, they represent only a small fraction of buildings coming up. So any meaningful impact that will help lower India's energy demand is unlikely in near future.

Off-grid Solar

You wrote: 

Solar has a lot of potential in the decentralized markets, but to make it viable, it is important to use it on mass scale, accelerate its use quickly so that it is cost effective.

Okay let's talk about off-grid solar. One might think that if grid-tied solar is evil thanks to T&D, decentralised must be a good thing because it delivers energy straight to the point of consumption. It's not simple as that. Unlike large scale grid-tied system, off-grid introduces additional components in a PV system namely batteries, battery chargers and sometimes inverters. Some of these are to be replaced on multiple occasions during the lifespan of the module. All of these have energy embedded in them. 

In my first post I mentioned that 1 KW of solar PV requires equivalent of 5600 kWh of energy in raw materials and process to build it. On average, that will take about four years of operation of the PV module in India (@1500 kWh annual generation) to pay back that energy. 

But that's just the module. Energy consumed in transport and energy embedded in BoS components hasn't been factored into the equation. When it is, energy payback will reduce further. With solar lanterns which are used in remote areas, I'd like to see statistics on how many consumers replace the battery after the first one fails at the end of its life and how many just discard the product. 

Wider adoption of renewable energy technologies such as solar PV that have low energy returns mean that we would have to expend a large amount of fossil fuel energy in manufacturing the associated components. Greater the adoption and greater will be consumption of fossil fuels. As I said earlier, we cannot afford this. Instead, and particularly in India, we need to first focus on reducing demand. 

Again, I should add that my criticism is directed only to electricity generation route through solar PV. Solar has many thermal applications which are well suited for wider adoption. 

Thanks,

Manu

______________

Manu Sharma

Climate Revolution Initiative

http://climaterevolution.net

[Deepak Kelkar]

Hi Manu

As I understand the electrical issues, will like to submit as follows:

1.  Solar grid interactive plants, if grid is made sustainable and rigid to accept the power, then would reduce consumption in peak day time requirement.  Since these solar plants would feed the connected load and if in excess would be fed back into the system.

2.  This will bring down the peak curve of the grid utility companies.

3.  I ask a simple question, is there shortage on National Grid at 132KVA?  Most probably answer is NO.  But can DISCOM's buy this costly power and sale the same to customers at low cost?  Obviously  Not therefore they load shed the province.

4.  If NET METERING is allowed, private small owners would generate power which is normally termed as IN GRID, and would be beneficial for private installer and also for DISCOM,

5.  Now if at every 33KVA substation if 500KW solar plant is introduced then drop in voltage of transmission line would be reduced thereby enhancing the energy in transmission line.

Deepak Kelkar

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Green-India
to discuss India's Energy Future and Sustainable Living.
 
Green-India
http://green-india.in
 
Rules & Disclaimer (Important)
http://goo.gl/Te9d2
 
To unsubscribe, send email to
green-india...@googlegroups.com

--
Deepak Kelkar
Cell: 9422310250

[Manu Sharma]

Hi Yusuf,

You wrote:

Renewable energy is exactly 9 times more expensive than energy efficiency. [...] I am surprised some members still believe renewable energy has to be on par with energy efficiency. I think there has to be a consensus that investment in energy efficiency should be much much higher than renewable energy.

Exactly. Thanks for corroborating my points. As to building energy efficiency, I'll address that in a separate thread in greater detail. I think a nationwide standard can be implemented within a very short period and using a market driven approach as you suggest. 

Thanks,

Manu

[Manu Sharma]

Dear all, 

I'm including below detailed explanation and calculations supporting the claims and assumptions in my posts in this thread.

1. Solar will contribute 2% of total generation by 2030 under Business As Usual (BAU)

It is assumed that total electricity generation capacity will touch 1000 GW by 2030. This is higher than other projections and is based on the assumption that the present coal shortage issues will be resolved in 5-7 years and we will continue to see massive infusion of private capital in this sector under BAU. This will allow us to achieve GOI target of 400 GW by 2022. We will ramp it up to 1000 GW over the next 8 years, replicating china's rise in installed power capacity twenty years earlier in the 2000's. 

