India Says Its Path To Net Zero Must Pass Through Fossil Fuels (bloomberg.com) 155
India defended its use of fossil fuels citing energy security priorities, even as the country vowed to remain committed to decarbonization. Bloomberg News: The country, one of the world's largest producers of coal, has often countered demands to curb use of the dirtiest fossil fuel, arguing it is key to its energy security and economic development. The war in Ukraine saw energy rise to the fore of the agenda for developed nations, many of which revived use of coal after supplies of Russian oil and natural gas shrank.
"The behaviour of European nations in 2022, eminently understandable, demonstrates the return of energy security as a prime requirement for countries," according to India's Economic Survey, tabled in parliament Tuesday. "Therefore, it stands to reason that it would be no different for developing economies too." Developing economies are being asked to shoulder the burden of a global transition to green fuels, despite their lower contribution to accumulated emissions compared with developed nations that prospered on the back of "unrestricted use of fossil fuels," the Economic Survey said. The document, presented a day before the annual budget, is an account of the government's performance and ambitions for various sectors of the economy.
"The behaviour of European nations in 2022, eminently understandable, demonstrates the return of energy security as a prime requirement for countries," according to India's Economic Survey, tabled in parliament Tuesday. "Therefore, it stands to reason that it would be no different for developing economies too." Developing economies are being asked to shoulder the burden of a global transition to green fuels, despite their lower contribution to accumulated emissions compared with developed nations that prospered on the back of "unrestricted use of fossil fuels," the Economic Survey said. The document, presented a day before the annual budget, is an account of the government's performance and ambitions for various sectors of the economy.
Gutsy Move (Score:2)
India says the obvious out loud for all to hear.
Get your popcorn out. The arguing on /. over this one ought to be crazy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
India says the obvious out loud for all to hear.
Get your popcorn out. The arguing on /. over this one ought to be crazy.
I remember when the Tata Nano was announced. To people in India it was like, finally a car people can afford.
People in the west were whining "OMG, the horror, all these people in India will be driving gas cars, the world will come to an end".
What they hear in India is, you need to stay poor so we in the west can live rich
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I remember when the Tata Nano was announced. To people in India it was like, finally a car people can afford.
People in the west were whining "OMG, the horror, all these people in India will be driving gas cars, the world will come to an end".
What they hear in India is, you need to stay poor so we in the west can live rich
No, I don't remember that because that wasn't a common complaint. In any case the Nano was a failure so it doesn't even matter.
We just had a story about how wind & solar are cheaper than fossil power, so maybe they should consider that.
Re:Gutsy Move (Score:4, Informative)
I remember when the Tata Nano was announced. To people in India it was like, finally a car people can afford.
People in the west were whining "OMG, the horror, all these people in India will be driving gas cars, the world will come to an end".
What they hear in India is, you need to stay poor so we in the west can live rich
No, I don't remember that because that wasn't a common complaint. In any case the Nano was a failure so it doesn't even matter.
We just had a story about how wind & solar are cheaper than fossil power, so maybe they should consider that.
I was in India at the time and I remember how the local and foreign press was covering it. Examples:
https://archive.nytimes.com/gr... [nytimes.com]
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/... [wired.com]
The Nano doesn't go on sale until fall, but already environmentalists say it will bring big increases in carbon dioxide emissions and pollution. "This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions," Yale environmental law professor Daniel Esty told Newsweek. Some energy experts say all those new cars will increase demand for gasoline, with one telling CNN, "we'll get into a situation where we'll have to compete with them for gasoline, $4, $5 a gallon. Who knows how high we could go?"
Isn't that sweet? They are worried that our price for gas will go up because those nasty Indians will be buying more gas.
We can't allow that now, can we.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gutsy Move (Score:4, Insightful)
We just had a story about how wind & solar are cheaper than fossil power, so maybe they should consider that.
Wind and solar are cheaper under specific defined circumstances that don't really resemble an actual entire grid.
India could switch to majority solar energy easily (Score:2)
The only thing missing is accurate awareness of the urgency, and political will.
Hey it's not my country that's going to be baking at 50 degrees C on a regular basis.
