India's Power Sector

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2018 10:55

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:Except that for the same amount of power (energy/time) you’ve got to install nearly 3 times the panels.
Again as pointed out this does not matter. All the costs are already baked in and given in Rs / kwhr.

They’re baked in for a given installed power capacity. If your needs for power exceed capacity, then costs go up.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2018 10:59

The attempt to extrapolate roof top solar to grid scale doesn’t work as the requirement for power will increase for a growing economy. For a house or a building, you know how much your power requirement is which is limited by your current capacity of circuit breakers.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2018 11:03

pankajs wrote:But if 3 times panel still make unit cost of power cheaper as compared to coal then unit value lies in solar. Comparison should be on value delivered on the investment.

So at 15 % efficiency Solar might trump Coal @ 40 % efficiency. Efficiency of power extraction is never the sole criteria.

If you have 3 times the panels for the same amount of power, then your initial cost for that facility is higher. You pay for land, additional equipment and personnel.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 20 Feb 2018 11:13

What you say about the upfront cost is true but same is the case with Hydro too.

Large upfront investment but minimal maintenance and almost zero fuel cost. Coal and LNG plants upfront investment cost is comparatively less but more maintenance expense and much higher fuel cost.

In the end we need to total up the Upfront cost + Maintenance cost + Fuel cost + Financing cost; over the life of the project. This set of cost will pay for a certain power output factoring in energy conversion efficiency. Then calculate the unit cost of the power output and decide between the options.

All I am pointing out is that energy conversion efficiency is one factor in the matrix that is used to do the value-cost analysis and is not the deciding factor on its own.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 20 Feb 2018 12:26

Mort Walker wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:
Again as pointed out this does not matter. All the costs are already baked in and given in Rs / kwhr.
They’re baked in for a given installed power capacity. If your needs for power exceed capacity, then costs go up.

Why? If you are worried about the reserve, you are still saving the cost of fuel for the reserve capacity. The fuel saving alone more than justify running every unit of solar you can. If you need more capacity you build more. Solar is not resource constrained like coal. In literally every single area of theworld where PV comes in wholes power prices decline, sometimes substantially. This has not proven to be an issue.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2018 20:28

Both thermal and hydro have at least three times higher generated/installed capacity than solar. In the case of thermal, fuel costs are built into the price, but for any given type of power plant it can produce X Watts. Let’s say by 2022 there is 100 GW solar installed capacity, but in reality it will only produce 15 GW. The national consumption may be 400 GW by 2022, so solar may be a poor investment. The initial cost of commercial solar in India is $1 million/1 MW installed capacity based on Kamuthi solar park in TN. For 648 MW installed it uses 10 sq. Km of land at a cost of $730 million and it is probably generating no more 80 MW.

The growth of solar in India is really coming from rooftop solar which makes good sense. Commercial utility solar is a different issue.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 20 Feb 2018 22:36

You should consider that Coal plants really only operate at 50% LF these days. So that 80 MW is closer to 200 MW coal plant. That 15 GW is closer to 30 GW. $760 Million is not a bad price for a 200 MW coal plant. And you avoid all the fuel cost. A 200 MW coal plant would need about 500,000 Tons of coal annually. In todays $120/ton type cost of imported coal cost in TN, this is $60 Million every year. This is why it is cheaper to build the coal plant and then let it sit there for reserve capacity. Also Kamuthi is a little older, these days solar is a lot cheaper in India. Something like Kamuthi would be closer to $500 Million.

Indias peak consumption recently was about 160,000MW. I doubt it is going to get to 400,000MW by 2022.

How can something that pays the bills and pays back capital in 10-15 years be a poor investment. This is the very definition of a good investment which is why private companies have no problem raising private bank capital to install privately owned projects on private land. Government only needs to get out of the way.

I’m not worried about the 10 sqkm of land. I just traveled through Interior and Southern TN for 3 months. These is an easy 1000 times that amount of waste land that is simply unusable out there. Just in the Southern 4-5 districts.

Uttam · Post by **Uttam** » 20 Feb 2018 22:53

Thermal power plants also get water almost free. I wonder by how much will the price of thermal electricity change once we start accounting for the cost of fresh water. Given the rapid decline in availability of fresh water in India, this is another big problem with the thermal power plants.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 20 Feb 2018 23:42

Uttam wrote:Thermal power plants also get water almost free. I wonder by how much will the price of thermal electricity change once we start accounting for the cost of fresh water. Given the rapid decline in availability of fresh water in India, this is another big problem with the thermal power plants.

