5 ms·

We need more power yesterday. I fully support utilising the cheapest, fastest way to generate. I hate paying for a backup generator, and then a backup UPS to ha

We need more power yesterday. I fully support utilising the cheapest, fastest way to generate. I hate paying for a backup generator, and then a backup UPS to handle the starting time of the generator. If coal is the cheapest, that means it is the best way to create electricity right now. If western countries feel strongly about this, I welcome their $1T funding to build adequate nuclear and renewable power plants in India over the next decade.

technocratius 6y ago
Thanks for sharing your perspective. As somebody living in the west, I wholeheartedly agree. We've known since the 80s our fossil economy is slow-cooking the planet, yet we protest when other countries try to climb out of poverty using the same tools. Indeed, the west should think of ways in leveling the LCOE playing field in the third world through financial and material support.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago
  > yet we protest when other countries try to climb out of poverty using the same tools. I dont like this view, nor think its fair. ~100 years ago todays developed countries didn't have access to anything like the modern knowledge or scientific consensus about climate change as well as alternate technology / products. Even 30 years ago.... And making this 'but you did it' claim seems cherry picking. These countries take full advantage of the beneficial modern knowledge and equipment like computers. If countries want to justify pouting like the industrial revolution because you did too, then get rid of computers and other tech and have the same journey otherwise accept this is a choice you make today and there is no excuse other than you want to and to hell with the climate science. And lets also recognise power generation solar is increasingly cheaper than coal so there is likely vested interest pushing government down this path even if we disregard the moral/historic side first google (so forgive if not the best) but these studies come up all the time: e.g. https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa... tldr: I dont buy this excuse. It sounds fair as a quick one liner but doesnt fly when you consider the detail
  - piokoch 6y ago
    Yes, but you need to face reality. US, Germany can afford spending huge amounts of money for renewable energy, but many countries just can't. Worst, India at least recognized that they can't afford that, but for instance Poland signed European version of a "green deal", which costs are estimated to be 0.4 trillion US dollars (according to Polish gov estimates) up to 1 trillion according to McKinsey Consulting. This is roughly 2-4 times Polish GDP. EU funds will cover about 20% of that sum. Poland will not be able to afford to spend that much money without rising energy prices to the exorbitant level (and because of CO2 certificates they are already the highest in Europe), which means less competitive economy, which means less money in people pocket, which means huge group of electorate angry at democracy and EU. This cannot end well.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      If this results in an increase in the total investment rate there won't be any people left to be angry in Poland.
    - Gustomaximus 6y ago
      > Germany can afford spending huge amounts of money for renewable energy, but many countries just can't. This skips the part where renewable is cheaper.... if a nation can afford a coal power plant, why can they afford the equivalent generation capacity of solar/wind?
  - Xplune13 6y ago
    The thing that enrages me is that these "developed" countries just accuse developing nations of polluting while NOT acknowledging that they did 10x worse before. Those developed nations are not saint and won't ever be yet they act as if they care so much about other nations and environment when they do not. Also, this argument of "get ride of modern equipment and have the same journey" is weak at best. Although I agree that climate change didn't pick up until a decade or so ago, there were already studies conducted in late 1800s and early 1900s. edit: I'm not saying that what India is doing is right. It's just that the comments like the parent comment are laughable in my opinion.
markvdb 6y ago
> If coal is the cheapest, that means it is the best way to create electricity right now. Only it isn't. Not including the negative externalities (too much pollution, too expensive), not excluding them (too expensive).
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Only if you value not getting cancer more than not having electricity.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > too much pollution How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India.
  - trog 6y ago
    > How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India. I would argue: any pollution that isn't factored into the cost of the energy production. If it's not priced in then there's no rational acting in the market, which (for better or worse) is the mechanism that we're using to figure out which energy systems to deploy. Even with that in mind, renewables like solar and wind are already easily cost-competitive with coal in many locations and getting more so every day (by most current measures of levelised cost of energy).
  - DanBC 6y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/19/india-suffers-most-pollution-linked-deaths-in-world-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/19/india-suffers-... > India leads the world in pollution-linked deaths– followed by China and Nigeria – according to a report published on Wednesday that estimated the global impact of contaminants in the air, water and workplace. [...] > India and China led in the number of pollution deaths, with about 2.3 million and 1.8 million respectively, followed by Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan. Air pollution in India is complicated, because there's a mix of industrial and domestic sources. But these numbers feel to me like India urgently needs to do more work to reduce pollution.
zapdrive 6y ago
I recently paid Rs. 60000 (almost $1000) for two UPS to backup my two PCs, a TV/game console, WiFi router. The housing complex where I live already has a backup generator, but the generator takes about a minute to kick in. People living in the Western world will never understand the frustration of having your computer reboot 15 times a day, or getting your game console reset in the middle of a game.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Funny thing is I think millions of diesel gensets and UPSes are actually worse for the environment than just having enough power generation capacity, even if that is coal. Imagine all across the country diesel is burning in every housing complex, lithium or lead acid batteries are discharging in so many homes. All that takes valuable resources, causes pollution in various forms. But all that is disregarded in the blind hatred for coal. We need to satisfy the demand first, as soon as possible. If solar or wind were the most effective source right now, India would have used that for sure. Who wants to pay more than necessary? The fact is that the tech is simply not there yet. In the meantime, why should we suffer?
- shash 6y ago
  Most of that isn't lack of power per se, but T&D problems. Generation is usually enough to meet the demand.
imtringued 6y ago
The west doesn't actually have to fight climate change if we are being pragmatic, we only need to reduce our population fast enough that the remaining land is fertile enough to feed the reduced population. However, India will be screwed.

technocratius 6y ago

Thanks for sharing your perspective. As somebody living in the west, I wholeheartedly agree. We've known since the 80s our fossil economy is slow-cooking the planet, yet we protest when other countries try to climb out of poverty using the same tools. Indeed, the west should think of ways in leveling the LCOE playing field in the third world through financial and material support.

