India Pauses Plans To Add New Coal Plants For Five Years, Bets on Renewables, Batteries 93
The Indian government will not consider any proposals for new coal plants for the next five years and focus on growing its renewables sector, according to an updated national electricity plan released Wednesday evening. From a report: The temporary pause in the growth of the dirty fuel was hailed by energy experts as a positive step for a country that is currently reliant on coal for around 75% of its electricity. Updated every five years, the plan serves as a guideline for India's priorities in its electricity sector.
India is the world's third highest emitter and most populous country. It plans to reach net zero emissions by 2070, which would mean significantly slashing coal use and ramping up renewable energy. In a draft of the plan released in September, the Central Electricity Authority, which is in charge of planning for India's electricity needs, projected that nearly 8,000 megawatts of new coal capacity was required by 2027. But Wednesday's strategy proposes the build out of more than 8,600 megawatts of battery energy storage systems instead. Battery storage is crucial for round-the-clock use of renewable energy.
India is the world's third highest emitter and most populous country. It plans to reach net zero emissions by 2070, which would mean significantly slashing coal use and ramping up renewable energy. In a draft of the plan released in September, the Central Electricity Authority, which is in charge of planning for India's electricity needs, projected that nearly 8,000 megawatts of new coal capacity was required by 2027. But Wednesday's strategy proposes the build out of more than 8,600 megawatts of battery energy storage systems instead. Battery storage is crucial for round-the-clock use of renewable energy.
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not sure what you are talking about. Can you copy/paste the link or data from the CAISO site to support your claim?
https://www.caiso.com/Pages/de... [caiso.com]
California is far from bankrupt, having created a rainy-day fund from past budget surpluses. And their grid is quite robust - with less than one percent energy derived from coal and the majority already coming from emission free energy sources.
However, this doesn't stop the media from waxing poetic about two hours of rolling blackouts in a small part of Northern California which are the only instances of power generation related outages in the past two decades...
Re: (Score:3)
The article says India as the third largest CO2 emitter as if to imply that it is bad. Same thing your statement "at least they can refrain from making things worse" implies.
But the next country which emits less CO2 that India has less than a quarter of the population of India. Also the 1st and 2nd are emitting at least 4x per capita CO2. India is still one of the lowest CO2 emitters. No other country has put halt on coal power plants when its per capita coal consumption is as low as India. So India should
Re: (Score:2)
Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Coal may be a good option for a developing country. They need to build their economy up the fastest way. Clean up afterwards. Carbon sequestration etc. If you want a house, should you save up for 30 years and allow your kids to be homeless or should you take a loan and buy one right away?
Coal sucks, but for developing countries it may be a viable path, as long as it doesnt deplete foreign exchange or cause them to be subservient to coal producing countries.
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Was about to say the same.
Especially considering that parts of India have no grid connection.
It is easier to start in such parts with micro grids.
E.g. cell phone towers having solar power and batteries - depending on country: they need the batteries anyway.
Now you can expand by having "important buildings", solar power and batteries. Buildings with a considerable traffic of people. So thy can charge phones there e.g.
No real need to build a over land line for power and a huge plant 10km away ...
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh*
"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:3)
Like my father used to say when I was a youngster... "If Jay jumped off of a bridge would you?"
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a humorous non-sequitur or are you just a triggered idiot?
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest problem of coal is not even the global warming, but the immediate deaths from the air pollution and mining.
Burning anything else for power would be better than coal.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Why not build up in a slower but responsible way... assuming that you can avoid/end the corruption that's the overwhelming cause of poverty.
I know, I know, you want to get in on the corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Why not build up in a slower but responsible way... assuming that you can avoid/end the corruption that's the overwhelming cause of poverty.
I know, I know, you want to get in on the corruption.
Because hundreds of millions of Indians are still living in poverty and lacking facilities and infrastructure that require energy.
That said I don't think it's necessarily the tradeoff. You could ramp up renewable just as quickly as coal, though availability intermittence would be a downside but better than nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
You could ramp up renewable just as quickly as coal, though availability intermittence would be a downside but better than nothing.