But sure, keep using coal because some entrenched interests with political influence want t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason why we shouldn't keep using coal and shouldn't let temperatures routinely get up that high. High annual temperatures in India currently top out at around 40 degrees C.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What they hear in India is, you need to stay poor so we in the west can live rich
If India wants to be rich they would build on the technology of others and develop ahead positioning themselves as a provider of newer technology which they can sell to others. This approach is blindly following an industrialisation curve that forever puts them behind. And no one is getting rich by buying a $1500 car that is horrendously unsafe and has a tendency to burst into flames.
China is doing it right and there's a reason Chinese cars EVs are starting to appear in western markets while Indian cars are
Re: (Score:3)
China is doing it right
Are you suggesting that "China's path to net zero" isn't "passing through fossil fuels?" As of 2021, China has almost 200 gigawatts of coal under construction.
Re: (Score:2)
China's 200GW of coal under construction is almost entirely replacement coal. That is replacing existing coal power plants with new ones because the infrastructure to manage the primary resource (coal) is already in place and it is incredibly difficult convert it to another form of baseload energy. I.e. you can't unload gas with a crane, and you can't simply flood a coal terminal to make a hydro plant.
Their power expansion is largely non coal in their energy mix. China's primary consumption of coal has chan
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and to add an India context:
Annualised average growth rate of coal in India is 5x higher than China.
Annualised average growth rate of gas in India is 1/15th that of China.
Annualised average growth rate of renewables in India is 1/5th of that of China.
Annualised average growth rate of nuclear in India 1/5th of that of China. But unlike China they didn't start with much in their energy mix so this is even worse than it appears.
Annualised average growth rate of hydro in India is 1/3rd of that of China. But
Re: (Score:2)
Saying China and India are the same is wildly dishonest.
I agree, so it's a good thing I never said that.
Re: (Score:2)
When you compare that 10% change in coal in the past decade to the 70% change in primary energy consumption, and check the rest of the figures such as the 330% increase in natural gas consumption, 460% increase in nuclear energy consumption, 50% increase in hydro, and 1010% increase in green energy, then no I'm not suggesting that China isn't passing through fossil fuels to industrialise. I'm stating that as outright fact.
This is nonsensical. "Transitioning away from fossil fuel" (and, by the way, 330% increase in natgas seems to suggest that fossil is an important part of their future generation mix) proves the point that they are "passing through."
Re: (Score:3)
Both of your links state that China is not going to finance other people's coal plants (not today, but at some point in the future), but neither of them says that they will stop building them in China--only that there will be increased pressure from the world to stop doing so. Indeed, your second link says:
China may be phasing out its involvement in coal projects abroad, but it’s another story at home, where China relies on coal to produce the bulk of its electricity.
The numbers are staggering. China burned over half (53%) of the coal used in the world in 2020, according to an estimate by Ember, a London-based research group.
It may not get better anytime soon, since China’s coal power plant construction continues to outpace the rest of the world. “In 2020, China built over three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries combined — the equivalent of more than one large coal plant per week,” according to a report published by the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
This also has... nothing to do with the point I was making, that the grandparent was simply not being honest when he says that "China is doing it right" with the implication (based on the story that we a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't. Neither coal nor oil are components used in solar panel manufacturing.
You're confusing primary energy with coal and oil. There are other forms.
Re:Gutsy Move (Score:5, Insightful)
India says the obvious
The argument that India must be allowed to pollute because the Western countries had been accumulating pollution previously is not obvious at all. It's like saying we need to allow colonization and slavery for India because India never had a fair chance to develop itself through colonization and slavery like the West did. Of course the West polluted with CO2, at a certain point in time we did not know better. Now we have alternatives. And it's still early enough for India to be part of a big engineering project, push the solution internally until the volume enables to reduce cost and compete outside. Like China is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
India says the obvious
The argument that India must be allowed to pollute because the Western countries had been accumulating pollution previously is not obvious at all. It's like saying we need to allow colonization and slavery for India because India never had a fair chance to develop itself through colonization and slavery like the West did. Of course the West polluted with CO2, at a certain point in time we did not know better. Now we have alternatives. And it's still early enough for India to be part of a big engineering project, push the solution internally until the volume enables to reduce cost and compete outside. Like China is doing.
Just because we have alternatives doesn't mean we are no longer burning fossil fuels.
India has decided that coal is critical for their national security. Germany has too, they are reopening coal plants. The US gets 22% of its electricity from coal. China gets 65% from coal. India gets over 50% of its electricity from coal. They are deploying renewables but for now they depend on coal and they aren't going to shut off their power to suit you.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has too, they are reopening coal plants. ... care to point out one of those mythical coal plants?