This is correct and down the road it would be better to replace coal with natural gas power plants that would have an actual generation of over 60% of installed.

Nuclear power in India is about $1.4 million/1 MW (based on Kundankulam) installed. Actual/installed is 70% and can easily be increased to 80%. For base load that is the way into the future.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 21 Feb 2018 03:10

Mort Walker wrote:
Katare wrote:20% is technical limit and actual is around 12-16% depending on other factors but this does not matter. Installed capacity means actual power generation capacity not 12 to 16% of of 1 GW.
Installed capacity is not what is generated, but what is capable generation. You need not believe me and look up CEA numbers I provided in the link above. That is why I asked people to verify my arithmetic. We have 9 months of data and solar installed capacity of 22 GW. Total RES installed is over 60 GW. CEA updates every month with initial and final results. By late May or early June, we’ll have complete figures for FY 2017-18 for how much energy was generated from each type of energy source.

It's not your math but your assumptions - Power is used to describe the size of the generator. Energy (Kw-hr) is indicator of the throughput of the machine.

20GW installed capacity was at the end of the year, at the beginning it was half of that. Also Solar plants only run 8-10 hrs a day (may be you were trying to say this) so they produce lot less than a nuclear/thermal plant that can run 24 hours. This means you need 3-4 solar plants to generate as much as a coal plant of the same size. This has been an uphill battle for solar energy for last several decades, it had to produce cost competitive energy with a handicap of 3-4x. They have now reached/crossed the line by reducing the capital and operating cost. Once energy storage devices become more affordable they would become more comprehensive/reliable power providers. But the question of what if it rains for a week would remain and that means coal/gas/nuclear would have a lions share in the mix for foreseeable future

But again it does not matter to consumer how you generate your power, if the cost is comparable and falling it's going to fly! It does not matter to developer either, if he can make profit by selling his power to consumer.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 21 Feb 2018 09:14

Katare wrote:
It's not your math but your assumptions - Power is used to describe the size of the generator. Energy (Kw-hr) is indicator of the throughput of the machine.

20GW installed capacity was at the end of the year, at the beginning it was half of that. Also Solar plants only run 8-10 hrs a day (may be you were trying to say this) so they produce lot less than a nuclear/thermal plant that can run 24 hours. This means you need 3-4 solar plants to generate as much as a coal plant of the same size. This has been an uphill battle for solar energy for last several decades, it had to produce cost competitive energy with a handicap of 3-4x. They have now reached/crossed the line by reducing the capital and operating cost. Once energy storage devices become more affordable they would become more comprehensive/reliable power providers. But the question of what if it rains for a week would remain and that means coal/gas/nuclear would have a lions share in the mix for foreseeable future

But again it does not matter to consumer how you generate your power, if the cost is comparable and falling it's going to fly! It does not matter to developer either, if he can make profit by selling his power to consumer.

http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/r ... ble-12.pdf
For Dec 2017 solar energy generated was:
2226.17 MU = 2,226,170,000 KWHr = 8.015e15 Joules

December has 31 days = 744 Hr = 2,678,400 seconds

Actual power generated = 2.993 GW
Installed capacity as of 31.12.17 = 17.052 GW (Revised)
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/i ... ity-12.pdf
Actual/installed = 17.55%

This is certainly better, but we need to wait for the end of year report in May with latest actual and installed capacity. As far as actual/installed power saying it doesn't matter; it does when you put it on the grid for utility scale. You have limited time, land allocation, and capital expenditure which is true not just in India, but everywhere. The recurring cost of fuel for thermal will come from the state electricity board operating budgets. The 2022 goal of 100 GW installed capacity of solar in India will most likely be 2/3 rooftop solar and 1/3 utility solar parks. Utility scale storage devices will make the capital expenditure too expensive for solar. It may happen for roof top applications.

The total installed capacity in India as of 31.12.17 = 333.55 GW
There is the need for more power, but the small gain from utility solar can easily be reached with just a few nuclear power plants.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 21 Feb 2018 17:06

You shouldn't extrapolate from December solar generation for India. The yearly average is closer to 19%. In the medium term something closer to 25% will be common as newer technology, PERC, Bifacial, Mono, single axis tracker, etc becomes more prevalent. It is not a mature technology and large cost declines continue.

