23 ms·

India has launched a 648MW solar power plant

294 points by Osiris30 10y ago

ccozan 10y ago
Can anyone compute the ecological footprint of this power plant? Just curious how much raw material( water, etc, even waste ) went into building all that panels and the auxiliar stuff.
- mgiannopoulos 10y ago
  It should "pay it back" at some point, shouldn't it? There is an ecological construction cost in any kind of power plant.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
    Not necessarily. If maintenance costs outweigh the savings (compared to "clean" coal or something, let alone sources that are even remotely close to clean like nuclear) then it never will. Regardless, this is still pretty awesome and my (limited) understanding of India suggests that it has the kind of climate that would really let this shine (pun intended).
    - aluhut 10y ago
      Is nuclear considered "clean" as long as you have enough holes for the nuclear waste?
      - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
        Take a gander at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing Technology has advanced a lot since Homer got out of the lead suit. A lot of nations just refuse to use said technology out of fears that there will be another Chernobyl (human error and poor maintenance) or Fukishima. Fukishima is a very real danger, but partially avoidable through contained systems [0] and a comparable threat for other power plant models) Yes, you will eventually have some waste. But nowhere near as much as we used to. And there have been quite a few studies (and "common sense") to indicate that greenhouse gas emissions are MUCH MUCH lower [1] than most of the alternatives. So it is a tradeoff. Obviously solar/wind/geothermal/hydro [2] are the best choices where feasible. But if you can't use those reliably in a manner that is able to provide required energy at all hours of the day (including peak usage), you are stuck with dirty approaches. And of those, nuclear is pretty gosh darned "clean". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_autonomous_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_... [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-e... [2] Hydro actually tends to cause a lot of problems for wildlife and the like. Not aware of any drawbacks for the other three though
        aluhut 10y ago
        Nuclear reprocessing is an economical disaster. It's not worth it and I don't even have to look this up anywhere. You know why? I'm from Germany and since our Chancellor closed down this disastrous technology, those who were running it try to get rid of that shiny radioactive material and they can't (instead they are creating sub companies who's products are green energy). Now Germany and me will have to pay for it to disappear. Maybe France will take it. With their old and crappy plants some more leakage from the processing plants won't show. Or maybe we can sell it to China. At some point they may pay a lot for it. Or we just wait for Trump to start a new cold war. I've read this stuff is good for weapons. Unfortunately our Country is not as big as the US or Russia so the usual dig and forget won't work. Wow...I mean..this technology was good at some point in our history for different reasons. But that point has passed. We did not come up with good solutions for the plants or the waste. I don't see any reason to INVEST in this. It's like investing in coal again.
        CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
        Just to make sure I am following your understanding that is based solely on politics: Because your government said reprocessing was not allowed, there is now an excess of nuclear material. Ergo, reprocessing is a bad technology Thank you for illustrating my point. The tech is sound. Getting past the fearmongers and actually using it is the problem. We have had some ridiculously safe reactors for decades, we just aren't allowed to build or use them anywhere. We have ways to deal with waste, but we aren't allowed to do it... and then get yelled at for having excess waste. Seriously. Put your prejudices and patriotism at the door and actually do some research on the subject. Yes, a lot of this hasn't been tested at scale (in large part because politicians and Activists won't let anyone) but they have been researched VERY heavily, tested at varying scales, and are a more viable alternative than anything else right now. But because there is a "nuclear" in the name, it is inherently evil and wrong.
        aluhut 10y ago
        No, they didn't say it's not allowed. There are environmental laws here. Real ones, that prevent something like a reprocessing plant because those things do still leak radioactive waste into the environment. Especially through water. And I'm pretty sure you know that since you've read so much about it. > We have had some ridiculously safe reactors for decades, we just aren't allowed to build or use them anywhere. Why should you? The same thing has been said about those xx years old ones who threaten our lives east and west of Germany while we have so much green energy that we have to sell it. > We have ways to deal with waste, but we aren't allowed to do it... Yeah but those ways suck. They are bad for the environment and they cost a hell lot of money those who ran the plants don't want to pay for: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kosten-atommuell-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kosten-atommuell-101.html > Seriously. Put your prejudices and patriotism at the door and actually do some research on the subject. I got the fallout of Tszarnobyl in east Poland as a child and Fukushima on a trip in Tokyo. Spare your idiotic propaganda about how safe this last century technology is supposed to be. It's dead and the sooner the nations who still base their electricity output on it recognize this, the better for the whole humankind.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Compared to the eco footprint of a nuclear plant with fuel and waste handling, or coal plant with associated mining and transport? I'd be astonished if it wasn't clearly the least impactful. What the world needs is easier ability to compare true impact of building, and running our stuff. Without all the hidden externalities and hidden subsidies.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > Compared to the eco footprint of a nuclear plant with fuel and waste handling, Nuclear is a close third with waste included for ecological foot print including waste. Its a $$$ game that Nuclear losses. http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Nuclear-Power-Plants-Are-Compact,-Efficient-and-Re http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Nuclear-Pow... (Has a strong bias towards nuclear) Nature article shows its the money and lead time that kills nuclear. "Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing." (2008) And now the cheap cost of solar and other alternative energy shows that it makes financially cense to use renewable over traditional carbon fuels. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99...