Strange that no one in Germany has heard about that
Re: (Score:2)
Germany has too, they are reopening coal plants. ... care to point out one of those mythical coal plants?
Strange that no one in Germany has heard about that
Sure they have: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
"Germany is deploying about 3 gigawatts of coal-fired generation to ensure there are enough electricity supplies to make it through the winter amid curtailed natural gas supplies from Russia. Utility Steag GmbH will add four hard-coal plants with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts to the market within the next few weeks, while Uniper SE will prolong operations at its 345-megawatt Scholven-C hard-coal-fired power plant, the companies said on Friday."
And how did you
Re: (Score:3)
I took "the obvious" to mean that they intend on milking every last penny out of fossil fuels until eventually they are forced to stop by e.g., a massive uprising, probably after an extended period of mass starvation/thirst/death.
Countries like the US and Germany claim they're going to voluntarily move away from fossil fuels before that, while all their actions say otherwise. Their actions being "the obvious".
Re: (Score:2)
Germany claim they're going to voluntarily move away from fossil fuels before that, while all their actions say otherwise.
Germany is the world record holder in transition from coal to renewables.
I think that is obvious
But seems you are an idiot and it is not obvious to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll admit, I don't keep up on the "world record holders" in the Olympic coal competition. How many seconds did they win by? But since they're still pulling coal out of the ground, I assume they plan to burn it, not fill up the swimming pool with it.
Anyway, there are other medals they can still compete for. There's the 100-meter oil sprint, the natural gas vault...
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious part is that India has a vested interest in being able to cover their energy needs with the resources within their borders.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not addressing what resources India has available to it. I'm just clarifying what (I believe) is meant by "the obvious" in the sentence "India says the obvious out loud"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The argument that India must be allowed to pollute because
Allowed? Really? Who the hell do you think you are? They are a sovereign nation. They will do what THEY want unless you go to war with them and directly interfere with their ability to choose to do what they want to do.
The arrogance. Oh my.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that America and the rest of the western world should massively reduce their CO2 emissions. But India should not increase theirs either. We are all going to live much worse lives if we don't.
We should all just do it without trying to get other countries to do it first. All I see is an argument where each country is saying you first, and I can see that going on for another 50 years. I can not see a point where anyone will significantly compensate any other country for global warming, especially
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All governments must make the wellbeing of their citizens their first priority. That is their job.
Starving cold in the dark because someone else tells you not to burn fuel is stupid. But so is refusing to learn from the mistakes of others.
India has a LOT of people to feed/clothe/shelter and move into modern living conditions. It is going to have to use fossil fuels to accomplish that. But if it doesn't move to renewables quickly it will kill as many thru pollution as it saves. Climate change will hit In
Re: (Score:2)
All governments must make the wellbeing of their citizens their first priority. That is their job.
Starving cold in the dark because someone else tells you not to burn fuel is stupid. But so is refusing to learn from the mistakes of others.
So they should probably think about climate change then. It's going to affect India way more than me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change will effect poorer countries way more.
https://www.concernusa.org/sto... [concernusa.org]
and for India https://timesofindia.indiatime... [indiatimes.com]
They can't afford to loose much before they start starving.
Anyway even if the climate impact is less in poorer countries do you really think once the west starts starving they won't attack poorer countries in order to get food. Wars have been fought over much less. Our current morality is based on the fact that we don't have any real problems, (for example personal pronouns, o
Re: (Score:2)
The water is not going magically where it is needed.
Perhaps the Sahara gets green again, cool!
But India as a whole: won't!
You are just dumb as shit.
Global Warming is basically a First World Problem
It is a problem everywhere, because against your believe: it gets dryer everywhere at the moment. Except for a few dangerous and useless short floods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poverty kills far more people than rising sea levels ever will ...
Just lol
Unless you want to say: when rising sea levels make half the world population fugitives, they die to the resulting poverty ...
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like an job for Nuclear power! (Score:2)
sounds like an job for Nuclear power!
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like an job for Nuclear power!
India believes that too. India is one of the lead of nuclear research. There are lots of videos out about India and its thorium research. I didn't put much stock in thorium as a energy source but they might be on to something. Will be interesting to see what they come up with, and where the research goes.
