India could get 60% of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources within 10 years - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in India.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14754143
Natasha Geiling wrote:In ten years, India could get almost sixty percent of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources, according to a government forecast published this week.

India-Solar Panels.jpeg
India-Solar Panels.jpeg (61.5 KiB) Viewed 6242 times


According to a draft of the country’s 10-year energy blueprint, the Indian government expects that 57 percent of the country total electricity capacity will come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027 — a marked increase over the country’s Paris goals, which say that the country will reach 40 percent non-fossil fuel electricity by 2030. The draft also noted that no new coal-fired power plants would be needed to meet India’s electricity demands through 2027.
India’s ‘unprecedented’ plan to bring millions out of poverty and power them with clean energy

“India is moving beyond fossil fuels at a pace scarcely imagined only two years ago,” Tim Buckley, a director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, told the Guardian. He also characterized the forecast as “absolutely transformational.”

India is the world’s fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter, and was reluctant to formalize the Paris agreement as quickly as other countries earlier this year, citing concern that the country did not have the ability to meet its targets. But private investment has helped boost India’s renewable goals, even as the Indian government has lagged behind in funding renewable projects.

Over the past year, India has received a $20 billion dollar investment in its solar energy sector from Japan’s Softbank, and another $2 billion from the French energy company EDF. The U.S. government’s development finance institution, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), along with the Indian government, also recently announced that it will launch a $20 million finance initiative to help fund renewable energy in India — though it’s unclear whether that initiative will remain under President-elect Trump, who has pledged to “cancel all wasteful climate change spending.”
India’s massive demand for electricity — some 240 million people have no access to electricity — coupled with the falling cost of renewable energy makes the country an intriguing market for investors. India’s recent announcement follows a year of record-breaking investment in renewable energy, with $286 billion invested globally in green energy.

Pollution has also been a motivating factor for India’s renewables push. Indian cities are some of the most polluted in the world, and New Dehli’s air pollution levels are literally off the charts — in November, air pollution measured 999 on an air pollution index that tops out at 500. China, which also deals with high levels of air pollution, has also begun turning to renewables in an effort to decrease toxic pollution.

Think Progress
#14754329
Not happening, it will be a miracle if Paris goals are met. Its a good reason to suspect this draft considering the current government's record i.e. they are basically Sir "exaggerates a lot".

First there is going to be a huge surge in demand in coming decades, a large part of the country still needs to be electrified, it will be a burden in itself to cover these demands then non fossil fuels are not cheap and India just can't afford currently to depend so massively on non fossil fuel.
#14755707
Possible and good idea hopefully they do Not Cover farmingfields with Sollar Panels

Elektra BL has the best solarthermic facility buyed in Spain. With best storage of Solar warmth energy
Last edited by Bosnjak on 28 Dec 2016 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
#14755722
If India is generating 60% of it's electricity from non-fossil fuel sources within ten years I'll shave my head and eat me hair, on you tube. It's not going to happen. globally, coal generated electricity is forecast to increase by 30% over the next decade with China and India accounting for 75% of that increase. But it's not all bad, new build coal fired power stations can be clean. Technology has moved on massively, todays coal fired power stations are much cleaner than they were as little as 20 years ago but as long as governments and the Green Lobby have this myopic hatred of coal then the cheapest most abundant and readily available source of fuel on the planet will increasingly remain in the ground.
#14755729
Red Rackham wrote:If India is generating 60% of it's electricity from non-fossil fuel sources within ten years I'll shave my head and eat me hair, on you tube. It's not going to happen. globally, coal generated electricity is forecast to increase by 30% over the next decade with China and India accounting for 75% of that increase. But it's not all bad, new build coal fired power stations can be clean. Technology has moved on massively, todays coal fired power stations are much cleaner than they were as little as 20 years ago but as long as governments and the Green Lobby have this myopic hatred of coal then the cheapest most abundant and readily available source of fuel on the planet will increasingly remain in the ground.


Please provide evidence that coal fired plants can be as clean as hydro-electric, wind or nuclear.

Ideally, the evidence would be in the form of a comparison of life cycle analyses.
#14755782
[center-img][/center-img]
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence that coal fired plants can be as clean as hydro-electric, wind or nuclear.

Ideally, the evidence would be in the form of a comparison of life cycle analyses.


I didn't say coal plants are as clean as hydro, wind or nuclear it's also no secret the aforementioned are very expensive and have problems and limitations. It's also no secret that coal can be clean. Technologies such as carbon capture, flue gas desulphurisation, HELE (High efficiency low emissions) and many more are readily available and improving all the time. Sadly governments are encouraged away from clean coal technology and in doing so are ignoring our most abundant reliable and readily available fuel.

The EU closed six UK coal fired power stations this year with nothing to replace them with other than importing more electricity from France & Belgium. Assuming Hinckley C is eventually built it wont be generating for at least 30 years by which time the UK will be reliant on foreign electricity, oil & gas for it's energy needs, yet we have billions of tonnes of coal in the ground. We should be investing heavily in clean coal technology, not importing ever more foreign fuel as the UK energy industry is quietly closed down.
#14755798
Pants-of-dog wrote:Or investing in wind, hydro, and nuclear.

Why waste money on coal?


Wind is OK if it's windy, as it happens turbines are switched off if it's too windy. Hydro electricity [In the UK] will never take off due to the geographical nature of the locations, hydo also has many environmental concerns. Nuclear is an eye wateringly expensive option that the government should have considered thirty years ago but flogged the industry off instead.

