Are coal power stations for Karnataka desirable ?

Karnataka govt., through its power generation arm Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., has proposed to set up few more coal power stations in places like Mysore, Hassan, Bagalkot etc. Without any known reserve of fossil fuels within its boundaries, can we say that setting up of power stations based on coal or gas is in the best interest of the society?

With so much having been published on the deleterious impacts of fossil fuel burning, its is amazing how decision makers in this country are persisting with the policy that coal energy to be the mainstay for supplying electricity for many decades to come.

In this regard I reproduce some parts of e-mail exchange I had with few people in my e-mail group.
On 5th Oct, I wrote:
Please find enclosed a news article of interest on electricity supply scenario in Maharastra. I have read this detailed report, sent to me by Mr D. Narasimha Rao, and I tend to largely agree with his findings. In addition there could be much more emphasis on demand side management, energy conservation and heavy deployment of renewable energy sources like wind, solar and bio mass.

I made a similar presentation to the state govt. of Karnataka on 20th May 2006, may be not in so much detail or in the form of a formal report, but as an oral presentation supported up by a brief write up. But the sad thing is that though this presentation was done in the presence of senior officials of state energy department, KPTCL and KPCL etc. there is no indication that any study at appropriate level of the state govt. has been initiated yet even to refute the claims I made in the presentation. I also understand that Mr D. Narasimha Rao made a similar presentation to Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC), indicating that the unscientific planning by the state energy department leading to approval to many base load stations in the state will lead to surplus base load capacity in the state in next 8 to 10 years, which will be a waste of precious public resources. And in such a scenario the thermal power stations of the state may end up operating at 25 to 30% PLF, which will be a huge underutilisation of the public trust. But I am not sure whether the energy department of the state has the necessary human resources to study or even to understand this scenario. It is unfortunate for the entire society that whereas it should be the responsibility of the state energy department to undertake such initiatives at regular intervals, the state govt. has no interest even to consider the reports of such private initiatives.

The essence in both these reports is that we can and must aim at trimming our electricity requirements to the legitimate and economical needs only, and try to meet it with the available resources within the state boundary, on a sustainable basis. Fossil fuel or large size hydro electric stations at huge costs are not in the interest of the society/country. We must read this statement in the backdrop of the report on acid rain problem in China, which is said largely due to coal burning. It states that more than 50% of the cities monitored in China, have the problem of acid rain, and the country could be suffering a total loss of over US $60 billion dollars annually. This is the info. provided by State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), China.

At a macroscopic level the society will do better to appreciate the fact that the electricity industry as a whole has the potential to be the biggest polluter of our environment, and the worst exploiter of our resources, if it is not managed properly.

But who is interested to listen to people like me, if the public fails to demand certain accountability from the govt.? Our leaders and officials seem to be interested only in projects involving thousands of crores of rupees, whether they are techno- economically justifiable or not. KERC can be a good forum to present our views, but how many people are participating in the affairs of the Commission?

Few NGOs in the state, probably teaming with Greepeace, should push for such a detailed study in Karnataka also by few industry specialists. And we must persuade the state govt. to consider the findings of such a study before the stae govt. commits itself for more of coal fired stations like the one at Tadadi, Nandikur, or the five other coal power stations planned in Karnataka.

I can say with a high level of professional confidence that our society can hope to achieve the energy security not only for our state but for the entire country, only through high energy efficiency, better demand side management, honest energy conservation measures and heavy deployment of renewable energy sources like wind, solar and bio mass.

For the convenience of those of you who have not seen the write up of my presentation to the state govt. two files are enclosed herewith.

My appeal is that all of us should consider doing something either individually or collectively to draw the attention of the govts. to these crucial issues.

------------------------------------------------------------
Copy of the news article with title "Coal-based power plants will not do for Maharashtra"

Rahul Wadke / The Hindu Businessline
Mumbai , Oct. 4

Coal-based thermal plants are not the answer to Maharashtra's rising power demand, says Greenpeace India in its recently commissioned report on the upcoming 4,500-MW thermal power plants in the State. The new plants are likely to come by 2010.

