Dear Mr. Sen

 

If I remember well, we had met in Bombay in TISS workshop in April.

In the context of your mails on NSG, I am enclosing my manuscript on coal. This is based on the presentation I had made at the workshop. I dont know, when Jayaraman would publish it.

 

Regards

Dr Sumantra Bhattacharya
Associate Professor
Department of Fuel & Mineral Engineering
Indian School of Mines
Dhanbad 826004
+91-326-223 5440 (O) 5540 (R)

FOSSIL FUELS (COAL) AND CLIMATE CHANGE: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

 

SUMANTRA BHATTACHARYA AND MONOMIT NANDY

 

Department of Fuel and Mineral Engineering Indian School of Mines Dhanbad 826004 bhattac1957@yahoo.co.in

 

 

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM

The crisis of climate change appears to be a reality with potentially devastating impacts on millions and millions of poor who are least responsible, if at all, for the problem. Major effects of such a change include, as is well known by now, depleting glaciers, recurring floods, increased barren land, increased cyclonic activity, acute water shortage and so on. It would possibly not be out of context to make an attempt to re-define ecology, which could possibly be defined as a not necessarily natural order built over an almost infinitely long time, a status quo which we, the rich, try to defend and preserve because of our visible and invisible stakes, whereas the poor with no stakes, appears to be oblivious to the survival or extinction of the same order. Darwin�s Theory of survival of the fittest has actually been transformed into survival of the strongest/ richest inter alias extinction of the poorest. Let the following therefore be re-stated.

v     Everyone�s right to a better life

v      Growing needs with growing population

v      Ever declining resources

v      Decrease in availability of time and space

v      Strive to achieve 100% efficiency at minimum possible time, space and therefore cost

v      Socio-political and economic aspirations of various classes and groups of people

v      Globalization - an accomplished fact

With this background, can India achieve the grandiose development targets that are floating around including making it a developed country by 2050 with energy and food security, sustained access to potable drinking water, with electricity and employment for all and so on without that crucial input � energy and power? Before we talk about climate and development, let us therefore, ponder over few facts.

• To deliver a sustained GDP growth of 8% through 2031, the country needs to increase its energy supply by 3-4 times and electricity supply by 5-7 times at the consumption level of the year 2005¹; if electricity is provided to all households in West Bengal within the next 4years and if each household consumes @ 200watt average power demand by that alone would increase by 3000 megawatt (MW) ².  
• 50-60% of Indian households depend on traditional biomass based energy for meeting their daily requirement. Most of these households have no electricity and many, because they can not afford to buy it.
• Is agriculture not totally dependent, directly (non-irrigated) or indirectly (irrigated), on rainfall?
• From 1947 to 2002, average annual per capita availability of water in India has declined by ~70% to 1822m³
• From 1947 to 2001 average per capita land availability in India has declined by more than 35% from0.0091 to 0.0032km²

Therefore, in India, would it be prudent to talk about the impacts of climate change in general and on poor in particular without talking about substantial drop in population growth rate?

DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

No one would possibly deny that energy is the fuel of development and industrialization is an important tool to meet all the development targets. Industry requires energy to keep pace with the growing demand. Agriculture directly through irrigation or indirectly through fertilizers, pesticides, machineries, etc., too requires energy. Increased mechanisation, instrumentation, automation of industrial and agricultural processes requires more and more energy and therefore, more and more power. Even relatively poorer people are no longer content with just�food, shelter and clothing. They need more they aspire for more and more their needs increase the more energy they require. Electricity, the single largest component of energy is one of the basic amenities of a happy life. At the same time, energy remains inversely proportional to time, i.e., how fast a work can be done how quick can we meet our targets.

Let us recall that power sector development targets of India, as set out in various GOI documents are as follows.