No, no you couldn't. Stop lying to people. If you could, the half trillion dollars Germany has spent on their renewables would actually provide more than a small fraction of their power. People have tried, they have spent mountains of public money on it. No luck. Germany ends up burning coal and in California it is the nuclear plant (which is the real solution) and a bunch of natural gas plants that make all the power. There are numbers and data on these topics. You don't get to just make up your own
Re: Bad idea (Score:2)
Are you dense? Germany produces more than half of its energy with renewables, despite the conservatives undermining them wherever possible in the 16 years of CDU government.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Why not build up in a slower but responsible way...
Developing countries are actually better places for deploying new power technologies, because they don't already have the massive investment in existing infrastructure.
In the US, we already have the whole infrastructure of a high-capacity nationwide electrical grid, and it's already paid for. In India, the grid is not high capacity, subject to frequent outages, very often overloaded. They can move directly to next-generation distributed power systems without having the sunk cost of existing infrastructure
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
India has nuclear submarines. They know how to build a nuclear power plant. This isn't a choice between burning coal and economic collapse. This is also not a choice between leaving the nuclear weapon genie in the bottle or opening that up for nuclear power. India has nuclear power plants already. They know how to build them, and they have the fuel for them. Some nations might get upset if India builds more nuclear power plants but that's a threshold that's been long past.
India should not be building any more coal power plants. They have what they need to build nuclear power plants. They've been getting assistance on building nuclear power from Canada for some time now, did something happen with that relationship? Haven't they developed a domestic nuclear power industry by now? Can't they reach out to some other nation to help with building nuclear power plants?
India had a long term plan to molten salt thorium reactors. How well is that going now?
My point is that I'm not so sure India is a developing country any more. They have nuclear power plants and nuclear submarines. How may developing nations have nuclear submarines?
Re: (Score:2)
India is still a developing country. Yes they have nuclear powered submarines .. but then most of India is unquestionably living in poverty. Once they get nearly all of their population living in decent housing conditions (no more slums), and they improve infant mortality rates (from 26/1000 to say 7/1000) .. then I will say they are no longer a developing country.
Reference:
https://www.filmingindo.com/bl... [filmingindo.com]
Re: Bad idea (Score:2)
W gave India a great deal of American nuclear R&D, which is still being processed and Indias own nuke industry is up/coming. Still, they have several types of reactors that they build and hopef
This is good idea (Score:2)
And when it comes to emissions, AGW can not be stopped until all nations quit growing their emissions.
Don't forget about "Geothermal Anywhere" tech (Score:1)
Deep Well Geothermal (AKA: "Geothermal Anywhere") uses existing oil drilling tech to create geothermal energy production nearly anywhere it is needed.
https://news.mit.edu/2022/quai... [mit.edu]
From what I have seen, a geothermal plant about the size of a corner gas station can power hundreds of homes with emissions free, 24/7 electricity. This reduces the need for battery systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That is not deep well geothermal at all. The Geysers is traditional geothermal where heat is close to the surface, uses aquifer water, and easy to get to.
Deep well geothermal has only recently become feasible due to advancements in drilling technology like directional drilling and fracking. It is something we could only start doing recently, and with the cooperation of the experts in the field - the oil and gas companies who have a vested interest in NOT seeing this technology bloom.
It can also be set up to
Doesn't affect plants under development (Score:5, Informative)
India is currently developing 32GW of coal plants.
https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]
While they are also experiencing a coal shortage:
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
So pausing approvals of new coal plants makes sense.
Re: (Score:1)
India is currently developing 32GW of coal plants.
Even as renewables overtake coal over time, that 32GW coal is newer (read: higher efficiency, less particle pollution) than say, 20...30y old coal plants. So perhaps a worthwhile investment even as the coal / renewable / nuclear mix changes.
That said, India might well consider to skip coal entirely for new capacity, and divert those funds towards storage or nuclear as needed w/ respect to base- and peak demand. Besides putting more renewable generating capacity, of course (which they seem to be doing nicel
Re: (Score:1)
Even as renewables overtake coal over time,
Germany did proves your statement, they have be using more coal with time as they move to renewables. It is almost as if renewables are a giant scam that fossil fuel extractors use to distract the public.
Re: (Score:1)
"Renewables" is the wrong term. We are not running out of coal. The correct term is "Non Carbon".
Germany shut down its nuclear, greatly increasing its carbon footprint. Idiots.
just wait (Score:1)
You can be sure that in short order they will realize that they can't live without more coal. Reneging on this policy will not be covered in /..