Mr Soumyabrata Rahut, a Greenpeace campaigner, told Business Line that unless energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emission is not taken up on a war-footing, the climate would be irreversibly affected.

Coal-based power plants emit greenhouse gases in large amounts. And the report's findings show that other non-polluting alternatives are available, he said.

The report, tilted Capacity Planning Analysis for Maharashtra, has been compiled for Greenpeace by Mr D. Narasimha Rao, a visiting professor with Bangalore's Indian Institute of Management.

The report targets reducing greenhouses gases by 2015.

It said use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) will save power as they have a long life and use much less electricity, when compared to light bulbs. The report advises reduction of transmission and distribution (T&D) losses and judicious use of hydropower. This can make additional thermal capacity unnecessary.

Base load power

One of the report's main arguments is that thermal plants produce `base load' power. Base load power is the steady flow of power in a plant regardless of the total power demand of the grid. The power demand in the State peaks during morning and evening.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 6th Oct. Shankar Sharma wrote in response to a set of comments from one of the respondents to his original e-mail:

I started with the assumption that we all have similar philosophical approach on issues like:

1. electricity as a form of energy is essential to the development of all sections of the society;
2. the state has failed even after 58 years of independence to ensure quality/quantity of electricity to everyone, and hence a paradigm shift is required to the society's thinking in this regard;
3. the energy industry in general and electricity industry in particular, has the potential to be the biggest polluter, if not managed properly;
4. adequate cover of forests and agricultural fields are as much essential, if not more, as the industries or power supply network for a sustainable way of living;
5. the electricity industry in the state/country is hugely inefficient;
6. the pollution of our environment due to the burning of fossil fuels is already bad, and will reach a point of no return if we do not take necessary steps early.
7. that it is a huge let down of the public's trust to pour thousands of crores of Rupee worth resources on additional power generating capacity without first optimizing the use of existing infrstrusture.

If we do not have similar philosophical approach even on any one of these points, then the discussions can become meaningless.

Your initial comments that I may be suggesting that there will be no need for additional generation is only partly correct. I am of the opinion that it is not in the interest of the society that we continue to build high impact power plants at huge societal costs without first optimising the efficiency of operation in generation, transmission, distribution and utilization of our existing network. Because, if we continue to do so the natural resources of our country will continue to be wasted at a high rate because of very low usage level, which a country like ours with huge population can ill afford. For example, if we objectively look at the coal based electricity, by the time one unit of coal energy is mined, transported, converted to electrical energy, transmitted over a long distance, distributed and utilized for, say water heating, the overall efficiency of usage may not be much higher than 10%. This is keeping in mind that the maximum efficiency of coal fired power stations in the country is about 36%, and the technological advancements indicate that it cannot go much beyond 40%. We all very well know the level of losses in T&D, and also in utilization. We also should know that the energy experts would like to call the usage of electricity for water heating as "a national crime", basically because of the high inefficiency in that application. Electricity usage efficiency in other applications is not good either. As compared to CFL for illumination the energy consumption in incandescent lamps is about 4 to 5 times higher; and the IP sets, which are known to be consuming about 45% of the energy in the state, are known to be generally using about 40% more energy than is really required.

Even if we can increase the efficiency of solar PV technology to about 25% from the existing level of about 15% (which the scientists believe is possible), it can mean a lot better option to our society, of course with certain constraints, than the coal burning. If we become more responsible with demand side management and energy conservation, and care to consider objectively the other renewable energy sources like solar heating, wind, bio-mass, tidal wave etc. the need for conventional technology power stations will be minimum. I do not think I have to elaborate on the ills of fossil fuel power stations in general and coal fired power stations in particular. All of us know it too well. If some one wants to know more about it, I can send few articles in that regard.