�      Increase generating capacity to 400000 MW by 2030 from existing 130000 MW

�      Power generation capacity should increase 10% per annum to sustain growth

�      Capacity addition target of 78557 MW during XI five year plan

�      Provide electricity to entire billion plus population by 2012

�      Increase per capita availability to nearly 50% by 2012

�      Increase per capita consumption to 1000 units per capita per annum by 2012

In West Bengal, a relatively egalitarian state, if electricity is provided to all households in the state within the next 4years, the number of consumers would increase to 20millions. If each household consumes @ 200watt average, power demand would increase by 3000MW².  200watt average implies none or at the most one fan and in case of the poorest households, possibly a single 40watt bulb. In contrast in the United States 4000watt are considered to be adequate for an average home³, i.e., 20times the average value quoted for West Bengal.

Therefore, it is not advisable to look at the question of power generation or at the question of global warming and climate change caused by fossil fuel burning in isolation from various other aspects of sustainable growth and development. Development being an inevitable need, it should not be at the cost of our future generations. That is what sustainability is all about.  A minimum quality of environment should be maintained as defined by the tolerance limit of the nature. Serious attempts need to be made to reduce global warming, an undeniable truth, but not at the cost of some sections of the society, invariably the poor. Each step should be meticulously studied for their environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA). We need to ensure equally responsible participation of all countries in addressing the climate change issue and in reducing the global warming.

Energy needs of India are rising day by day with inadequate or little efforts at the both governmental and civil society level to reduce energy usage and wastage. Possibly because of our common Gondwana origin, like China and South Africa, our fossil fuel base is characterized by limited reserves of hydrocarbons and large reserves of inferior quality coal concentrated in a particular region. Therefore, where, how and at what socio-political, economic and geo-political cost, we do generate a deficit and crisis free quality power on sustainable basis? This is the issue, which needs to be addressed, while debating over development and climate change.

FOSSIL FUELS AND COAL

Readers may wonder, while talking on fossil fuels - electricity � growth and development � climate change in Indian perspective, why coal has been specifically mentioned in the title itself?

India�s domestic gas output increased from about 9 million standard m³ a day two decades back to more than 90 million at the end of financial year 2005-2006⁴. Next year, it declined to 87⁵. It is doubtful, whether the current output can be doubled in the next two decades. Our import dependence to meet oil requirements has exceeded 75%. Import bill for the year 2005-06 was close to Rs1, 77, 000crores. Realistically speaking, we will have to secure three-quarters of our crude from abroad and half of our gas requirements from external sources, at least for a decade or two⁴, unless there are some dramatic and massive discoveries. Under a stable market condition, only combined cycle gas based power plant is quite competitive with coal � fired plants (Table 1). But economically how justifiable it is to generate 14656MW power by this route (Table 2)⁶, when we have politics- trade- and price- wise a volatile hydrocarbon market? Not all the plants are combined cycle ones. Generation cost is much higher in open cycle.

 

Table 1 Typical Power Generation Cost in India (Rs per kWh); Cost Basis: 1989-90⁴

 

 

Table 2 Installed Power Generation Capacities in India as on 30.4.2008⁶

 

 

Natural gas is currently the source of half of the LPG produced in the country⁷. It is also used in large scale as CNG for commercial vehicles in selected metro cities only, e.g., Delhi and Mumbai. Pollution level in Kolkata can possibly be reduced by about three-fourth, if every eateries/ domestic cooking is by LPG and all the commercial vehicles plying on the city road, including the auto-rickshaws are CNG propelled. Only about 10% of Kolkata�s vehicles have been converted to greener fuels⁸. According to NEERI, the burning of coal accounts for a significant proportion of pollutant emissions, especially SPM. Suspended particulate matter from coal combustion is clearly a major problem throughout Kolkata. SO₂ concentrations are relatively low and within WHO guidelines which is due to the low sulphur content (0.3%) of the local (Raniganj) coal⁹. CNCI scientists maintain that more than 70% people in Kolkata, suffer from respiratory disorders. Children mainly suffer from breathing difficulties like asthma while elderly people are victims of lung cancer¹⁰. It is the urban and semi-urban poor, who, because of their hard physical labour, need to breathe oxygen and not CO₂, need to drink clean water and need no smog. It is they, who travel every day by cycles, in cramped buses and suburban trains for hours together and get exposed to the highest level of pollution. Forget about the poor below the poverty line and those just above that, even amongst us, the salaried class, how many do afford to buy on fortnightly basis an inhaler costing anywhere between Rs100-400 to treat an asthma patient?