A few nuclear reactors is a mouth full. Nuclear had its moment but it is too expensive now. We have plenty of Sun and Wind, almost no Uranium. Previously we did not have alternatives so we were forced to look at Nuclear but that is no longer true. We are a tropical country in the Monsoon wind belt. Our eternal power source is Surya Bhawan and Kattru Bhagwan. In fact I expect Solar to overtake nuclear in total generation sometime this year. Wind already generates well over Nuclear.

Rooftop solar has its place but it is more expensive and hard to scale. Early last year the split was more like 15,000 MW utility scale vs 1,500 MW rooftop. 1/10 right now. Going to be hard to change that pattern to 200,000 MW Solar.
http://www.bridgetoindia.com/reports/in ... gust-2017/

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 22 Feb 2018 00:09

^^^I did say we should wait until we have a full year of data from CEA which may take actual/installed near 19%.

I would not trust what a 3rd party solar-jihadi website says over the CEA. There aren't that many large scale over 200 MW solar power plants. Right now, Bhadla phase-II in Rajasthan and the Rewa Ultra Mega Solar power park is under construction and should be done by 2018. That is the largest in India and most anywhere that is completing right now with an installed capacity of 750 MW, but will only generate 60% of installed between 11AM-1PM. 2022 is not that far away and by end of this calendar year, we'll have more data.

We will soon see how Kamuthi, Bhadla and Rewa perform. The numbers will give good insight.

Who said Uranium? India has lots of Thorium. Neither solar or wind overtake nuclear in actual power generated at this time. Nuclear actual is 4.8 GW and wind actual is 4.1 GW, solar actual around 3 GW. The next two reactors at Kundankulam will be complete in 2019 and the actual will add 1.2 GW to the grid. Nuclear and LNG for the base load, then solar + wind for peak load.

Uttam · Post by **Uttam** » 22 Feb 2018 03:34

Mort Walker wrote: Nuclear and LNG for the base load, then solar + wind for peak load.

Nuclear for base load is good but not LNG. In fact, most plants run on gas are used for peak load. Natural gas based plants for a base load is a very recent phenomenon because the prices of all petroleum products fell. It may not sustain as gas prices go up. Nuclear and Coal may serve base load for a long time until a economically feasible battery (or other form of) storage comes into being.

In US and other developed nations the peak hits as the sun goes down. Solar with Battery are being put in place to manage these peaks. Arizona is putting one in place. Southern Australia has a number of them.

What time of the day does peak demand hit in India?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 22 Feb 2018 07:04

Uttam wrote:
Mort Walker wrote: Nuclear and LNG for the base load, then solar + wind for peak load.
Nuclear for base load is good but not LNG. In fact, most plants run on gas are used for peak load. Natural gas based plants for a base load is a very recent phenomenon because the prices of all petroleum products fell. It may not sustain as gas prices go up. Nuclear and Coal may serve base load for a long time until a economically feasible battery (or other form of) storage comes into being.

In US and other developed nations the peak hits as the sun goes down. Solar with Battery are being put in place to manage these peaks. Arizona is putting one in place. Southern Australia has a number of them.

What time of the day does peak demand hit in India?

There is a world wide glut of natural gas and there’s lot’s of off shore gas in India. LNG power is more efficient than coal and uses less fresh water. Burning LNG is also less hazardous than coal in terms of particulate emissions.

No major solar park in India at this time is going to have storage systems. They are being designed for peak loads and other types of power (coal, LNG, hydro, nuclear) will handle base load. With storage we May get actual power near 25%, but initial cost will go up considerably. IMHO, ISRO can be tasked to develop fuel cells that will be used for space probes that can also be scaled up and used terrestriallly, but that’s on the realm of science fantasy right now.

India is ideal for solar in terms of latitude. Delhi is about 29N and Chennai is 13N. In any case from 10AM to 2PM will be peak sun.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 22 Feb 2018 23:13

Mort Walker wrote:but will only generate 60% of installed between 11AM-1PM.

Maybe early and late in the day but not normally during the day. The rating is linked to inverter capacity not panel, inverter is always undersized to panel. The extra is clipped. 100% and above of capacity during maid day is normal.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Feb 2018 00:01

Thermal power plants don't run all the time either, in the night they go down to trickle too. Solar works on full capacity when demand is at it's highest and automatically goes down as demand reduces. Peak demand in the afternoon is usually 2x of the demand after midnight so solar fits in there perfectly. As we get to the power surplus regime difference between solar and coal would reduce. Coal plants would run more in the night and solar would do the day shift. As prices drop , energy storage would become more affordable and it'll further shrink the gap.