Our energy industry [Coal fired power stations] was flogged off to foreign concerns who obviously put their own interests before those of the UK. Owners were reluctant to invest in clean coal/burn technology due to the political feeling about coal. The station I worked at spent £80 million on a flue gas desulphurisation plant to reduce emissions and it was a great success but it didn't stop the EU increasing emissions tax* year on year while the government predictably stood by and watched the industry collapse.

*We paid £15 tax per tonne of coal burned, and we burned 9000 tonnes a day. £135,000 a day in tax from one power station. Is it any wonder our foreign owners decided to bring closure forward.
#14755913
Actively encourage people to have fewer children and pollution would not be a problem from any energy source.
All current energy sources have drawbacks and damage the environment. Our problems are based upon over population. Reduce the population and the problems start to disappear.
Some people argue this is inhumane, such as criticism of China's one child policy.
What is humane about destroying the earth?
#14755932
One Degree wrote:Actively encourage people to have fewer children and pollution would not be a problem from any energy source.
All current energy sources have drawbacks and damage the environment. Our problems are based upon over population. Reduce the population and the problems start to disappear.
Some people argue this is inhumane, such as criticism of China's one child policy.
What is humane about destroying the earth?

Leaving aside ethical concerns, this might sound good in theory but who is going to enforce it and how if it involves foreign countries? This seems even more unrealistic than the voluntary consensus on CO2 emission that nobody can enforce either.

I also agree with @Red Rackham that UK energy policy has been for the most part awful.
#14756001
If the West had hailed China for it's policy, then enforcement would not have been necessary. All advanced nations have already lowered their birth rates and then criticize China for doing what their own people did voluntarily. The West, with it's usual misguided morality, missed the chance to encourage the rest of the world to follow China's example. It is a popular concept with individuals. It is only capitalism that demands constant population growth.
#14756066
Most of the big families live in the developing world. Most of the problems caused by pollution are caused by the developed world. Overpopulation is not the problem. The huge amount of consumption by the first world is the problem.


You are suggesting we sacrifice our living standards for more people to exist. To what purpose? Reducing the population of the Earth allows us to increase the lifestyle of everyone. Sustainable quality of life should be our goal, not quantity of humans.

The least developed countries are the most dependent upon coal. China is developing, but still the worse polluter and has a population of 1 billion. Reduction of their population would have a dramatic effect on pollution.
#14756078
One Degree wrote:You are suggesting we sacrifice our living standards for more people to exist.


Not really, no.

You have this habit of assuming certain arguments on my behalf that are not necessarily implied by my claims.

Most of the "sacrifices" we would make are no big deal. We do not need a huge SUV for each member of the family. We do not need yet another pair of plastic salad tongs from China. We do not need a huge suburban mansion for two people.

We could easily enjoy a life of high standard and at the same time drastically reduce our pollution.

To what purpose? Reducing the population of the Earth allows us to increase the lifestyle of everyone. Sustainable quality of life should be our goal, not quantity of humans.


You can do that in your community, but don't tell me to stop having kids because of your ideology.

The least developed countries are the most dependent upon coal. China is developing, but still the worse polluter and has a population of 1 billion. Reduction of their population would have a dramatic effect on pollution.


Per capita, the developed world is far worse.

The argument that we should do nothing about pollution because of China is mere deflection. It doesn't absolve us of the degradation we are causing.
#14756085
Not really, no.

You have this habit of assuming certain arguments on my behalf that are not necessarily implied by my claims.

Most of the "sacrifices" we would make are no big deal. We do not need a huge SUV for each member of the family. We do not need yet another pair of plastic salad tongs from China. We do not need a huge suburban mansion for two people.

We could easily enjoy a life of high standard and at the same time drastically reduce our pollution.

These things would have no impact on pollution. Power plants, cargo ships, military, trains, and semis are major polluters and are all increased by population increases. You can not significantly impact the environment without reducing population.

You can do that in your community, but don't tell me to stop having kids because of your ideology.

I would never dream of it. The Western world does a great job voluntarily without such demands. Only immigration destroys their efforts.



Per capita, the developed world is far worse.

I agree.
The argument that we should do nothing about pollution because of China is mere deflection. It doesn't absolve us of the degradation we are causing.

I never suggested this. A decrease in population anywhere will decrease pollution because of a reduction in transportation and infrastructure which are the major polluters.
#14756120
One Degree wrote:These things would have no impact on pollution. Power plants,


Nuclear, hydro, wind. All of these are more efficient when you also take into account the cost of cleaning up pollution.

cargo ships,


...which would be greatly reduced by reducing the quantity of unnecessary crap we buy from overseas; i.e. the plastic salad tongs I used as an example.

military,


You can greatly reduce the military without affecting quality of life.

trains,


Electric trains are a proven technology.

and semis


These can also be reduced greatly by not buying so much crap and by using electric trains for necessities.

are major polluters and are all increased by population increases. You can not significantly impact the environment without reducing population.


I just mentioned many ways in which we can.

I would never dream of it. The Western world does a great job voluntarily without such demands. Only immigration destroys their efforts.


It is also unfeasible to enforce.

I agree.

I never suggested this. A decrease in population anywhere will decrease pollution because of a reduction in transportation and infrastructure which are the major polluters.


...unless per capita usage increases enough to offset lower numbers, such as in the developed world.
#14756124
...unless per capita usage increases enough to offset lower numbers, such as in the developed world.


So, you agree the worst thing for pollution would be to allow developed countries to increase their numbers, such as through immigration.

Yep, and whatever they do, the Communists are more[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Deutsche Bank is Mr. Trump’s primary lender after […]

Capital Punishment

I wonder why you felt the need to inject race in[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

What a crock of liberal minority appeasing left wi[…]