Therefore, natural gas based power cannot possibly be an option in India for at least a decade or two. We need to fall back on what we have in India, most, coal. But in the name of sustainable development coal stands accused. The common perception is coal being the dirtiest source of energy is the largest contributor to global warming. Many environmentalists across the world including in India are bent on to ban Coal. Are these accusations rational? Does banning coal solve our problem? How would such a step affect industry and therefore development? Shall we forget about the poor who need cheap electricity (Table 1)? Do we have adequate alternative resource base and technology available at affordable cost to ban coal altogether or even drastically cut down its share, e.g., from 60% to 40%, in the total power generated in the country? If not, then why don�t we accept coal�s undeniable importance? And why don�t we apply or develop technologies which help reduce green house gas emissions from coal rather than wasting time and research and therefore money on proving that coal is the dirtiest source?

GENERATION COST

For various reasons unit power generation cost in India, whether dependent or independent of generation route, varies substantially. It is very difficult to get a common country level reliable estimate of that cost. Therefore, the data presented in Table 1 should be treated as broad guidelines only. Table 3 shows the latest data to elaborate the point. There are a number of SHP where generation cost is up to three times the upper limit of Rs11.48. Generation cost is even higher for mini and micro hydroelectric plants. Further, hydroelectricity is not available round the year and outside the Himalayan belt, is available only for a limited number of months in a year. There are at least twenty coal�fired plants, mostly in public sector, currently generating at a cost of not more than Rs1.50. Notwithstanding the significant variation in coal type and quality, location and age of the plant, technology used, etc, generation cost variation is the least for coal fired power. With hardly six plants similar cost variation has been ignored for the nuclear power.

 

Table 3 Broad Range of Power Generation Cost for the Year 2006-2007 (Rs/ kWh) ¹¹

 

Coal	0.80 � 4.235		Gas and Natural Gas		1.057 � 9.398
Oil (Diesel)	5.05 � 8.19		Hydroelectric (Himalayan Belt)		0.088 � 3.505
Wind (TNEB)		11.634	Hydroelectric (Outside Himalayan Belt)		0.032 � 17.368
Nuclear	1. 39 � 2.08		Small Hydroelectric Projects		1.05 - 11.48
Solar Thermal12			10 � 15/-	Solar Photovoltaic1	Rs15-20/-

 

It is obvious therefore that coal based power is the cheapest one and in a poor and populous but developing country like India, there seems to be no alternative to the lead role played by coal based thermal power generation. Only coal-based power can ensure a comprehensive power cum energy security of the country. Let it be remembered that we would be very much dependent on other countries for oil, gas and nuclear power generation. Going by the production level of 1.1.2000, Indian coal reserves shall be exhausted after 233 years, whereas oil and natural gas � after 15 and 33 years, respectively¹³. In spite of environment related problems, it is observed that 50% or more of the power generated in developed and most developed countries are contributed by thermal power plants. In case of developing countries the contribution might be even 90% or more (Table 4). Many countries of Western Europe import huge quantum of coal just for power generation.