Re: (Score:2)
And you can be sure in short order they will be frying their brains out on elevated global temperatures. What goes around, comes around.
Not all gigawatts are equal (Score:3, Interesting)
A common trend in reporting on the gains of renewable energy to the losses of fossil fuel energy is the gigawatts of generating capacity. One gigawatt lost in coal fired capacity is greater than one gigawatt gained in wind or solar. Solar power has a capacity factor of about 20% to 25%. Wind power has a capacity factor somewhere around 30%. A coal power plant will have a capacity factor that can vary from 50% to near 100%, depending on seasonal needs and such.
One complaint about big steam power plants like coal, natural gas, or nuclear fission, is what are people to do if the power plant has a sudden failure. I thought that is what all these batteries were for. If a nuclear power plant has a safety trip because the water from the cooling tower was too hot or too cold then it might shut down just to make sure there's no permanent damage done. The batteries take over while the inspections are done, any adjustments are made, and then the reactors returned to full power.
If we assume a fleet of reactors on site for a given power plant the reduction in power from one reactor would likely be made up for by an increase in power from the other reactors. Loss off a one gigawatt reactor for whatever reason cannot be made up for with one gigawatt of solar power. That's going to take four or five gigawatts of power, on top of some serious battery storage.
On an electrical grid with plenty of nuclear fission power generation capacity, and plenty of energy storage in batteries in pumped hydro, then where is the added value in wind and solar power?
At least with onshore windmills the windmills can be put over grazing land, this means the land is still useful. With the windmills killing off the bugs they won't be bothering the cattle so much. Windmills are low tech and so the local electricians, tractor mechanics, and so forth, can maintain them. Not all windmills will produce electricity, some can pump water or perform other tasks.
India has been on the path of using their ample supplies of thorium for nuclear fission power. I would hope they reach this goal sooner than later.
Re: (Score:2)
In my part of the country diesel generators are used for backup on the nuclear power plant, I think that is the common application is fukushimas failure was made worse due to fouling of the diesel tanks by inrush of seawater
Batteries, on the other hand are used in Australia to even out peak power generation like solar [fuergy.com] or to even out wind generated power in Texas [reuters.com], although Texas' power market does allow for some profit taking by battery owners during peak power demand
I doubt that India faces the same death-b
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries in Australia are not used to even out peak power generation, batteries are used to stabiliise the grid, this is very profitable, supplying power is not profitable with batteries.
It is a matter of scale, the $200M battery 194Mh South Australian Hornsdale battery can power the 950MW Tomago Aluminium refinery for appriximately 12 minutes. Aluminium pots can only be without power for about 1 hour, otherwise they start to freeze. So the question becomes, when the sun is not shining and the wind is not
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not all gigawatts are equal (Score:4, Interesting)
India isn't going to build your fleet of nuclear reactors. They cost too much and take too long.
Renewables are the only affordable option. If they don't work then India is going to build coal, because we built coal and benefitted from it. Why should they forego the cheap industrialization and the benefits that come with it, because we already used up the carbon budget?
"Just be poor" isn't a good argument.
Fortunately, renewables do work. We just need to stop pissing away money on nuclear and clear the barriers to renewable deployment, then industry can do the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I said "your fleet of nuclear reactors".
He has a fantasy about a nuclear renaissance where hundreds of them get built. Not going to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not commercially viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the French model is that it's been very expensive for them. Sure the retail price of electricity has been kept low, but only because it's been subsidised out of taxation. EDF, the company that runs those plants, was fully nationalized a few years ago, and even before that was largely state owned.
Don't forget that it's not just the cost of building and operating the plants. They need a whole regulatory system, and a fuel/waste management system. That's why they aren't looking to replace thei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not commercially viable.
Commercially viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I literally just told you that the solution is renewables, not fossil. The goal is to avoid more fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is intermittent too. Averages about 70% capacity factor in Europe. It's going to get worse as the climate heats up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He has a fantasy about a nuclear renaissance where hundreds of them get built. Not going to happen.
Can we get someone in here with mod points to mod this damn Troll down?
Re: (Score:2)
India isn't going to build your fleet of nuclear reactors. They cost too much and take too long.
Here ya Here, gather around once again as AmiMoJo bounces out another bound of baffling bullshit to see who believes. Trolling again to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on a subject he barely knows anything about. Oh great Troll, once again entertain us with your ignorance and bullshit!.