India's present total capacity is 200 GW which China had achieved by 1995. It took India 17 years to reach the milestone. China's present capacity (end 2011) stands at 1056 GW which India is likely to achieve by 2030-2031 or in 19 years under BAU.

At 75% PLF on average (new fossil fuel capacity will have higher PLF but renewables will have lower so taking 75% as aggregate figure), 1000 GW will generate 6570 Billion Units. Solar Power of 100 GW capacity at 17% PLF will generate 149 Billion Units or 2.26% of total generation.

What if the assumptions go wrong? Okay let's say the assumptions are proved to be way off by 2030. Let's say India's total capacity falls short of 1000 GW or solar operates at higher PLF or perhaps solar capacity will double to 200 GW instead of 100. In each such event, solar's contribution to total generation will still remain below 5%.

2. Investment in energy efficiency leads to 5X to 10X emission reductions compared to solar

This assumption is  based on reading of studies from different sources. I don't have a ready source to the claim but it is generally well recognised that EE is far cheaper than renewables. A brief search led to this study by Jonathan Cullen and Julian Allwood of Cambridge University which argued that carbon emissions are far more responsive to changes in how we use energy than in how we generate it. They say that it will be cheaper, easier and quicker to make efficiency savings than to switch to renewables. Yusuf Turab also authenticated this claim by citing a study in US which showed efficiency delivered 9X returns compared to solar. I don't know how old that study is but even considering the price drop, the gains will still be within the claimed 5x-10x range.

3. BEE Labeling standards were determined by industry players

This is based on an analysis by Prof. Ajay Chandak, a veteran Green-India member and renewable energy consultant, who looked at this issue in quite detail in the past. Actual source included minutes of meeting and other documents posted on BEE site. This was discussed on Green-India.

4. T&D loss to be over 20 times solar power generation by 2022 

The graphs are included from a paper I wrote for, and presentation made at, International Conclave on Climate Change organised by ESCI, Hyderabad in October 2011. I'm assuming no significant drop in T&D loss under business as usual scenario by the year 2022 (taken as 25%).

Calculation (from mid 2011) is as below. 

Total expected installed capacity by Mar 2012: 192.91 GW

Target 12th five year plan (2012-17): 100 GW 

Target 13th five year plan (2017-22): 100 GW 

Total expected installed capacity by 2022: 392.91 GW

Total energy generation by 2022 @ 75% PLF: 392.91 x 8760 x 0.75 = 2581.42 Billion Units (BU)

T&D loss by 2022 @ 25% = 2582 x 0.25 = 645.36 BU

Solar energy generation by 2022 [20 GW @17% PLF] = 20 x 8760 x 0.17 = 29784 GWH = 29.78 BU

5. T&D loss by 2022 to be same as electricity consumed in 2011-12

Electricity generation in India in 2011-12 (CEA)

855 BU target from hydro, thermal, nuclear & imports

53 BU from Renewables (estimated @ 30% PLF from 20.16 GW )

= 908 BU 

Units delivered in 2011-12 (generation minus T&D): 908 - (908 x 0.29) = 644.68 BU 

T&D loss by 2022 (as calculated in #4): 645.36 BU

6.  Perform Achieve & Trade target lower than BAU

PAT target of 4% reduction in industrial energy consumption over a 4-year period is from a BEE presentations & papers on NMEE found on its site. The relevant table is attached as an image to this email. 

The contention that the country's energy intensity will reduce by ~ 2% annually is from emission modelling studies published by MoEF available here. 

7. ECBC weak

The contention that ECBC is not mandatory and that BEE has no control over how states implement the code is public knowledge. That it sets low targets refers to its ambition of achieving ~ 30% energy reduction from conventional buildings, and not to particular norms for insulation etc. 

Best performance green buildings in India have demonstrated up to 75% reduction over conventional buildings. My view is that any such regulation should accept at no less than 50% reduction in new buildings and at least 25% reduction in retrofits in existing buildings. I will discuss this more in a separate post.