 

Table 4 Contribution of Thermal Power in Country wise Overall Generation ¹⁴

 

Poland	94.7%	Czech Republic	61.8%
United Kingdom	60%	Kazakhstan	69.9%
South Africa	92.2%	China	77.5%
Australia	76.9%	Denmark	55.1%
Greece	60.4%	USA	52.2%
Germany	52.2%	Japan	22%

 

Figure 1¹⁵ illustrates why even in a rich country like the USA the emphasis is on coal based thermal power. The data available for 2001 indicates the generation cost in cents per kWh to be 3.73 for nuclear, 3.27 for coal and 5.87 cents per kWh for gas¹⁵. Over the past century thermal efficiency of coal-based power plants has increased from 8% to 33-34% and in near future it may rise to 50%. Achieving a thermal efficiency of60% is no more considered to be a dream¹⁵. On the basis of purchasing power parity (PPP) in the year 2005, per unit electricity cost globally was minimum in the USA, 8cents, i.e., Rs3.54 (1$= Rs44.30) ¹⁶. A major reason for this low cost appears to be the importance attached to coal-based power.

COAL � FIRED VERSUS OTHER ROUTES

Nuclear power generation cost in India remains competitive with coal fired plants located 1200km or more away from the pit-head. With a plant life of 30 years, taking the base capital cost as Rs5.23crores/MW for nuclear and Rs3.75crores/MW for coal, at 13% discount rate, the generation cost would be Rs3.06 for nuclear and Rs2.54 for coal. The cost projected, based on 2x500MW unit; 1997-98 price level, is very sensitive to the choice of discount rate and to the fossil fuel prices¹⁷. More recent data indicate that current investment costs would be �Rs5.8crores for nuclear against �Rs4crores for coal¹⁸. The West Bengal experience of engaging Chinese company Dong Fang shows that the coal �fired plant investment cost could even be Rs3.5crores/ MW.

Current uranium reserves in Jaduguda group of mines, which are deep underground, are less than 60000t. These reserves are characterised by only 0.7% of the fissile isotope U � 235, compared to up to 12-14% abroad. Production is yet to start from other mines in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalya. Reserve position is claimed to be so precarious that capacity utilisation of NPCL plants has come down from 80% to 40%¹⁹. No technology is available for thorium based nuclear power, though more than 30% of the world�s reserves of thorium containing mineral, monazite are found on the beaches of India.

Wind power investment cost is Rs4-5crores/ MW ¹. Claimed onshore wind potential of about 50000MW²⁰ assuming 1% of land availability for generation in the potential areas is disputed by the Planning Commission GOI. At the same time current technical potential is limited to less than 20, 000MW due to grid connectivity, land availability and other such constraints¹. Approximately 1km² area required for a 20-60MW solar power plant depending on intensity of solar rays¹¹. As on 31.12.2007, estimated potential of solar photovoltaic programme²¹ is 50MW/ km². It implies that under the best possible scenario, at least 5km² area would be required to generate 300MW of power. Unlike wind power, solar panels are non-vertical installations. As a result with non-availability of sunlight and availability of distorted rainfall, this entire area of 5km² can be used for no other purposes. The land is lost. Except in Gujarat and Rajasthan where do we get in India such vast tracts of uninhabited and barren land, which we can afford to loose? Moreover, with non-availability of indigenous technology, investment cost for a solar thermal power plant would be Rs8crores/ MW¹⁸. Solar photovoltaic power plant required capital investment @ Rs26.5crores per MW¹. Currently it has come down to Rs20.0-20.5crores per MW²². How long GOI would subsidise solar power @Rs10/- or more per kWh?

Bio-fuels are billed as a way to slow down climate change. But in reality, because so much land is cleared to grow them, most bio-fuels today are causing more global warming emissions than they prevent, even as they push the price of corn, wheat, rice and other foods out of reach for millions of people. Sometimes the trade-off is stark: filling the tank of a sports utility vehicle with ethanol requires enough corn to feed a person for a year²³. Bio-diesel, the Indian variation of bio-fuels is not cheap anyway. Generation cost based on bio-diesel is 25-30% more than the diesel based generation cost²⁴ (Table 3). But not all bio-fuels are bad; making ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is vastly more efficient than US grown corn, for example. The problem is that the US and EU have set targets for increasing the bio-fuels without sorting the good from bad. As a result, rainforests are being cleared in Indonesia to grow palm oil for European bio-fuel refineries²³.