Although, I did not specifically say that additional generating capacity will not be essential, what I imply is that if we all of us, including the decision makers, project developers, regulatory authorities and the end users behave much more responsibly, the need for conventional technology power stations based on fossil fuels or large dams could become minimum or even eliminated in the foreseeable future. Many of the countries are talking of mothballing the existing coal fired power stations in the near future basically because such power stations are no more in the interest of the society, and also because they are convinced that this action will "not kill all growth".

I also do not understand how the review of our own house keeping and emphasis for high efficiency can be termed as "a very dangerous stand to take". The real growth of a society should never be imagined in the context of higher GDP, which is a poor index of development, or higher energy consumption, or large number of industries all over the country at the expense of forest wealth or fertile agricultural lands or by displacing poor families. If we carefully look at the consequences of the mad rush our society is following on the path of high GDP, the destruction of forest wealth, fertile agricultural lands and poor families are all bound to happen; they are already destroying our way of life.

Now, to items under numbered points in you mail:

1. The load forecasting on the basis of CAGR is also employed by CEA and the planning commission. In the absence of any other means in your response we should go by the information available. As a matter of fact there is a school of thought that the effective demand for electricity can even come down in few years time as compared to the CAGR of 5%, if the measures we discussed above can be put into optimal use. This is what I have tried to demonstrate in the excel spread sheet attached to the write up of presentation to the CM. All ECSOMs, including BESCOM, must be forced to function very efficiently. There is no other alternative for all those consumers who depend entirely on the grid quality electricity. But energy and electricity need not mean grid quality electricity alone. Distributed generation sources based on renewable energy sources (not the diesel gen. sets) like solar water heater or PV cells or mini wind mills at the individual house levels, or bio mass units at rural areas are what I am referring to. We all can imagine the huge societal benefits of such energy sources.

2. Having experience as a project manager I appreciate your concern about "killing a project". If the "list of projects that have got killed" is long, it is almost certain that they were not been based on social/economical/environmental strength. One should not cry for such killing, for, otherwise such projects may end up killing flora, fauna or even human beings, albeit slowly. Even conceptualizing a project without taking these issues into account objectively, or without consulting all the stakeholders can amount to breach of public trust. No one is an enemy of the environment by conviction; but many are ignorant of the impact of their acts/omissions or do not care enough for the environment. People may not have intention to do harm to the environment when unfriendly projects are conceived, but such people will certainly cause damage by not heeding to facts and reasoning. An example is that despite the popular opposition to two such large projects at Tadadi and Nandikur, the state govt. is proposing to put up 5 more coal fired power stations in the state. The fact that the state has no known reserve of fossil fuels, and that massive opposition to the projects is almost certain seem to have been conveniently overlooked.

3. One cannot help but to be bewildered at the statement: "To assume that coal based plants are all environmentally unfriendly is also wrong. " This statement reminds me that of a senior energy department official who said that Raichur Thermal Power Station is pollution free at a meeting called by the Chief Minister on 20th May 2006. It is another matter that this statement was vehemently protested by many in that meeting. I cannot think how large scale coal burning can be environmentally friendly under any circumstance. Simple knowledge of the chemistry of handling & burning of coal, or a visit to a Coal Power Station may clear one's doubt about the veracity of this statement. At the best a coal based power plant can be termed as of "reduced level of pollution". But most of them are highly polluting and are hated by the people living nearby. I would appreciate if few examples of environmentally friendly coal burning projects are provided to me. There cannot be any clean coal technology, but only better ones as compared to what we have today. Also, coal gasification still appears to be in a nascent stage, and cannot eliminate large scale CO2 emission when the combustion takes place. Again I will appreciate few examples where this technology is being employed.

If the process of large scale coal burning can be environmentally friendly, the state govt. should be asked to locate the ultra mega coal power project proposed for Karnataka at Bangalore, because it is the load centre and has most of the infrastructure facilities. Also one may ask why a Coal Power Station was located at Raichur instead of Bangalore.