8. Embodied energy in BoS components

Three ways in which energy is embodied in components that go with solar modules. One is energy embodied in the base material itself (copper, aluminum, lead, plastic etc). This ranges from 2kg to 8 kg CO2 / kg material depending upon the material and %age recycled. Then there is energy consumed in manufacturing the component (inverter, battery etc). Finally, energy consumed in transportation. 

I'll be happy to concede corrections should any errors be found in calculations / assumptions above.

Thanks,

Manu 

[Manu Sharma]

Dear all,

The recent press release by Welspun stating that India could double its solar power target by 2022 appears aimed more at its stockholders and potential investors than anyone else. Govt. is unlikely to announce an increase in target until the success of phase-2 is assured.

Future of phase-2 of JNNSM currently hangs in balance as nobody knows how will the utilities pay for the expensive power produced by solar power plants. In phase-1, NVVN had devised a method of bundling it with unallocated power. In phase-2 no such bundling is expected. With all utilities already incurring huge losses, it remains to be seen how this impossible feat will be managed. 

One way out could be by raising electricity tariff for consumers. But tariff increase is already overdue in several regions due to T&D losses and higher generational costs. Increase in electricity tariff is also politically untenable. With govt reeling from opposition attacks regarding fuel price hike and food inflation, increasing electricity tariff significantly is out of question. 

Still let's say it does happen, higher energy prices is usually a good thing as it leads to greater adoption of efficiency. But is it fair that consumers should pay to fill up the coffers of solar power developers when our transmission and distribution requires CPR? Shouldn't the money go into fixing the grid? 

For decades investment has lagged into T&D which should ideally be 1:1 ratio with investment into generation. Every five year plan allocation for T&D in recent years has significantly lagged behind investment into generation. Its high time the govt wakes up and get its priorities right. In a few years it's going to be an impossible problem to solve if it isn't one already.

Thanks,

Manu

________________

[Manu Sharma]

Dear all,

A 2011 study by Prayas Energy group, Pune found that BEE's 5-star rated appliances in four categories (ceiling fans, fridges, TV and A/Cs) in 2010 were significantly less efficient than the most efficient appliances available elsewhere in the same categories. 

In one category, refrigerators, the most efficient appliance was almost 70% more efficient than BEE's 5-star rated fridge.

The paper calculated that energy savings of 60 Billion Units can be obtained by 2020 if adoption of super efficient appliances is pushed by the government in just the four categories mentioned above. This is more than twice the estimated energy generation through solar mission by 2022. 

As to the cost of the transition, it said:

"In most situations, the higher costs of Super Efficient Appliances are much less than the cost of expanding coal based generation plants and far lower than some other green energy sources like solar."

The study can be found here. 

Thanks,

Manu

__________________

[Sreekumar N]

Hello all

Thanks to all for this interesting discussion. Just to add some thoughts:

1. More details of recent Prayas work on end use efficiency can be found in these reports:

Super efficient Fans,  July 2012:  http://www.prayaspune.org/peg/publications/item/175.html
National programs for market transformation, June 2011: http://www.prayaspune.org/peg/publications/item/158.html
Strategic actions for speedy implementation of EE, June 2011: http://www.prayaspune.org/peg/publications/item/156.html

All these elaborate policy implementation innovations, using the existing institutional and policy landscape to push the envelope for EE. The national program on super efficient fans has commenced and we hope that with support from many, similar programs in refrigerator or agriculture pumpsets would commence soon.

2. To add to the EE Vs RE debate, we would say that Reduce, Improve, Replace would be a better framework in the long run.
- Reduce consumption (The first priority: especially the luxury consumption of the high end consumers and taking an energy service approach -  as opposed to energy supply approach),
- Improve end use efficiency and
- Replace fossil fuel based generation with renewable.



Regards
Sreekumar
Prayas Energy Group

[Manu Sharma]

Hi Sreekumar,

Thanks for the links to the latest Prayas reports. I strongly recommend readers to go through Prayas' discussion paper on "Strategic Actions for Rapid Implementation of Energy Efficiency" attached with this email. It conveys the urgent need for rapid and large-scale implementation of energy efficiency. 