There are many instances where hydroelectricity generated even within core Himalayan region have higher generation cost than that for coal fired power. That number increases if we consider hydroelectricity generated outside that region¹⁰. Some major concerns for all the hydroelectric projects include the adverse effect on flora and fauna in the      upstream as well as downstream regions of the dam, massive displacement of people and  never really complete and satisfactory rehabilitation of the project affected people (PAP), though rehabilitation of PAP adds up to the costs. According to World Commission on Dams, in case of reservoir  having less than 100 watts per m² of surface area and no clearing of the forests in the area was undertaken prior to impoundment of the reservoir, greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir may be higher than those of a conventional oil-fired power plant. These emissions represent carbon already in the biosphere, not fossil deposits that had been sequestered from the carbon cycle. As a result, politics and dams have become inseparable issues in India and in the developing world.

REAL PROBLEMS IN INDIA � THE NEGLECT OF COAL SECTOR

Coal remains the only source to be blamed so vehemently for global warming and climate change though other sources, such as bio-diesel, hydroelectricity, automobiles, etc also cause it in great measure. Such an attitude has been adversely affecting the research on containing CO₂ emission from coal combustion thus aggravating the problem of global warming. The real problem is not that coal causes global warming but the fact that there is inadequate research in containing the global warming caused by coal. In India coal never got a level playing field with hydrocarbons. No alternatives have yet been developed as cheap and reliable as coal. Not everyone seems to care about this fact. Historically, coal suffers from bad public relations and image crisis too. Coal sector and coal belt in India has been discriminated and neglected for too long, to the extent of colonization (Table 5). Calculated on PPP basis, unit electricity cost in the US in the year 2005 was only Rs3.28¹⁶, more than the cost currently we pay, only in Delhi, UP and Hyderabad. Virtually everywhere else we pay more including in the coal belt and in Kolkata, located within 200km of Raniganj coal basin, storehouse of one of the best power coals in the world.

 

Table 5 Unit Electricity Cost in Metropolitan Cities of India (Hindu, 2007) ²⁵

 

Delhi	UP	Hyderabad	Chennai	Ahmedabad	Haryana	Mumbai	Kolkata	Bangalore
2.40	3.00	3.05	3.50	3.60	3.63	3.79	4 .32	6.00

 

Some of the results of this century old indifference to and neglect of the coal sector are as follows.

�      Hardly 50% of the potential coal bearing areas have been surveyed by Geological Survey of India; follow-up detailed exploration is slow

�      India�s total coal reserves of 253 Billion tonne at a depth of up to 1200m appear to be based on virgin reserves alone. Does the assessment take into account the coals locked in the abandoned mines? If not why?

�      This question is particularly relevant for Raniganj and Jharia Coalfields, where organized coal mining in India was taken up more than two centuries ago.

�      Depending on plant location, landed fuel cost constitutes 30-70% of the coal based generation cost.

�      At a rail distance of 600-700 km, the landed cost of power coal, depending on quality, becomes twice of that at the pit-head.

�      At a distance of about 400-500km, power transmission cost through grid becomes cheaper than coal railing cost.

�      Yet, we plan to transport in the year 2011-12 at least 350 Million tonne (Mt) of power coal to a distance of more than 500km. It was about 250Mt in the year 2006-2007.

�      Power coal production with up to 50% ash content in the year 2006-2007 was about 430 Mt. Only around 30% of that was consumed at pithead power plants.

�      Major rail routes are saturated and actually overburdened. Rail routes connecting the four metros comprise only 16% of the network km, but carry 65% of the freight and 55% of the passenger traffic. Distance covered by the rail track between two points has increased by 1.2times in the last 60years, running kilometres have increased by only 1.4times, whereas goods and passenger traffic increased by about 8.8 and 7.4times, respectively.