China and India are both stuck here (Score:2)
China and India are in approximately the same place here.
For them, the choices are:
* Continue using all sources of energy, green and not
* Go green, slow the pace of industrialization, reduce agricultural output
Realize that the second choice means:
* Those countries go from feeding themselves to needing a LOT of imports, and potentially starving
* The current generation of subsistence farmers will also be the NEXT generation
In China, that's a formula for the next revolution, courtesy of the Mandate from Heaven
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Go green, slow the pace of industrialization, reduce agricultural output
Humor me here: From what examples or studies has it been shown that "going green" is in fact a detriment to industrialization?
Everyone seems to say this as if it's a given, and maybe this talking point has SOME validity like 30 years ago when the cost of renewable energy technologies wasn't competitive, but I've not seen any reason to think this is still - or really ever was - the case.
=Smidge=
Re:China and India are both stuck here (Score:5, Informative)
The big problem is fertilizer, which today is energy-intensive (usually natural gas based) to produce.
These guys [yara.com] are working on changing that, but to my knowledge nobody is doing it at scale, much less as cheap as fossil-fuel based processes.
As for the rest of industrialization, non-intermittent power is much better than intermittent; to get non-intermittent power from renewables, you need grid-scale storage and/or flexible power distribution - neither of which will be cheap.
"Cheap" above isn't just cost - it's most bang from the available resources. I hope India and China can find shortcuts out of using fossil fuels, but I won't blame them for making choices that keep the lights on and the farms feeding their population.
Re: (Score:3)
> Go green, slow the pace of industrialization, reduce agricultural output
Humor me here: From what examples or studies has it been shown that "going green" is in fact a detriment to industrialization?
By the examples of nearly all developed countries.
How many of the G7 countries had met or exceeded their Kyoto targets? Why else if not for going green being detrimental to their economy? How could a developing country hope to industrialize when bearing the green burden that even the most developed countries balked at?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why else if not for going green being detrimental to their economy?
Hmm yes. Why indeed.
So do you suppose this is an indictment of renewables, or politicians and industry leaders who have simply dragged their feet for the sake of maintaining the status quot (and their massive profits)? Do you really think there has been NO pushback from the fossil fuel industry to hinder the transition away from the products they sell?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The developing countries are ... developing.
Perhaps you should play a Sim City game once?
It is cheap to build a new solar plant (insert what ever technology you chose) and sell the _newly_available_ power to one who before had no power.
It is not so cheap to replace an existing "insert old school technology" plant with a new "renewable plant" and transit the customers from the old plant to the new one.
Because: can you replace in place? Can you replace 100MW by 100MW? If it is intermittent, how is your fall b
Re: (Score:2)
- Producing any iron/steel/concrete. This is probably the biggest - never seen an economic way to do it without FFs. Sure you can have another country do it..
- Shipping and receiving goods and resources from distant countries by sea. No valid propulsion methods for those unless someone starts build
Re: (Score:2)
- Producing any iron/steel/concrete. This is probably the biggest - never seen an economic way to do it without FFs. Sure you can have another country do it..
So you've never heard of electric arc furnaces? Direct reduced iron plants? Electric kilns for cement production? Varying levels of the electric argument there. The electric arc furnaces are already known to be more efficient. For direct reduced iron plants, it depends on the cost and efficiency of using electricity to produce hydrogen. Electric kilns for cement are a bit of an unknown quantity, but electric heating itself is pretty efficient, so I don't imagine it will be that bad.
- Shipping and receiving goods and resources from distant countries by sea. No valid propulsion methods for those unless someone starts building nuclear freighters.
One I've suggested a few
Re: (Score:2)
I live atm mostly in Thailand.
Everything which is "small scale" is solar. No one is going to a new irrigation project with fossile fuels.
Makes no sense: a small generator at a pond, or river or channel needs fuel. Either you make a clever construction of a pipeline of cans connected with some tube and glued together with ducttape, or you go there with your car, bike, van, tractor so often and refill it. Not evening mentioning that you kind of have to guard it, as it might get easy stolen: either the fuel wo
Re: (Score:2)
What has green energy o do with agriculture? And feeding the people?
Oh, exactly! You got it! Nothing!
Western hypocrisy. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point the western world should provide countries with clean energy so they can achieve the same level of prosperity we have and grow the golabl economy
The "western world" can't even supply their own energy needs with clean energy yet, so you can give up on that dream.