Here's a chart that caught my attention. It clearly illustrates the arguments I've made in this discussion. 

At the extreme ends, difference in cost of introducing energy efficiency and Solar PV is astounding at over 20X. Considering that solar generation costs have reduced, it would still be around 15X. This graph only looks at demand side management in buildings but similar gains can be achieved in industries. 

Even greater returns can be achieved through energy conservation (or what Sreekumar terms as 'reduce consumption'). Most of the times we use the term energy efficiency to mean both efficiency as well as conservation but they are distinct. I completely agree with Sreekumar that consumption reduction or energy conservation should be prioritised. 

Finally, I should add that supply side energy conservation and efficiency in the electricity sector will probably deliver the greatest returns because the quantum of loss is at the supply side (generation and distribution). Out of 100 units of energy contained in the fuel in a coal-fired power plant, 67 units are lost in the form of heat and 10 units are lost in transmission and distribution. Only 24 units are delivered to customers.

Coming back to the Prayas' paper, it correctly laments how understaffed and underfunded BEE is in view of the task on hand. The authors identify the following reasons for urgent expansion and large scale implementation of EE:

• About 70% of the infrastructure in 2030, such as buildings, will be added in next two decades – between 2010 and 2030.  If this is built inefficiently, we will be locking-in this inefficiency.

• The projections for energy demand in 2030 imply a four-fold increase in the requirements.  For example, meeting the electricity projections would require the addition of 40,000 MW/year in 2030. 

• With current projections of energy use, India is likely to hit resource constraints.  

• Under current projections of energy demand, India’s GHG emissions would dramatically increase.

• The achievable EE potential in the coming decade is larger than the likely combined capacity addition through hydro, nuclear and gas based power plants. 

The authors go on to add:

"It can be argued that unless EE is aggressively pursued, it would simply be impossible to meet the  energy demand of the growing economy. Hence, EE should be seen as indispensable as power plants in avoiding shortages, facilitating growth and maintaining competitiveness. EE  deserves the same importance as that of addition of electricity generation capacity."

(original emphasis)

Thanks,

Manu

[Manu Sharma]

(includes attachment)

[Kalpesh Popat]

Hi Manu,

Super post, and i just came across it as someone sent me the link. This was a good discussion. It is quite old but the topic is still fresh and under discussion amongst many in India. hence pardon me to put my view across on this excellent platform that you have provided.

I agree on the philosophy of reducing the need by eliminating losses and wastage.

At the same time i also request you to provide facts and comparison that are on the same levels on both sides (eliminating losses vs investment in renewable)

There were many facts presented from the perspective of investment in renewable, but non from the eliminating of the losses.

How and what are the steps required for eliminating losses (be it Distribution, Transmission, Thefts, Internal losses in in-efficient buildings / factories / appliances)
What are the efforts and how much energy it will need to implement the change.

A consultant report will always have - do this project, put this policy, implement this. But a ground level implementor knows the reality - on what it takes to implement.

We have tried that for several years, across India in many factories. and the ground reality is that - to reduce losses requires investment and effort too and that have been deemed nonviable in most cases.

It is found that, it is much easier to start new and fresh with better stuff, while old should be allowed to degrade its natural cause. and when it has lived its course, only then people adopt and go for efficient version of the same. Technology changes very fast and today's world will always see past as in-efficient - but it is not possible to change past (products) everytime. A simple analogy would be - i wouldn't change and buy a new car just because there is a new one launched which is slightly more efficient (unless ofcourse if i have enough spare money to spend)

It is also found that effort required & risk involved to implement new is lesser than what is required to change old and in-efficient.

Hence i believe new and old will always go hand in hand and that is the only way to push mankind towards innovation. there were few comments in this post that highlighted the same notion.

Which means there needs to be constant effort to reduce the losses + also to adopt the new technology. India is a country that thinks too much - as a result we are always behind. we need to embrace changes, learn from it - correct mistakes - improve and move on to next.

Cheers,
Kalpesh