    - hueving 10y ago
      What is your replacement for baseline load? Solar alone isn't enough and the cost changes if you need battery infrastructure to handle dark times. Nuclear power doesn't stop when the weather changes.
      - baldfat 10y ago
        I think the cost for nuclear and lead time will have gas powered and coal plants for dark times. The issue is the cost for these dark time power will go up. I have a friend who is a Wheelwright and he states that backup plants that only come online 3 days a month makes more money then if it was running 100% of the time. http://energypost.eu/battery-storage-will-take-backup-power-plants/ http://energypost.eu/battery-storage-will-take-backup-power-... In the next 10 years batteries will have a larger role and about 25% of coal power plants will be retired by 2020 in US and Europe.
- lhl 10y ago
  I have a bit of an armchair interest, although by no means am I an industry expert. The term I started off searching for was for "embodied energy" cost and "eroi" (energy return on investment). Here's one of the top results of a search I just did, which seems like a good start for those interested: A Comparative Analysis of Energy Costs of Photovoltaic, Solar Thermal, and Wind Electricity Generation Technologies [1] - this is a 2013 meta-analysis of life-cycle assessments (LCA) and life-cycle energy costs (LCEC) in kWhe/Wp and kWhe/We - these are split into both capex and opex. Here's another study from 2012, The Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) of Photovoltaics: Methodology and Comparisons with Fossil Fuel Life Cycles [2] that gives a chart w/ comparison to coal & oil energy - looks like plants w/ all PV types have better EROI than oil-fired electricity, and the best performing PV has EROI of about 12, on par w/ the worst performing coal-fired electricity (an EROI of 1 is breakeven btw). Ah, just find this 2015 review: Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis [3] which actually might be the best paper I've seen yet. It looks like EROI for solar is actually growing tremendously as volume/learning rate advancements are applied. If I'm reading the chart correctly, EPBT (energy payback time) for mono-Si is approaching 2 years (the time of which has been decreasing with each newer study) as more panels/plants are getting built. (Interesting, this paper [4] from 2000 seems to correctly project payback times: "At present the energy payback time for PV systems is in the range 8 to 11 years, compared with typical system lifetimes of around 30 years. About 60% of the embodied energy is due to the silicon wafers. As the PV industry reduces production costs and moves to the use of thin film solar cells the energy payback time will decline to about two years.") [1] PDF: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/3/2/325/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/3/2/325/pdf [2] PDF: http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2... [3] PDF: http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~relling2/PDF/pubs/life_cycle_assesment_ellingson_apul_(2015)_ren_and_sustain._energy_revs.pdf http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~relling2/PDF/pubs/life_cycl... [4] http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm
anexprogrammer 10y ago
My biggest hope on climate is India, China and Africa are soon in a position to put pressure on the West for how little we're doing. As prices continue to drop there'll be less and less incentive for them to continue installing polluting power.
- deskamess 10y ago
  The West is very good at pointing to the equation that benefits them while sidelining the historical path that was taken to get here. The narrative and finger pointing is strongest if the focus is on per-country impact versus per-person impact. Very "electoral college-ish", and inappropriate when the core underlying problem has no borders. The choice of words and numbers have made it plausible for an 'us' versus 'them' scenario. You do have to give credit to the wing of the PR machine that runs this so effectively. Going forward, controlling the narrative, and the associated "baseline" on geopolitical issues is going to be huge. Western countries have an unparalleled advantage thanks to the English and other Euro-languages which can reach a large portion of the globe.
  - adrianN 10y ago
    The historical path is completely irrelevant. We need to stop producing CO2 (completely stop) within the next 30+-30 years if we want to limit global warming to ~2 degrees. The fact that "first world" countries have historically polluted much more during their development doesn't change that. We have to stop pointing fingers and start massively investing in change.
    - drcross 10y ago
      There's no way avoid finger pointing. There are tens of millions of people without electricity for their basic needs (think warming a babies milk or light for security), yet there are people in the west dumping a single use coffee cup (unheard of in poorer nations). People cannot continue to drive 5 liter vehicles for fashionable reasons and still expect poorer nations to live in abject poverty. What i'm saying is that finger pointing is exactly what we need to do.
gkafkg8y8 10y ago
> By 2022, India aims to power 60 million homes by harnessing 100 gigawatts of solar energy. That could power 82 Doc Brown DeLorean time machines[1]. In comparison, the 2013 estimate for world energy consumption was 12.3 terawatts[2], which would power 10165 Doc Brown DeLorean time machines. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine [2]: http://www.webcitation.org/6fzEHL2Bz http://www.webcitation.org/6fzEHL2Bz
- contingencies 10y ago
  In general, Indian homes use very little power. A fan or open windows are likely to replace central heating/aircon, a bicycle or public transport a car, a radio a television, and locally sourced wood-fired stoves electricity and gas in the kitchen. Your global 'energy consumption' figure probably includes stupid things like American industrial agriculture, Dubai, the US military, people's calories from food, ~free geothermal power in volcanic zones, established hydropower, etc.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    > Dubai The UAE as a whole only consumes 15% more energy per capita than the US. Given how much smaller it's population is (around the size of NYC), it seems unfair to include it in the list. I assume that number also includes how much energy is needed to produce oil, which is exported worldwide. The country is heavily investing in renewables, Dubai wants to supply 7% of power by solar from 2020, and 75% by 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... (sort 2013 by capita) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Arab...