�      GOI Fuel Policy Committee (1974) recommended that �in the overall interest of the economy and environmental considerations, more and more power stations should be located at pitheads, while construction of power stations at load centres could be considered on merits as �special case��. GOI Working Group on Energy Policy (1979) omitted the recommendation on pithead generation. Why and how, in what context, in whose interest, the earlier emphasis on pithead power stations was dropped, thus depriving the coal belt of its natural economic advantage?

�      Under legislative compulsion, coal railed to a distance of greater than 1000km, must have less than 34% ash. The net result is most of the power plants located within a distance of 1000km operate with 40-50% ash coal, at an efficiency level of not more than 30%.

�      Higher the ash, lower the efficiency, higher the emission, larger the tonnages of fly ash generated. It obviously implies large-scale pollution in coal belt, while illuminating and energising, e.g., Delhi and Mumbai.

�      Merits of using coal with only 10% less ash (Table 6) are so obvious that one would expect that all power plants in the country would operate with around 30% or less ash coal. Yet, only about 7% of the coal-fired plants operate at that ash level. If 50,000MW power could be generated by only 10% less ash coal, that itself would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by at least 200 Mt per year.

�      If Indian Railways (IR) could carry only processed (to reduce ash) coal, a saving in cross-country transport of 55Mt, equivalent of 42 trains per day could have been made. Under the same condition, in 2011-12, the saving in transport costs would notionally be sufficient to finance the construction of 467 km of new track every year.

�      Over the past century thermal efficiency of coal-fired plants has increased from 8% to a steady sub-critical level of 38-40%, this being possibly the only power route to record a consistent improvement. Only few plants in India operate at this level; rest at least at a level below. Vast majority of coal-fired plants in US, EU, Russia and China operate at a thermal efficiency of around 45% and above (super critical and ultra supercritical). Their number is on the rise.

�      These plants operating with low ash, high heat value coal have reduced the CO₂ emission by up to 22%.

 

Table 6 Relative Merits on Yearly Basis of Using Coal with only 10% less Ash (cost basis: 2000)

 

500 MW plant capital cost	Coal railing cost	Reduction in ash disposal	Reduction in land area for ash disposal	Reduction in greenhouse gas emission
Less by Rs90 crores	Less by Rs780 crores	10Mt	5700acres	2Mt

 

Yet, Indian coal producers and users alike, under the cover of existing pricing system, an outdated and irrational one with powerful vested interests, are stubbornly resisting coal processing to reduce ash. There is no reason, under best practice conditions, why coal fired generation cost in India cannot be right now brought down to less than Rs0.90. Reliance Power won the Sasan ultra mega power project through competitive bidding by offering a steady  Rs1.20 as unit generation cost over a period of 25years²⁶. Indian and South African (SA) coals are quite similar. Typical coal fired unit generation cost in public sector utility, ESKOM (SA), currently is 0.07Rand (Rs0.42 through direct conversion). Had we had adequate port infrastructure, our western and eastern coast would have possibly by now developed a network of imported coal - fired power plants at a comparable generation cost. These issues have been discussed in greater details elsewhere ^{13, 27, 28}.

CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

It is believed by many including the United States Department of Energy that advanced technologies, such as, FutureGen, Clean Coal Technology, Super Critical Boilers, Combined Cycle, etc and through Carbon (CO₂) Sequestration, zero emission thermal power can be generated in about two decades time. Such a scenario envisages capture and storage of at least 90% of the CO₂. Carbon Sequestration is therefore projected as a possible solution to the emission problem, though indications are already there that the same is proving to be quite cost prohibitive. According to many however, carbon sequestration is being irresponsibly portrayed as an imminently useful large-scale option for solving the challenge. To sequester just 25% of CO₂ emitted in the year 2005 by large stationary sources of the gas (9.6 Gm³ at the supercritical density of 0.468 g/cc), we would have to create a system whose annual throughput, by volume, would be slightly more than twice that of the world's crude-oil industry, an undertaking that would take many decades to accomplish²⁹.