The best way to get clean energy is to improve technology. Then you don't need to subsidize it.
The main component lacking is cheap energy storage, for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing As soon as that happens, clean energy will take over.
Re: (Score:2)
To replace the car fleet of only the US, you would need to extract x44 times the quantity of Lithium extracted during 2022.
That sounds entirely achievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
roughly matches the quantity needed just for EV.
Were you get such nonsense from?
Also consider: we are already transitioning away from Lithium.
batteries capacity wear down... people will want to replace them. Recycling will save you ~10% of the lithium needed (while requiring more electricity/energy for the recycling process).
Also nonsense. Recycling rate is low, as it was not cost effective until recently.
(while requiring more electricity/energy for the recycling process)
That is double nonsense.
Bottom li
Re: (Score:2)
At this point the western world should provide countries with clean energy so they can achieve the same level of prosperity we have and grow the golabl economy, even if that means America is less special.
Western world countries don't have clean energy for their own use and yet you want them to provide it to other countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Must you repeat others mistakes to learn from them?
Do you want to live in thru the filth of Victorian London? The diseases of New York City in the early 1800s? The Holocaust?
The "western world" has gone thru a lot of shit... and learned a lot of lessons along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had big-ass cars with tail fins. It's only fair that developing nations can have them too for a while.
One of the dumbest things I've ever seen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying you have to go through fossil fuels to get to sustainable energy is like saying you need to develop a domestic wheel technology before you're willing to build roads. It's a special kind of stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see someone else gets it. That concept doesn't just apply to energy either...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. This sort of story comes up a few times a year. Every time, the justification is: "But, but, BUT, the US/UK/EU/whoever did it fiiiiiiiirst!". And every time, I'm reminded of just how wise a man Douglas Adams was:
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. India and other developing countries have been able to make significant leaps in telecom and internet penetration in rural and poor areas by going straight to mobile services, skipping land lines entirely. Why they won't pursue a similar proven strategy in energy use is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why they won't pursue a similar proven strategy in energy use is beyond me.
They are. No idea why you claim, they don't, it is beyond me.
Oh, doing two things in parallel is new to you? Or do you want to claim: they do not invest a lot into clean energy?
Re: (Score:3)
Developing countries have a unique opportunity to get a head start on the next century of development by pursuing green energy while the developed world still carries so much fossil fuel baggage. That chance will not last long.
This is like saying high school graduates have a unique opportunity to get a head start by skipping undergrad and jump straight into graduate school. Good luck trying that.
Until someone actually succeeded in it, this is just wishful thinking at best, a misdirection at worst. Responsible leaders won't gamble a country's future on baseless wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Developing countries that fail to make the leap to renewables even now, in a world where they are handed a clear path to them, will be left even further behind than before. What progress they've made through generations of suffering will literally go up in smoke. And for no b
Re: (Score:2)
Developing countries that fail to make the leap to renewables even now, in a world where they are handed a clear path to them, will be left even further behind than before.
You are writing bullshit.
Which country has a solar and wind only grid? Which one was it again ... ait, I have to think a bit.
And how did they do it? They have over capacity of ... how much exactly? 400%? And how do they store the surplus from the overcapacity? How do thy transmit the power?
Oh ... there is actually no such country: because
Re: (Score:2)
For the love of God, learn how to read before you try to write.
Re: (Score:2)
The technology already exists, it's just that deploying it as fast as India needs to will be more expensive than fossil fuels. Or rather, more expensive for investors, not so much in terms of the healthcare costs and lost economic activity.
That's why it's critical that developed nations with grids more able to accept and adapt to renewables push ahead as fast as possible. People say our emissions don't matter, they are a small fraction, but the sooner we reach net zero the sooner countries like India will t
Paywalled (Score:2)
Too bad the article is paywalled. But is seems very foolish for India to invest in the very expensive infrastructure for burning coal when renewables are cheaper to build and operate by far, even with storage. I suspect corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
are cheaper to build and operate by far, even with storage. I suspect corruption.
Except: they are not cheaper if you have to account for storage.
Re: (Score:2)
So they want to use coal because it requires more resources, not because it is somehow easier.
Can't they afford Prodigy? (Score:2)
Man, India must be way behind if they're not only still using NetZero, but having to use gas-powered modems as well!