    - contingencies 10y ago
      OK so good point - as usual looking at real numbers is far more informative... Qatar is way worse, yadda yadda. That said, the US is a pretty bad yardstick. Another way to look at it would be to say that the average UAE citizen uses 250% of what an Iranian uses, or the average Qatar citizen uses 650% of what an Iranian uses, despite a (very) broadly similar climate and self-sufficient energy production. The US citizen uses 11x more than an Indian, who is only slightly ahead of a North Korean (despite a horrific climate), both of whom are ~3x more than a Bengali.
mirekrusin 10y ago
Topaz, California - 580 MW - cost $2.5 billion - built in 2 years Tamil Nadu, India - 648 MW - cost $677 mln - built in 8 months ...wait, what?
- Roritharr 10y ago
  I'd guess much of it is labour and land cost.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It's 9.5 square miles. 6080 acres. Even in California scrub land isn't going to cost $10,000 an acre, so the land costs of the US project shouldn't exceed $100 million. (for example, here's a much larger area in the same county for $35 million: http://www.landwatch.com/San-Luis-Obispo-County-California-Farms-and-Ranches-for-sale/pid/25024562 http://www.landwatch.com/San-Luis-Obispo-County-California-F... ) edit: tack on another couple hundred million for power line easements and you still haven't explained all that much of the cost difference. And I really doubt that they spent anywhere near $300 million on land and easements.
  - legulere 10y ago
    Also falling prices for photovoltaics probably, the topaz farm was completed two years ago.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Extrapolating a few graphs I found via a quick google search, you don't get a 5x drop in costs due to cheaper solar panels. http://solarcellcentral.com/images/module_prices.jpg http://solarcellcentral.com/images/module_prices.jpg http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg605_500_350.jpg http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg605_500_350.jpg http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/12/solar-pv-cost-trend.png http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/12/solar-pv-c...
  - philipkglass 10y ago
    In 2015 in the US, installation labor accounted for only 11% of the cost for utility scale fixed tilt PV farms like this one ($0.19 out of $1.77 per watt project costs): http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf Land costs were less than 2% ($0.03 per watt).
pvsukale3 10y ago
Here is the documentary on this project made by National Geographic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM-0lrIxCnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM-0lrIxCnE
- agumonkey 10y ago
  And for Letterman's sad fans, some video related to India power management https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnaBB7lTyjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnaBB7lTyjk
mpg33 10y ago
Still feel adding solar to rooftops is better - just in terms of space utilized - than these giant solar farms..
- hahla 10y ago
  That wouldn't really work in India, as rooftops are flat and utilized as living space.
  - sandos 10y ago
    You actually see an example of just that in this video! They built the panels as an extra roof above the rooftop, giving a shaded area for some gardening.
- audunw 10y ago
  Not really, there is plenty of land which is not suitable for other things. The solar power to cover all the worlds need could fit in a large desert. And it's much cheaper and easier to install a ton of panels at once, then one and one on rooftops with varying size and design. It' also easier and cheaper to keep them clean. But one does not rule out the other. The world should probably invest massively in both kinds of solar, since solar at rooftops with battery storage can help reduce the burden on the grid (especially when people start to need electricity to charge cars).
- dx034 10y ago
  Large parts of both India and China are covered by deserts where you can build huge wind farm and photo-voltaic capacity without disturbing anyone. Centralised areas make more sense in terms of maintenance, so building one plant per village could make much more sense than putting everything on roof tops
  - fooker 10y ago
    India has about 1/10th the desert area as the US.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
yummyfajitas 10y ago
It's true, in the US we have protectionism for white people laws ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act ) still on the books which radically drive up labor costs. We have union work rules that slow down production and drive up costs further. This is what I'm referring to with the term "social technology". India has the ability to organize men and get the job done, the US does not.
- denzil_correa 10y ago
  > It's true, in the US we have protectionism for white people laws What do you mean by white people laws?
  - shoo 10y ago
    i suspect it is "(protectionism for white people) laws", not "protectionism for (white people laws)". see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act#Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act#Racism
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    In the olden days of semi-free markets, some government contractors were hiring black people since they were cheaper than white people and just as effective. The work got done for cheap, but just think of the social consequences! Senators Davis and Bacon wanted to prevent this kind of race to the bottom, so they passed the Davis Bacon act. Davis Bacon is still on the books and massively drives up the cost of many projects.
    - denzil_correa 10y ago
      > Davis Bacon is still on the books and massively drives up the cost of many projects. Currently, is it discriminatory? It seems to me like a min. wage for work concept. I don't see anything here about "getting the job done".
      - 10y ago
kumarski 10y ago
A lot of news coming out of India is hype. I promise you that at night we burn 50% ash - lignite coal to compensate for downticks in solar and upticks in consumption. For the next few years we'll be opening a new coal plant each month. To give you an idea of how far we are behind as an energy grid. The US & China each Produce about 4000 Terawatt Hours Per a Year. India is somewhere in the ~1500 Terawatt hours per a year. To make up the difference we're going to burn a ton of coal, the worst kind of coal.
- bandrami 10y ago
  On the plus side, people can burn the old ₹1000s now instead...
  - jjawssd 10y ago
    Is there no unofficial market for it?
    - bandrami 10y ago
      I haven't been back since demonetization, and I'm kind of curious to learn the answer to your question too...
    - virtuabhi 10y ago
      If notes are not legal and you do not want to pay penalty then you can sell them to scrap dealer. The current rate is Rs 8/kg.