Even, if we accept sequestration as an option, the question which arises is with typically Indian load centre based power generation, are we going to transport the captured carbon, e.g., from Panipat in Haryana to Nudkhurkee near Dhanbad, covering a distance of about 1200km? It is quite possible that sequestration, with no operational evidence yet, has so far proved to be cost prohibitive, because sequestered CO₂, on date, has no commercial value whatsoever. About 2000Mt of high quality metallurgical and power coals being engulfed by fire, have become rather unmineable in Jharia and Raniganj coal basins. At least few Mt of coal every year is getting burnt while the country annually spends thousand million dollars to import low ash metallurgical coals²⁸. Imported coal based ultra mega power projects are being set up at Krishnapatnam and Mundra, at a steady unit generation cost of Rs2.33 and Rs2.26, respectively over a period of 25years²⁶. Only about 20 coal fired plants in India currently generate about 7833MW of power at a generation cost of more than Rs2.26¹¹. This is hardly 10.3% of the total coal fired installed capacity of about 76300MW as on April 30 2008⁶. All these 20 odd plants are located 1000km or more away from the linked coal mines.

CO₂ is known to be an excellent fire extinguisher and fire insulator. CO₂ captured from the pithead power plants may not require any deep-seated storage. It may possibly be used for extinguishing and containing the existing coal mine fires in Jharia and Raniganj. By doing so we could be combating global warming; at least indirectly adding a commercial value to the captured and stored CO₂; we would be conserving precious national wealth and bringing relief to the local populace by reducing immense heat and dust. Instead of following the carbon sequestration research model and routes being pursued by the developed countries, why don�t we take up captured carbon utility cum sequestration research in a well planned nationally coordinated programme keeping the specific requirement of India in mind?

ROADS AHEAD

Let us therefore, stop dancing to the tunes of rich nations. Let us stop witch hunting of coal, the only fuel we have. Let us not forget that only coal can ensure energy security of India. Let us remember that at least in next two decades, coal in India, would continue to provide the cheapest electricity. Therefore, let us stop neglecting the coal sector and let us insist on the following fuel mix for the power sector in India (Table 7) for the next two decades. Let us do mission based research towards containing emission, in particular of CO₂, from coal combustion instead of advocating an ever declining share of coal in national fuel cum energy mix.

 

Table 7 Proposed Fuel Mix for the Power Sector in India

 

Coal	Gas/ Natural Gas	Hydroelectricity	Nuclear	Renewables
Around 60%	Around 5%	Around 25%	5 - 10%	Around 5%

 

Let us work on removing all policy inconsistencies in the production, marketing and utilization of coal; through that let us break the powerful vested interests operating in coal sector. Policy inconsistencies and inadequacies in policy implementation are far too many. Those are in coal exploration, production, coal processing and over and above in coal pricing. There are other major issues from the coal utilization perspective, such as, pithead versus load centre plants, power plant technology in terms of criticality, number of units indigenously manufactured per year and their MW capacity, barriers in power trading, grid connectivity and grid availability. Policy implementation is quite slack in damage control from emission and disposal of combustion residues. Centre � state relations also play a key role on virtually all these policy matters.

Let us consider, e.g., the following factors for each of the power generation projects and then make a comparative analysis

�      Cost of land acquisition            

�      Resettlement and Rehabilitation (RR) cost for PAP persons 

�      Fuel cost: Pithead (at source) versus Landed cost at plants away

�      Total project cost including capital cost

�      Generation cost including operation and maintenance (O&M) cost

�      Transmission cost

�      Environmental damage cost including that to social health with a focus on community and societal water usage

�      Emission and Re-use of all the waste products: gaseous, liquid and solid

Let Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be carried out for each power generating project by fiercely independent agencies. Then let us opt for least cost and least damage route. The learned readers would find that in India there is no substitute yet to coal.