The enormity of the socio-environmental impact of coal burning to our society can be visualized by the fact that as per the projections of the Planning Commission, the way things are going now, our country will require to add about 700,000 MW of coal fired power capacity. This is roughly about ten times the present capacity. If this is allowed to happen, the impact on the society due to destruction of forests & agricultural lands, displacement of people and consumption of fresh water, not to mention of the environmental impact, can only termed as catastrophe. We only have to look at our giant neighbor, who with only about 300,000 MW of coal fired power station capacity is facing huge environmental problems. I think it is not so bad to learn from others' mistakes.

That "large hydro projects are environmentally unfriendly" has been known for decades, but our learned decision makers are still embarking on adding 50,000 MW hydro capacity by 2032.

4. It is naïve to suggest that just by eliminating the losses in the system, we can entirely avoid additional power generating capacity, because the demand keeps growing every year. The statement should be taken in its correct perspective that the losses in the system are very huge, and the benefits to the society by reducing it to the international level are very many. For proper understanding of this context the excel sheet I have sent should be referred to in detail. Whatever may be the exact T&D loss level, we will never know it because there is no adequate measurement of energy at different points in the system. But it is certainly in excess of 30% as per many reports. KERC takes the technical loss level in distribution as about 25% at the state level. We should know that this loss level could be reduced to less than 6% as in many countries. BESCOM claims that the loss in Bangalore city is less than 9%. So, certainly 15% loss reduction is feasible. With only 1% energy deficit reported in the state between April 2005 – March 2006, does my original statement require more elaboration?

5. It is better to understand Demand Side Management (DSM) before we discuss the difficulties in implementing it. DSM does not mean curtailment of the use of electricity at loss to industries or inconvenience to individuals. It means managing the consumption such that the best use of the available generation capacity is made, without having to incur industrial production loss or putting the residential consumers into great inconvenience. DSM in our state can start at high end consumers. There are many ways of achieving DSM. Whatever it takes to achieve this is worth undertaking, because the load reduction one can achieve this way comes at less than half the cost of additional power generation. To do all this we need to convince ourselves the need for DSM. Most people including many of the decision makers have not understood the importance of DSM.

6. Although it is desirable to have separate organization doing research in each state, what have we learnt from the innumerable reports and examples on energy efficiency, DSM and energy conservation measures? Organisations like TERI, PRAYAS, BEE, IISc can provide a lot of advise on the issues if the ESCOMs have the necessary political will. There are also simple methods available to our own people. If people like you and I keep quiet that we may not be heard, nothing will be heard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6th Oct. Dr, Bhamy Shenoy responded :