      - jjawssd 10y ago
        I am not satisfied with this answer. I want to know if there is a real black market for these notes.
        bandrami 10y ago
        That would essentially be a betting market on whether Modi is going to back down on this or not. I'd assume there is some dude in Dongri who will buy them at a discount in hope of hitting it big, but I haven't heard of an actual "black market" in the normal sense of that word, because most people seem to think the government's going to stick with it.
TekMol 10y ago
If we would collect all energy that get's to planet earth via light, how much of the total energy available to us would that be? Compared to say converting all mass of earth into energy somehow. According to Wolfram Alpha, 1kg of mass contains about 10^17 joule. Let's see how much Kg earth has... about 10^25. So earth contains about 10^42 Joule? According to a quick googling around, the sunlight that reaches us contains about 10^20 Joules per day. So hey, if we burn up everything we can outdo the sun for 10^19 years!
- csomar 10y ago
  Interesting comment. All the talk about renewable energy forget the fact that the Sun energy is equivalent to burning the earth for energy. Except it's much less efficient.
  - eklavya 10y ago
    I couldn't understand, can you please explain in detail?
    - csomar 10y ago
      The Sun is burning itself in order to create the light that citizens of earth are then collecting a portion of to generate electricity. That's not much different than burning oil or coal here; except that it's happening in earth and at exponentially smaller scale.
- yongjik 10y ago
  "Transforming matter to energy" != "burning". According to Wikipedia, you can get about 24-35 MJ/kg by burning coal, which is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what you can get by magically transforming matter to energy. (In other words, transforming one kg of matter to energy releases 9*10^16 J of energy, equivalent to burning 2.6 million ton of coal.) As far as I know, the most physically realistic way of transforming matter to energy involves throwing it into a black hole and capturing the incoming radiation. So... I'll bet it won't be commercially available any time soon.
Element_ 10y ago
This article gives some images that show the scale: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/india-unveils-world-largest-solar-power-plant-161129101022044.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/india-unveils-world-la...
titomc 10y ago
Kerala, India -- The world's first solar airport no longer pays for electricity http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/technology/india-cochin-solar-powered-airport http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/technology/india-cochin-sola... USA -- whaat ?
_FKS_ 10y ago
While by no means I mean to minimize this announcement, if the press was publishing an article every time a Coal plant opens in India, we would have an article every few days or so on HN. Just to put things into perspective: - A plant like Topaz, California generates ~1100 GWh/year. [3] - "India was the third top electricity producer in the world 1272 TWh in FY 20014-15" [1] - "India was the third top coal producer in 2015 with 283.9 Mtoe (7.4% global share)." [1] - "Nearly 80% of total electricity generated (utility and captive) in India is from coal." [1] So we're about at 3 orders or magnitude, in terms of generated electricity, between what you currently get from coal plants and this new Tamil Nadu plant. While the penetration rate of renewables is faster than coal [2], the same thing cannot be said of generated capacity. Globally an unit of power from renewables has a far lower EROI compared to Coal [4]. So I support what kumarski said below, this is much of a hype. If India wants to be serious about climate change, they should at least stop building Coal plants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_India [2] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables- https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables- Are-Outpacing-Coal-in-India [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm [4] http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
- sremani 10y ago
  The electricity penetration and per-capita usage in India is abysmal. If Quality of Life for Indians is a concern (which it rightfully should be), India should open more coal plants. US and Europe's path to prosperity went through Coal and to demand Indians and Chinese sacrifice while not making any thing substantial themselves (i.e. in US and Europe) is hypocrisy. Indian population : 16% of world pop US population : 5% of world pop Just one more stat for perspective.
  - wbl 10y ago
    The PPM250 levels in Dehli are worse than Beijing. The Indian government needs to regulate air quality or deal with a generation suffocated by its failures beyond the remains of the license Raj.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
I'm not sure devoting 10 sq km for a 648 MW plant is the most efficient use of land. A nuclear or coal fired plant of similar or even larger capacity will take up much less space. This is especially problematic as India and especially the state of Tamil Nadu is one of the densest places on earth.
- govg 10y ago
  That's a pretty bad argument to make. I'm not sure why you call the state of TN "one of the densest places on earth", it has a lot of rural farmland and the only population concentrations are in the major cities. It has roughly the area of Florida, not really the largest of states but pretty large in the country. The power-plant is in one of the more rural parts of the state, and the land it uses probably was useless barren land anyway.
  - maverick_iceman 10y ago
    600/sq km is pretty dense IMO. It's larger than India's overall population density (382/sq km). Also you seem to be tragically unaware that land is often a scarce resource for infrastructure development in India. Taking farmland under eminent domain is an extremely emotive and political issue. Read up on the troubles of the present government to liberalize the land acquisition law.
    - govg 10y ago
      I think you're conflating two different issues here, the plant is in an area which is pretty much barren land, far from any major city, and has only a small town near it. The troubles governments face when acquiring land for infrastructure is usually for things like metro rail through congested cities, or building airports on the suburbs of major cities and the like. The issue of it being densely populated land would have been valid if this was near some major city and plant actively hampered development. There probably is no such issue now, the plant provides cleaner energy than the alternative (coal), and is a huge step forward towards reducing the country's need for non-renewable sources.