REFERENCES

1. Integrated Energy Policy, GOI, 2006, p. ii, 40, 93

2. Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata, 7.4.2008, p.6

3. Sunday Times of India, Mumbai, 20.4.2008, p.11

4. Mani Shankar Aiyar, XXVIII Convocation Address, Indian School of Mines, 2006

5. E. A. S. Sharma, J. N. Maggo and A. S. Sachdeva, India�s Energy Scenario in 2020 at World Energy Council Website (last accessed; 1.8.2005)

6. Ministry of Power GOI Website, last accessed; 3.6.2008

7. Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, GOI Website (http://petroleum.nic.in/ng.htm), last accessed; 2.6.2008

8. Subir Bhaumik, Air pollution suffocates Calcutta, BBC News, 3. 5. 2007

9. www.ess.co.at/GAIA/CASES/IND/CAL/CALpollution.html, last accessed; 2.6.2008

10. http://ia.rediff.com/news/2008/may/28pollute.htm, last accessed; 2.6.2008

11. Central Electricity Authority Website (www.cea.nic.in), last accessed; 6.6.2008

12. A Roul, India�s Solar Power � Greening India�s Future Demand, eNRRE, March 2004

13. S. Bhattacharya, Power Coal Washing in India: Social Economic and Environmental Dimensions, I International Conference on Managing The Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences of Coal Mining in India, New Delhi, 2007, pp. 629-638 (Ed. G Singh, D Laurence and K Lahiri � Dutt).

14. World Coal Institute Website, last accessed; 20. 1. 2005

15. R. L. Lawson, The Kyoto Protocol and the Climate Postulation: Last Century�s Answer and This One�s Priorities in Coal Prep India (S. J. Fiscor ed.), New Delhi, Coal Age, 2000.

16. AnandaBajar Patrika, Kolkata, 29.8.2005, p.10

17. A. K. Neema, Long-term Cost Effectiveness of Nuclear Energy in India, NPCIL, Mumbai, 2006

18. Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata, 7.4.2008, p.6

19. P. K. Lahiri, Personal Communication, May 2008

20. ICORE 2007 Handout

21. Annual Report 2007 - 2008, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy GOI

22. Ananda Bazar Patrika, Kolkata, 10.2.2008 and 19.2.2008 p.3

23. Bio-fuels: the fake climate change solution, Ben Wikler � Awazz.org, 12.3.2008

24. The Hindu (Delhi Edition), 23.8.07, p.6

25. Hindu (Delhi Edition), 1.8.07, p.6

26. Annual Report 2007-2008, Ministry of Power GOI, Chapter 4, p. 16

27. S. Bhattacharya and A. K. Maitra, Impact of Coal Beneficiation on Rail Transport in India, Coal Preparation, vol. 27, No. 1-3, 2007, 2007, pp 149-166

28. S. Bhattacharya, Coal in India � Certain policy issues � Part I, Indian Mineral Congress, Dhanbad, 2007, Pp. 248-258

29. Vaclav Smil, Long-range Energy Forecasts Are No More Than Fairy Tales, Correspondence, Nature 453, 154 (8. 5. 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__._,_.___

Replying to this email will send an e-mail to 6000+ members of J-Forum.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

About Jharkhand Forum @ http://www.jharkhand.org.in/about-jharkhand-forum

Jharkhand Forum's Posting Norms http://jharkhand.org.in/posting_norms.htm

Add your Name in Members directory - http://directory.jharkhand.org.in

Be an Internet Volunteer, find more @ http://volunteer.jharkhand.org.in

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Post your Petition Online @ http://petition-online.blogspot.com

MAKE FUNDING APPEAL HERE @ http://FUNDING-APPEAL.blogspot.com

For News & Music, Watch Indian TV @ http://Indian-TV.blogspot.com

Check out Free Gifts for NGOs at Http://Gift.Jharkhand.Org.In







__,_._,___