Now that that is out of the way. This statement is patently false. India is one of the leading developer of nuclear power. They have billions of dollars invested in the thorium projects alone. While India does p
Re: (Score:2)
"Just be poor" isn't a good argument.
Unbelievable that you would say something like this. Considering that in previous posts you heavily implied that you would rather them be dead than have access to nuclear power.
Re: Not all gigawatts are equal (Score:2)
India already builds nuclear and is stepping it up. Just as importantly, nuclear is actually cheaper than Wind/PV. Why? Because you liars NEVER include the cost of even a second of storage, the cost to take it down, and esp do not include the backup to this which is always a thermal power plant.
what is interesting is that you constantly push wind/PV with loads of lies, screaming that nuclear can not happen since it will take too long/too much money since AGW, yet could easily push coal.
Re: (Score:2)
what are people to do if the power plant has a sudden failure.
That's what the national grid is for. You don't need the spare capacity on the same site. Losing 1GW is easily made up by transmission from a different region.
I thought that is what all these batteries were for. [...] The batteries take over while the inspections are done, any adjustments are made, and then the reactors returned to full power.
Batteries are used two ways: first is for grid stability in the scale of milliseconds to seconds. In an emergency trip they help regulate the brief transient until other generators throttle up. They can also provide bulk capacity when it's needed (including filling in for a failed plant), but they're just one of many available supplies to fill the
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power is the hallmark of the oil industry and conservative politicians. They know that nuclear takes decades to approve and build - which lets them grasp the last drops of oil as long as possible while delaying actual clean solutions we are already doing with none of the scary things that were predicted.
Re: Not all gigawatts are equal (Score:2)
Cheaper & faster (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like a no-brainer to me: Solar's cheaper & faster to build & cheaper to run. Why bother building more coal power at all?
Coal power plants run at night.
Re: (Score:1)
BTW, I'll only respond to comments from you in the future when you've learned how to spell & pronounce nucular properly. It's N-U-C-U-L-A-R, OK?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are proposing that some people far away from you should only get electricity during daytime, so you can continue having access to your lifestyle (which incidently includes electricity at night too by the way).
All that because you, or us, as I include myself in thé lot, used most of the world CO2 budget already. Well, I am not sure the Indians, chineses, etc..., are going to play along just for the sake of your pretty eyes.
To say it with a fun analogy: if 10 people are on a big trek together, wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cheaper & faster (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Cheaper & faster (Score:2)
lol - store electricity (Score:2)
Solar's cheaper & faster to build & cheaper to run. Why bother building more coal power at all?
Because I need power at night, when there are clouds and when the wind isn't blowing. We can't store electricity. All the new solar and wind power installed last year would charge all the batteries made last year in under 30 minutes. If you could store electricity, cheaply, at low maintenance cost, even with a 50% energy loss you would be the world's first trillionaire. The cost in most markets in the world swings by at least 40 cents per kwh during a single day. In the summer it can swing by multiple d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
India is largely an Oligarchy [springer.com], and if a seriously wealthy person wants to profit from coal plants, then there is little to stop them other than a lack of supply of coal
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a no-brainer to me: Solar's cheaper & faster to build & cheaper to run. Why bother building more coal power at all?
Coal power plants run at night.
Turns out that people in India are used to dealing with intermittent power, since their electrical grid is already intermittent. https://economictimes.indiatim... [indiatimes.com]
https://www.outlookindia.com/n... [outlookindia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so then the proposals would win on their own merit right? A ban is not needed, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a no-brainer to me: Solar's cheaper & faster to build & cheaper to run. Why bother building more coal power at all?
Because we don't want to have to throw away all the food in our refrigerators every morning.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually fridges are one thing that can do well with solar. With a bit of ice to keep the cold, they will be fine overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying is easier (Score:1)
10x reduction in the cost of nuclear is needed (Score:2)
The cost of nuclear needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude. We've done it with wind and solar so it should be easy.
The cost of a generator for a wind turbine is 1/10 the cost per Watt of an equivalent nuclear generator. They're basically the same, made from the same materials, why is this so? This balance of plant, the non-nuclear bit is currently extremely expensive and overpriced.
In short, if you make a lot of something the costs go down, so we need to make a lot of nuclear. If the capital costs of