294 points by Osiris30 10y ago

Can anyone compute the ecological footprint of this power plant? Just curious how much raw material( water, etc, even waste ) went into building all that panels and the auxiliar stuff.

mgiannopoulos 10y ago
It should "pay it back" at some point, shouldn't it? There is an ecological construction cost in any kind of power plant.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
  Not necessarily. If maintenance costs outweigh the savings (compared to "clean" coal or something, let alone sources that are even remotely close to clean like nuclear) then it never will. Regardless, this is still pretty awesome and my (limited) understanding of India suggests that it has the kind of climate that would really let this shine (pun intended).
  - aluhut 10y ago
    Is nuclear considered "clean" as long as you have enough holes for the nuclear waste?
    - CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
      Take a gander at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing Technology has advanced a lot since Homer got out of the lead suit. A lot of nations just refuse to use said technology out of fears that there will be another Chernobyl (human error and poor maintenance) or Fukishima. Fukishima is a very real danger, but partially avoidable through contained systems [0] and a comparable threat for other power plant models) Yes, you will eventually have some waste. But nowhere near as much as we used to. And there have been quite a few studies (and "common sense") to indicate that greenhouse gas emissions are MUCH MUCH lower [1] than most of the alternatives. So it is a tradeoff. Obviously solar/wind/geothermal/hydro [2] are the best choices where feasible. But if you can't use those reliably in a manner that is able to provide required energy at all hours of the day (including peak usage), you are stuck with dirty approaches. And of those, nuclear is pretty gosh darned "clean". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_autonomous_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small,_sealed,_transportable,_... [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-e... [2] Hydro actually tends to cause a lot of problems for wildlife and the like. Not aware of any drawbacks for the other three though
      - aluhut 10y ago
        Nuclear reprocessing is an economical disaster. It's not worth it and I don't even have to look this up anywhere. You know why? I'm from Germany and since our Chancellor closed down this disastrous technology, those who were running it try to get rid of that shiny radioactive material and they can't (instead they are creating sub companies who's products are green energy). Now Germany and me will have to pay for it to disappear. Maybe France will take it. With their old and crappy plants some more leakage from the processing plants won't show. Or maybe we can sell it to China. At some point they may pay a lot for it. Or we just wait for Trump to start a new cold war. I've read this stuff is good for weapons. Unfortunately our Country is not as big as the US or Russia so the usual dig and forget won't work. Wow...I mean..this technology was good at some point in our history for different reasons. But that point has passed. We did not come up with good solutions for the plants or the waste. I don't see any reason to INVEST in this. It's like investing in coal again.
        CmdrSprinkles 10y ago
        Just to make sure I am following your understanding that is based solely on politics: Because your government said reprocessing was not allowed, there is now an excess of nuclear material. Ergo, reprocessing is a bad technology Thank you for illustrating my point. The tech is sound. Getting past the fearmongers and actually using it is the problem. We have had some ridiculously safe reactors for decades, we just aren't allowed to build or use them anywhere. We have ways to deal with waste, but we aren't allowed to do it... and then get yelled at for having excess waste. Seriously. Put your prejudices and patriotism at the door and actually do some research on the subject. Yes, a lot of this hasn't been tested at scale (in large part because politicians and Activists won't let anyone) but they have been researched VERY heavily, tested at varying scales, and are a more viable alternative than anything else right now. But because there is a "nuclear" in the name, it is inherently evil and wrong.
        aluhut 10y ago
        No, they didn't say it's not allowed. There are environmental laws here. Real ones, that prevent something like a reprocessing plant because those things do still leak radioactive waste into the environment. Especially through water. And I'm pretty sure you know that since you've read so much about it. > We have had some ridiculously safe reactors for decades, we just aren't allowed to build or use them anywhere. Why should you? The same thing has been said about those xx years old ones who threaten our lives east and west of Germany while we have so much green energy that we have to sell it. > We have ways to deal with waste, but we aren't allowed to do it... Yeah but those ways suck. They are bad for the environment and they cost a hell lot of money those who ran the plants don't want to pay for: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kosten-atommuell-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/kosten-atommuell-101.html > Seriously. Put your prejudices and patriotism at the door and actually do some research on the subject. I got the fallout of Tszarnobyl in east Poland as a child and Fukushima on a trip in Tokyo. Spare your idiotic propaganda about how safe this last century technology is supposed to be. It's dead and the sooner the nations who still base their electricity output on it recognize this, the better for the whole humankind.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Compared to the eco footprint of a nuclear plant with fuel and waste handling, or coal plant with associated mining and transport? I'd be astonished if it wasn't clearly the least impactful. What the world needs is easier ability to compare true impact of building, and running our stuff. Without all the hidden externalities and hidden subsidies.
- baldfat 10y ago
  > Compared to the eco footprint of a nuclear plant with fuel and waste handling, Nuclear is a close third with waste included for ecological foot print including waste. Its a $$$ game that Nuclear losses. http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Nuclear-Power-Plants-Are-Compact,-Efficient-and-Re http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Nuclear-Pow... (Has a strong bias towards nuclear) Nature article shows its the money and lead time that kills nuclear. "Add to that the high costs and long lead times for building a nuclear plant about $3 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, with planning, licensing and construction times of about 10 years and nuclear power is even less appealing." (2008) And now the cheap cost of solar and other alternative energy shows that it makes financially cense to use renewable over traditional carbon fuels. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99.html http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0810/full/climate.2008.99...
  - hueving 10y ago
    What is your replacement for baseline load? Solar alone isn't enough and the cost changes if you need battery infrastructure to handle dark times. Nuclear power doesn't stop when the weather changes.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      I think the cost for nuclear and lead time will have gas powered and coal plants for dark times. The issue is the cost for these dark time power will go up. I have a friend who is a Wheelwright and he states that backup plants that only come online 3 days a month makes more money then if it was running 100% of the time. http://energypost.eu/battery-storage-will-take-backup-power-plants/ http://energypost.eu/battery-storage-will-take-backup-power-... In the next 10 years batteries will have a larger role and about 25% of coal power plants will be retired by 2020 in US and Europe.
lhl 10y ago
I have a bit of an armchair interest, although by no means am I an industry expert. The term I started off searching for was for "embodied energy" cost and "eroi" (energy return on investment). Here's one of the top results of a search I just did, which seems like a good start for those interested: A Comparative Analysis of Energy Costs of Photovoltaic, Solar Thermal, and Wind Electricity Generation Technologies [1] - this is a 2013 meta-analysis of life-cycle assessments (LCA) and life-cycle energy costs (LCEC) in kWhe/Wp and kWhe/We - these are split into both capex and opex. Here's another study from 2012, The Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) of Photovoltaics: Methodology and Comparisons with Fossil Fuel Life Cycles [2] that gives a chart w/ comparison to coal & oil energy - looks like plants w/ all PV types have better EROI than oil-fired electricity, and the best performing PV has EROI of about 12, on par w/ the worst performing coal-fired electricity (an EROI of 1 is breakeven btw). Ah, just find this 2015 review: Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis [3] which actually might be the best paper I've seen yet. It looks like EROI for solar is actually growing tremendously as volume/learning rate advancements are applied. If I'm reading the chart correctly, EPBT (energy payback time) for mono-Si is approaching 2 years (the time of which has been decreasing with each newer study) as more panels/plants are getting built. (Interesting, this paper [4] from 2000 seems to correctly project payback times: "At present the energy payback time for PV systems is in the range 8 to 11 years, compared with typical system lifetimes of around 30 years. About 60% of the embodied energy is due to the silicon wafers. As the PV industry reduces production costs and moves to the use of thin film solar cells the energy payback time will decline to about two years.") [1] PDF: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/3/2/325/pdf http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/3/2/325/pdf [2] PDF: http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2... [3] PDF: http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~relling2/PDF/pubs/life_cycle_assesment_ellingson_apul_(2015)_ren_and_sustain._energy_revs.pdf http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~relling2/PDF/pubs/life_cycl... [4] http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm http://www.ecotopia.com/apollo2/pvepbtoz.htm