Dear friends,
It is a pleasure to have a discussion with well informed, socially concerned experts with open mind. It would be boring if all of us agree on every thing. One thing we can agree is that predicting future is difficult and none of our crystal ball is perfect to have the perfect answers for all possible scenarios.
Sri Sharma’s seven fundamental assumptions (what he refers as philosophical approaches) are very sensible and all of us are likely to agree with them though with some reservations.
Assumptions 3 states that power industry may be the biggest polluter. I think transportation sector may already be the worst polluter and may become worse the way auto population is increasing. This may be knit picking and in general terms I agree that power industry may indeed be a great polluter.
Assumption 7 may be the one where we may have some differences of opinion. It is true that many of power plants are operating at very low PLF. In the North it is a criminal level of below 50% in some places. Optimization of present infrastructure is definitely necessary and should be given the highest priority. But we need to be pragmatist while suggesting policy recommendations. We cannot be totally oblivious to the practical realities of today’s competitive politics and we need to strike a balance between technologically optimum solutions and what is politically feasible after applying the hard pressure of activism (PIL route of aggressive NGOs), NGO involvement (Prayas, TERI, IGIDR, IISc et) and selling the good ideas through the normal political channels.
In mid 80s, Dr. Amulya Reddy as part of IISc’s Karnataka Council for Science where he was doing research on DSM was promoting the idea that Karnataka does not need any more generating capacity and we should be able to manage without any additional capacity. He was able to show using DSM, that it is feasible. Along with three other energy economists (from Sweden, US and Brazil) he published a book to show how the world could reach the standard of living of the developed world at that time without increasing any new energy input. It is a sound principle and brilliant on paper. It was also the time when global warming issue was gaining in popularity, Club of Rome was still not discarded on the world history of forgotten institutes etc. But Dr. Reddy despite his considerable contribution to promote gobar gas through his practical work in one of the villages did not have any impact on our planners or decision makers.
On hind sight we can say it was good that planners did not heed to the advice of Dr. Reddy not to increase generating capacity. Karnataka definitely needed extra capacity even if we had done every thing that was practically possible. On the other hand there were many good recommendations Dr. Reddy had suggested on DSM. If some of them were implemented we would have been much better off today. It is a pity that we missed the opportunity of making use of Dr. Reddy’s expertise. He was responsible to start a fine institute called International Energy Initiative in Bangalore which is publishing articles on alternate energy sources. I do not know what impact it has on our decision making.
Few years after Dr. Reddy’s book, if I remember right a research group from Harvard brought out a research report recommending that if PLF of Indian power generation can be improved India’s need for additional capacity will be considerably low. Again that report had very little impact.
It is only during the last few years we got energy regulatory commission to reduce politics in power generation and apply better management. Some good steps have been taken, but we have a long way to go. This is where a professional group like ours can play a significant role by giving independent opinion. This cannot be done purely on a volunteer basis. We need to think of how we can raise funds and have a professionally staffed group. Then such a group will definitely have a voice and be heard.
Now coming to the issue again of can we manage without adding any additional generating capacity? It is my educated guess that given the present and likely pricing policy it is humanly impossible to serve the consumers without having additional generating capacity. I am restricting myself to Karnataka. First of all we do not have good statistics on consumption pattern. This is the most basic thing that is required for any meaningful planning. KERC has requested this repeatedly and only lip service is paid. May be given today’s metering situation it is impossible to get good statistics. Still we should try.
By one estimate power consumption in agricultural sector is mind boggling 40% which is sold at below cost of producing power. Then we give free power to those under BPL. Then many of those who are well connected to political class also get by paying little or no money. In short power sector even after KERC has come into existence is run more as a wealth distribution center rather than a wealth generation center for the state. Political class is using power sector to come to power by promising free power and it is unfortunate that electorate is buying these false promises. Just look at high level of corruption in power sector ( our own Cogentrix’s Tannir Bavi which is Karnataka’s Enron has not come to the surface). Unless there is complete mind set in terms of how we want to manage power sector, we will continue to talk the same way as we have been doing for the last 20 years.
Though I am all for alternate energy sources like solar, wind, bio fuels, bio gas etc I do not think any one of them or any combination of them may not play a significant role in meeting commercial needs. Therefore we will end up depending upon commercial energy sources and what we need to do is try to minimize it through a better DSM as suggested above. This may not be the place to go into details.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 6th October, Mr. Prakash Nayak wrote:

I claim no expertise in electricity industry and my comments are that of a concerned citizen who would be affected by the proposed projects. While defending ourselves against the onslaught of projects such as Tadadi we know that it is our last battle before we are driven out of our land permanently. We also know that the proponents of the projects use all kinds of weapons including the claim that ‘clean coal based plants’ are not harmful. And also when they are faced with the choice between ‘killing the project’ and ‘killing the people (may be slowly)’ they would force us to believe that the latter would serve a much higher purpose. So in this our battle for survival we welcome proposal for saving even a single unit of energy and avoiding a project.