Fine then (Score:3)
Slap some tariffs on goods and services coming out of India that relax as and when they get with the program. As for energy independence, India's a big country with ample opportunity for using renewables, assuming they have the willpower / incentive to do so. In fact, they have an opportunity to dominate this emerging market if they embrace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can. The reality though is they will be at a competitive disadvantage if they choose to fight it rather than just do what they should be doing anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say USA. But even if you want to say USA then the reality is that per capita emissions are dropping throughout the USA, Europe and China while they are rising in India. And there is no need for them to rise there, or any other country that could be considered developed. Penalties should kick in regardless of who the country is.
Not a Whit of Difference (Score:2)
India has coal (Score:2)
India also has coal miners. Shut down the mines and there will be riots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
air ticket to Mexico city
Or they could just route them through London.
Neither India nor China believes it (Score:2)
The climate activist movement is in denial of something perfectly obvious to any objective observer. No-one believes in the climate crisis outside activist circles in the US, UK, Germany and Australia.
There are a lot of people paying lip service to it, promising to lower emissions at some point in the distant future, claiming to be installing large amounts of wind (while also adding bigger amounts of coal generation). But all of the countries outside the above are focused exclusively on economic growth,
Re: (Score:2)
No-one believes in the climate crisis outside activist circles in the US, UK, Germany and Australia. ... probably longer, but that is the time when I entered school.
That is correct. The word "believe" does not mean what you think it means.
In Germany everyone _knows_ about Climate Change. We learn that since roughly 50 years in school
Idiot.
The usual reaction (Score:2)
Reading through the comments, coming across the usual reactions, the question you have to ask is whether the people who claim to be most alarmed about a climate crisis really believe it themselves.
The standard reaction is to suggest that the country concerned should not be criticized for emitting and increasing emission, because:
-- their per capita emissions are relatively low
-- they are installing a lot of wind and solar
-- their historic emissions are relatively low
-- they are only emitting to make goods f
Moses (Score:2)
Moses led the Hebrews wandering around the Middle East for 40 years before they reached the Promised Land. The stated reason was that no one who could remember Egypt should enter the Promised Land. Same thing in India. Except in this case no one will remember the promise.
Only God and US can save India (Score:2)
Only God and US can save common man in India
- PM is compromised
- RBI is compromised
- SBI is compromised
- LIC is compromised
- SEBI is compromised
- PARLIAMENT is compromised
- SUPREMECOURT is comprised
https://hindenburgresearch.com... [hindenburgresearch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> With China breathing down their neck India would be stupid to decarbonize and handicap their economies.
China is aiming to be 50% renewable by 2027. Their investments in renewable energy has been growing by like 300% year over year. As of the end of 2022, China has nearly as much solar PV installed (~360GW) as all of India has across all generation types (~410GW).
Renewable energy has significantly lower operating costs and is not subject to the financial pressures of international markets like fossil fu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to this China is planning on building 150 nuclear reactors in order to cover baseload.
Unlikely.
India will never have enough baseload to use 150 nukes for baseload.
I suggest to read up what "baseload" actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
Baseload is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time.
India has a billion people who want to use electricity and air conditioning.
Antinuclear scumbags like yourself share responsibility for the 8.7 million annual air pollution deaths from fossil fuels and biofuels. I'd wager you smile when you think of those deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
China is aiming to be 50% renewable by 2027. Their investments in renewable energy has been growing by like 300% year over year. As of the end of 2022, China has nearly as much solar PV installed (~360GW) as all of India has across all generation types (~410GW).
China is planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Nuclear is the perfect clean energy source to provide base load and inertia alongside highly distributed and intermittent wind and solar. They have the perfect grid in mind, the rest of the world not so much, but in any case India cannot afford this anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't even begin to invalidate what I said, though;
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
https://www.pv-tech.org/china-... [pv-tech.org]
Keep believing the dream though! Those fossil fuels ain't gonna burn themselves!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The message about carbon, climate, global warming, resource depletion, and overpopulation, has been going for many decades. I gather the estimate pre-1970 Club if Rome was already for a carrying capacity of just 500 million. Anyway, point is, human psychology is such that it's extremely difficult to question this cultural patterning. But it's also really hard to know one way or the other where the limits are if any and how we might create new wats of living. Predicting is hard.
Re: India would be stupid to decarbonize. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)