anexprogrammer 10y ago

My biggest hope on climate is India, China and Africa are soon in a position to put pressure on the West for how little we're doing. As prices continue to drop there'll be less and less incentive for them to continue installing polluting power.

deskamess 10y ago
The West is very good at pointing to the equation that benefits them while sidelining the historical path that was taken to get here. The narrative and finger pointing is strongest if the focus is on per-country impact versus per-person impact. Very "electoral college-ish", and inappropriate when the core underlying problem has no borders. The choice of words and numbers have made it plausible for an 'us' versus 'them' scenario. You do have to give credit to the wing of the PR machine that runs this so effectively. Going forward, controlling the narrative, and the associated "baseline" on geopolitical issues is going to be huge. Western countries have an unparalleled advantage thanks to the English and other Euro-languages which can reach a large portion of the globe.
- adrianN 10y ago
  The historical path is completely irrelevant. We need to stop producing CO2 (completely stop) within the next 30+-30 years if we want to limit global warming to ~2 degrees. The fact that "first world" countries have historically polluted much more during their development doesn't change that. We have to stop pointing fingers and start massively investing in change.
  - drcross 10y ago
    There's no way avoid finger pointing. There are tens of millions of people without electricity for their basic needs (think warming a babies milk or light for security), yet there are people in the west dumping a single use coffee cup (unheard of in poorer nations). People cannot continue to drive 5 liter vehicles for fashionable reasons and still expect poorer nations to live in abject poverty. What i'm saying is that finger pointing is exactly what we need to do.

gkafkg8y8 10y ago

> By 2022, India aims to power 60 million homes by harnessing 100 gigawatts of solar energy. That could power 82 Doc Brown DeLorean time machines[1]. In comparison, the 2013 estimate for world energy consumption was 12.3 terawatts[2], which would power 10165 Doc Brown DeLorean time machines. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine [2]: http://www.webcitation.org/6fzEHL2Bz http://www.webcitation.org/6fzEHL2Bz

contingencies 10y ago
In general, Indian homes use very little power. A fan or open windows are likely to replace central heating/aircon, a bicycle or public transport a car, a radio a television, and locally sourced wood-fired stoves electricity and gas in the kitchen. Your global 'energy consumption' figure probably includes stupid things like American industrial agriculture, Dubai, the US military, people's calories from food, ~free geothermal power in volcanic zones, established hydropower, etc.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  > Dubai The UAE as a whole only consumes 15% more energy per capita than the US. Given how much smaller it's population is (around the size of NYC), it seems unfair to include it in the list. I assume that number also includes how much energy is needed to produce oil, which is exported worldwide. The country is heavily investing in renewables, Dubai wants to supply 7% of power by solar from 2020, and 75% by 2050. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co... (sort 2013 by capita) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_Arab...
  - contingencies 10y ago
    OK so good point - as usual looking at real numbers is far more informative... Qatar is way worse, yadda yadda. That said, the US is a pretty bad yardstick. Another way to look at it would be to say that the average UAE citizen uses 250% of what an Iranian uses, or the average Qatar citizen uses 650% of what an Iranian uses, despite a (very) broadly similar climate and self-sufficient energy production. The US citizen uses 11x more than an Indian, who is only slightly ahead of a North Korean (despite a horrific climate), both of whom are ~3x more than a Bengali.