A few lessons I have learnt being in corporate management is (1) When there is a bottleneck do not look for capacity expansion but look for internal wastes. Removal of wastage has the vast potential of creating capacity without a penny of investment. Capacity expansion is an easy option for those who do not want to work hard or being creative. What our power corporation now needs is a TQM kind of quality and management initiative and not new projects. Why our industry associations (CII / FICCI etc) and experts, who in their own business keep new expansion as the last option, are so keen on new power projects? When they are so critical about any wastage in their own business, why they are not very vocal on various losses in electricity generation, transmission, distribution and finally consumption?

Further I would like to share some arithmetic with you about power in our knowledge economy:
1. The cost of power as a percentage of sales in IT industry is mere 1.2%. Most IT companies now earn profit of around 35%. Even if power cost is doubled their profit may come down by a mere 1%. But the amount of noise they make about cost of power is disproportionate to its impact. It is just a hype created about China’s cheap availability of power and they want similar conditions even here. At what cost? Do not ask.
2. Most of their offices are centrally air-conditioned. Even when only a few people work, power is wasted to provide air-conditioned facility to the whole office.
3. Even in our industrial architecture we are simply aping the western countries who because of their cold temperature need to be closed from outside environment. We are not using the advantages of tropical climatic conditions and bright weather which is abundantly available here. We create artificial darkness and then use electricity to light them. A prestigious IT company takes pride in its glass pyramid and our media is singing the same song. But how much energy they would be wasting to keep the insides cool as otherwise it is a heat trap in our hot country, is anybody’s guess. Do we need more electricity production to maintain this kind of corporate toys? And at what cost?
4. Even among domestic consumers power bill is not high enough to discourage wastage. A consumer who is on the far end of supply chain does not understand the pains of displacement of vast population for power projects or ill effects of pollution. Only language he understands is how much it will cost him.
5. Recently an English news channel while listing Indian cities on the prosperity rank mentioned that Chandigarh is on the top of prosperity chart and one of the overwhelming parameters for its top position is the highest amount of per capita energy consumption. It is simply an absurd western concept which measures affluence on consumption (in other words quantum of wastage) rather than conservation. Sensible people have started questioning this kind of indices including GDP as a measure of development. No matter what the media, bureaucrats and hand-out enlightened experts say we are going to give our frank opinion on the ‘emperor’s clothes’

These thoughts are shared to sensitize the energy debate.

-------------------------------------------------------
On 6th October Dr. Sudhir Vombatkere wrote:

I am entirely in agreement with Prakash Nayak. When Raja Rao says, " I think this is a very dangerous stand to take as if it is implemented it will kill all growth in the state. ", I cannot help asking, "Growth of what and for whom?" At present, growth of power generation in our State will be neutralized by utterly foolish and wasteful power use such as lighting up all routes going up to Chamundi betta all round the year. (Our respected CM has just inaugurated the scheme). Mysore does not need air-conditioning, yet many buildings (not necessarily connected with the IT industry - and why not come out and say "Infosys"?!) are coming up with glass all round and calling for AC precisely as Prakash Nayak says.

Let us not ape the west. We do not need more power to allow "humble" middle class residents to consume 1,000 units a month to run window ACs or keep lights on all night as if every day of the year is Deepavali, just because they can afford to pay the electric bill with their unaccounted money. The wastage is simply enormous and indecent. Losses due to technical reasons and theft are also enormous. Judging progress by per capita consumption (of whatever) is the formula of World bank economists and socially disconnected people. Our economy is already on a ruinous course because of such economists (for whom people do not matter) and their supporters.

We MUST oppose new power generation until power wastage is controlled, power theft stopped and power demand is managed properly. Supply-side augmentation has no logical end except environmental degradation. Demand management is the only technically sensible and socially sensitive route out of our situation, where governments and others are putting out an unnecessary scare that power will run short so that they can conclude contracts for more power stations.

Shankar Sharma has given cogent arguments as to why new (thermal) power generation should be opposed, and we need to support his arguments.
----------------------------------------------------