Gustomaximus 6y ago
> yet we protest when other countries try to climb out of poverty using the same tools. I dont like this view, nor think its fair. ~100 years ago todays developed countries didn't have access to anything like the modern knowledge or scientific consensus about climate change as well as alternate technology / products. Even 30 years ago.... And making this 'but you did it' claim seems cherry picking. These countries take full advantage of the beneficial modern knowledge and equipment like computers. If countries want to justify pouting like the industrial revolution because you did too, then get rid of computers and other tech and have the same journey otherwise accept this is a choice you make today and there is no excuse other than you want to and to hell with the climate science. And lets also recognise power generation solar is increasingly cheaper than coal so there is likely vested interest pushing government down this path even if we disregard the moral/historic side first google (so forgive if not the best) but these studies come up all the time: e.g. https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa... tldr: I dont buy this excuse. It sounds fair as a quick one liner but doesnt fly when you consider the detail
- piokoch 6y ago
  Yes, but you need to face reality. US, Germany can afford spending huge amounts of money for renewable energy, but many countries just can't. Worst, India at least recognized that they can't afford that, but for instance Poland signed European version of a "green deal", which costs are estimated to be 0.4 trillion US dollars (according to Polish gov estimates) up to 1 trillion according to McKinsey Consulting. This is roughly 2-4 times Polish GDP. EU funds will cover about 20% of that sum. Poland will not be able to afford to spend that much money without rising energy prices to the exorbitant level (and because of CO2 certificates they are already the highest in Europe), which means less competitive economy, which means less money in people pocket, which means huge group of electorate angry at democracy and EU. This cannot end well.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    If this results in an increase in the total investment rate there won't be any people left to be angry in Poland.
  - Gustomaximus 6y ago
    > Germany can afford spending huge amounts of money for renewable energy, but many countries just can't. This skips the part where renewable is cheaper.... if a nation can afford a coal power plant, why can they afford the equivalent generation capacity of solar/wind?
- Xplune13 6y ago
  The thing that enrages me is that these "developed" countries just accuse developing nations of polluting while NOT acknowledging that they did 10x worse before. Those developed nations are not saint and won't ever be yet they act as if they care so much about other nations and environment when they do not. Also, this argument of "get ride of modern equipment and have the same journey" is weak at best. Although I agree that climate change didn't pick up until a decade or so ago, there were already studies conducted in late 1800s and early 1900s. edit: I'm not saying that what India is doing is right. It's just that the comments like the parent comment are laughable in my opinion.

markvdb 6y ago

> If coal is the cheapest, that means it is the best way to create electricity right now. Only it isn't. Not including the negative externalities (too much pollution, too expensive), not excluding them (too expensive).

etrabroline 6y ago
Only if you value not getting cancer more than not having electricity.
perryizgr8 6y ago
> too much pollution How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India.
- trog 6y ago
  > How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India. I would argue: any pollution that isn't factored into the cost of the energy production. If it's not priced in then there's no rational acting in the market, which (for better or worse) is the mechanism that we're using to figure out which energy systems to deploy. Even with that in mind, renewables like solar and wind are already easily cost-competitive with coal in many locations and getting more so every day (by most current measures of levelised cost of energy).
- DanBC 6y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/19/india-suffers-most-pollution-linked-deaths-in-world-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/19/india-suffers-... > India leads the world in pollution-linked deaths– followed by China and Nigeria – according to a report published on Wednesday that estimated the global impact of contaminants in the air, water and workplace. [...] > India and China led in the number of pollution deaths, with about 2.3 million and 1.8 million respectively, followed by Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan. Air pollution in India is complicated, because there's a mix of industrial and domestic sources. But these numbers feel to me like India urgently needs to do more work to reduce pollution.

zapdrive 6y ago

I recently paid Rs. 60000 (almost $1000) for two UPS to backup my two PCs, a TV/game console, WiFi router. The housing complex where I live already has a backup generator, but the generator takes about a minute to kick in. People living in the Western world will never understand the frustration of having your computer reboot 15 times a day, or getting your game console reset in the middle of a game.

perryizgr8 6y ago
Funny thing is I think millions of diesel gensets and UPSes are actually worse for the environment than just having enough power generation capacity, even if that is coal. Imagine all across the country diesel is burning in every housing complex, lithium or lead acid batteries are discharging in so many homes. All that takes valuable resources, causes pollution in various forms. But all that is disregarded in the blind hatred for coal. We need to satisfy the demand first, as soon as possible. If solar or wind were the most effective source right now, India would have used that for sure. Who wants to pay more than necessary? The fact is that the tech is simply not there yet. In the meantime, why should we suffer?
shash 6y ago
Most of that isn't lack of power per se, but T&D problems. Generation is usually enough to meet the demand.

imtringued 6y ago

The west doesn't actually have to fight climate change if we are being pragmatic, we only need to reduce our population fast enough that the remaining land is fertile enough to feed the reduced population. However, India will be screwed.