mirekrusin 10y ago

Topaz, California - 580 MW - cost $2.5 billion - built in 2 years Tamil Nadu, India - 648 MW - cost $677 mln - built in 8 months ...wait, what?

Roritharr 10y ago
I'd guess much of it is labour and land cost.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It's 9.5 square miles. 6080 acres. Even in California scrub land isn't going to cost $10,000 an acre, so the land costs of the US project shouldn't exceed $100 million. (for example, here's a much larger area in the same county for $35 million: http://www.landwatch.com/San-Luis-Obispo-County-California-Farms-and-Ranches-for-sale/pid/25024562 http://www.landwatch.com/San-Luis-Obispo-County-California-F... ) edit: tack on another couple hundred million for power line easements and you still haven't explained all that much of the cost difference. And I really doubt that they spent anywhere near $300 million on land and easements.
- legulere 10y ago
  Also falling prices for photovoltaics probably, the topaz farm was completed two years ago.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Extrapolating a few graphs I found via a quick google search, you don't get a 5x drop in costs due to cheaper solar panels. http://solarcellcentral.com/images/module_prices.jpg http://solarcellcentral.com/images/module_prices.jpg http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg605_500_350.jpg http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg605_500_350.jpg http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/12/solar-pv-cost-trend.png http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/12/solar-pv-c...
- philipkglass 10y ago
  In 2015 in the US, installation labor accounted for only 11% of the cost for utility scale fixed tilt PV farms like this one ($0.19 out of $1.77 per watt project costs): http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf Land costs were less than 2% ($0.03 per watt).

pvsukale3 10y ago

Here is the documentary on this project made by National Geographic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM-0lrIxCnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM-0lrIxCnE

agumonkey 10y ago
And for Letterman's sad fans, some video related to India power management https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnaBB7lTyjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnaBB7lTyjk

mpg33 10y ago

Still feel adding solar to rooftops is better - just in terms of space utilized - than these giant solar farms..

hahla 10y ago
That wouldn't really work in India, as rooftops are flat and utilized as living space.
- sandos 10y ago
  You actually see an example of just that in this video! They built the panels as an extra roof above the rooftop, giving a shaded area for some gardening.
audunw 10y ago
Not really, there is plenty of land which is not suitable for other things. The solar power to cover all the worlds need could fit in a large desert. And it's much cheaper and easier to install a ton of panels at once, then one and one on rooftops with varying size and design. It' also easier and cheaper to keep them clean. But one does not rule out the other. The world should probably invest massively in both kinds of solar, since solar at rooftops with battery storage can help reduce the burden on the grid (especially when people start to need electricity to charge cars).
dx034 10y ago
Large parts of both India and China are covered by deserts where you can build huge wind farm and photo-voltaic capacity without disturbing anyone. Centralised areas make more sense in terms of maintenance, so building one plant per village could make much more sense than putting everything on roof tops
- fooker 10y ago
  India has about 1/10th the desert area as the US.
CydeWeys 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

It's true, in the US we have protectionism for white people laws ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act ) still on the books which radically drive up labor costs. We have union work rules that slow down production and drive up costs further. This is what I'm referring to with the term "social technology". India has the ability to organize men and get the job done, the US does not.

denzil_correa 10y ago
> It's true, in the US we have protectionism for white people laws What do you mean by white people laws?
- shoo 10y ago
  i suspect it is "(protectionism for white people) laws", not "protectionism for (white people laws)". see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act#Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act#Racism
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  In the olden days of semi-free markets, some government contractors were hiring black people since they were cheaper than white people and just as effective. The work got done for cheap, but just think of the social consequences! Senators Davis and Bacon wanted to prevent this kind of race to the bottom, so they passed the Davis Bacon act. Davis Bacon is still on the books and massively drives up the cost of many projects.
  - denzil_correa 10y ago
    > Davis Bacon is still on the books and massively drives up the cost of many projects. Currently, is it discriminatory? It seems to me like a min. wage for work concept. I don't see anything here about "getting the job done".
    - 10y ago

kumarski 10y ago

A lot of news coming out of India is hype. I promise you that at night we burn 50% ash - lignite coal to compensate for downticks in solar and upticks in consumption. For the next few years we'll be opening a new coal plant each month. To give you an idea of how far we are behind as an energy grid. The US & China each Produce about 4000 Terawatt Hours Per a Year. India is somewhere in the ~1500 Terawatt hours per a year. To make up the difference we're going to burn a ton of coal, the worst kind of coal.

bandrami 10y ago
On the plus side, people can burn the old ₹1000s now instead...
- jjawssd 10y ago
  Is there no unofficial market for it?
  - bandrami 10y ago
    I haven't been back since demonetization, and I'm kind of curious to learn the answer to your question too...
  - virtuabhi 10y ago
    If notes are not legal and you do not want to pay penalty then you can sell them to scrap dealer. The current rate is Rs 8/kg.
    - jjawssd 10y ago
      I am not satisfied with this answer. I want to know if there is a real black market for these notes.
      - bandrami 10y ago
        That would essentially be a betting market on whether Modi is going to back down on this or not. I'd assume there is some dude in Dongri who will buy them at a discount in hope of hitting it big, but I haven't heard of an actual "black market" in the normal sense of that word, because most people seem to think the government's going to stick with it.

TekMol 10y ago

If we would collect all energy that get's to planet earth via light, how much of the total energy available to us would that be? Compared to say converting all mass of earth into energy somehow. According to Wolfram Alpha, 1kg of mass contains about 10^17 joule. Let's see how much Kg earth has... about 10^25. So earth contains about 10^42 Joule? According to a quick googling around, the sunlight that reaches us contains about 10^20 Joules per day. So hey, if we burn up everything we can outdo the sun for 10^19 years!

csomar 10y ago
Interesting comment. All the talk about renewable energy forget the fact that the Sun energy is equivalent to burning the earth for energy. Except it's much less efficient.
- eklavya 10y ago
  I couldn't understand, can you please explain in detail?
  - csomar 10y ago
    The Sun is burning itself in order to create the light that citizens of earth are then collecting a portion of to generate electricity. That's not much different than burning oil or coal here; except that it's happening in earth and at exponentially smaller scale.
yongjik 10y ago
"Transforming matter to energy" != "burning". According to Wikipedia, you can get about 24-35 MJ/kg by burning coal, which is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of what you can get by magically transforming matter to energy. (In other words, transforming one kg of matter to energy releases 9*10^16 J of energy, equivalent to burning 2.6 million ton of coal.) As far as I know, the most physically realistic way of transforming matter to energy involves throwing it into a black hole and capturing the incoming radiation. So... I'll bet it won't be commercially available any time soon.

Element_ 10y ago

This article gives some images that show the scale: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/india-unveils-world-largest-solar-power-plant-161129101022044.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/india-unveils-world-la...

titomc 10y ago

Kerala, India -- The world's first solar airport no longer pays for electricity http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/technology/india-cochin-solar-powered-airport http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/14/technology/india-cochin-sola... USA -- whaat ?

_FKS_ 10y ago

While by no means I mean to minimize this announcement, if the press was publishing an article every time a Coal plant opens in India, we would have an article every few days or so on HN. Just to put things into perspective: - A plant like Topaz, California generates ~1100 GWh/year. [3] - "India was the third top electricity producer in the world 1272 TWh in FY 20014-15" [1] - "India was the third top coal producer in 2015 with 283.9 Mtoe (7.4% global share)." [1] - "Nearly 80% of total electricity generated (utility and captive) in India is from coal." [1] So we're about at 3 orders or magnitude, in terms of generated electricity, between what you currently get from coal plants and this new Tamil Nadu plant. While the penetration rate of renewables is faster than coal [2], the same thing cannot be said of generated capacity. Globally an unit of power from renewables has a far lower EROI compared to Coal [4]. So I support what kumarski said below, this is much of a hype. If India wants to be serious about climate change, they should at least stop building Coal plants. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_India [2] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables- https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables- Are-Outpacing-Coal-in-India [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm [4] http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

sremani 10y ago
The electricity penetration and per-capita usage in India is abysmal. If Quality of Life for Indians is a concern (which it rightfully should be), India should open more coal plants. US and Europe's path to prosperity went through Coal and to demand Indians and Chinese sacrifice while not making any thing substantial themselves (i.e. in US and Europe) is hypocrisy. Indian population : 16% of world pop US population : 5% of world pop Just one more stat for perspective.
- wbl 10y ago
  The PPM250 levels in Dehli are worse than Beijing. The Indian government needs to regulate air quality or deal with a generation suffocated by its failures beyond the remains of the license Raj.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

I'm not sure devoting 10 sq km for a 648 MW plant is the most efficient use of land. A nuclear or coal fired plant of similar or even larger capacity will take up much less space. This is especially problematic as India and especially the state of Tamil Nadu is one of the densest places on earth.

govg 10y ago
That's a pretty bad argument to make. I'm not sure why you call the state of TN "one of the densest places on earth", it has a lot of rural farmland and the only population concentrations are in the major cities. It has roughly the area of Florida, not really the largest of states but pretty large in the country. The power-plant is in one of the more rural parts of the state, and the land it uses probably was useless barren land anyway.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  600/sq km is pretty dense IMO. It's larger than India's overall population density (382/sq km). Also you seem to be tragically unaware that land is often a scarce resource for infrastructure development in India. Taking farmland under eminent domain is an extremely emotive and political issue. Read up on the troubles of the present government to liberalize the land acquisition law.
  - govg 10y ago
    I think you're conflating two different issues here, the plant is in an area which is pretty much barren land, far from any major city, and has only a small town near it. The troubles governments face when acquiring land for infrastructure is usually for things like metro rail through congested cities, or building airports on the suburbs of major cities and the like. The issue of it being densely populated land would have been valid if this was near some major city and plant actively hampered development. There probably is no such issue now, the plant provides cleaner energy than the alternative (coal), and is a huge step forward towards reducing the country's need for non-renewable sources.