Coal plant needs a lot more space when you include mining, storage and transport as compared to solar parks.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Feb 2018 00:30

So far in last 6 months solar has outbid 2 commercial contract which were designed to be fuel neutral. This is impressive as solar always needed subsidies to stand on commercial scale but it seems they have come of age. Prices are predicted to fall another 45 to 70% in near future.....coal's got some hard time coming on its way. For example solar panel cost 75% less today than they did in 2009.

Solar Plus Batteries Beat Out Natural Gas In Two US Electricity Markets

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 03:31

Katare wrote:Thermal power plants don't run all the time either, in the night they go down to trickle too. Solar works on full capacity when demand is at it's highest and automatically goes down as demand reduces. Peak demand in the afternoon is usually 2x of the demand after midnight so solar fits in there perfectly. As we get to the power surplus regime difference between solar and coal would reduce. Coal plants would run more in the night and solar would do the day shift. As prices drop , energy storage would become more affordable and it'll further shrink the gap.

Coal plant needs a lot more space when you include mining, storage and transport as compared to solar parks.

This is correct. Thermal coal actual is around 50% compared to solar actual around 15-18%. This is the reason why solar is used for peak capacity in the day where you don’t have to run thermal at full capacity. However, solar can not replace an energy source which is available almost all of the time 24/7, 365 days.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 03:34

Theo_Fidel wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:but will only generate 60% of installed between 11AM-1PM.
Maybe early and late in the day but not normally during the day. The rating is linked to inverter capacity not panel, inverter is always undersized to panel. The extra is clipped. 100% and above of capacity during maid day is normal.

No sir. This is the solar PV output before being inverted. I’m not talking about breakers in panel, but rather the output from a commercial solar park like the one being completed in Rewa, MP.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 03:45

Katare wrote:So far in last 6 months solar has outbid 2 commercial contract which were designed to be fuel neutral. This is impressive as solar always needed subsidies to stand on commercial scale but it seems they have come of age. Prices are predicted to fall another 45 to 70% in near future.....coal's got some hard time coming on its way. For example solar panel cost 75% less today than they did in 2009.

Solar Plus Batteries Beat Out Natural Gas In Two US Electricity Markets

Your link states that this peaker plant will generate 65MW installed capacity from solar which will power some 16,500 homes in Arizona for 3 hours. It is not going to replace the base load. Anyway, this was probably planned before the US (and India) keep the Chinese from dumping PV panels.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Feb 2018 04:15

Point is not what it is for but the point was that the solar beat fossil fuel in an open auction with energy storage.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Feb 2018 04:19

Mort Walker wrote:
Katare wrote:Thermal power plants don't run all the time either, in the night they go down to trickle too. Solar works on full capacity when demand is at it's highest and automatically goes down as demand reduces. Peak demand in the afternoon is usually 2x of the demand after midnight so solar fits in there perfectly. As we get to the power surplus regime difference between solar and coal would reduce. Coal plants would run more in the night and solar would do the day shift. As prices drop , energy storage would become more affordable and it'll further shrink the gap.

Coal plant needs a lot more space when you include mining, storage and transport as compared to solar parks.
This is correct. Thermal coal actual is around 50% compared to solar actual around 15-18%. This is the reason why solar is used for peak capacity in the day where you don’t have to run thermal at full capacity. However, solar can not replace an energy source which is available almost all of the time 24/7, 365 days.

It’s not 50% as such, Indian thermal power plants have consistently recorded 70 to 80% plant load factors but that was in the era of extream shortagr so demand curve was flatter. Farmers got the power during lowest demand period. But tha is all going to go away and load factor would depend on the cost. Several coal power plant would record much lower figures as we move towards surplus power paradigm.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 05:10

Katare wrote:
It’s not 50% as such, Indian thermal power plants have consistently recorded 70 to 80% plant load factors but that was in the era of extream shortagr so demand curve was flatter. Farmers got the power during lowest demand period. But tha is all going to go away and load factor would depend on the cost. Several coal power plant would record much lower figures as we move towards surplus power paradigm.

That is based on overall thermal from all energy sources from CEA says which is whom I trust, and as I said before, thank the gods they are so transparent that we can actually look at real numbers instead of hype from any one industry. Please see my earlier post below:

Actual power generated from thermal was: 2.762494e18 Joules / 23,760,000 seconds = 116.27 GW
Installed capacity of thermal from CEA: 281.96 GW (Page 1)
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/i ... ity-11.pdf

Efficiency of thermal power is over 41% of installed capacity. Looking at the report we can see thermal power running at less than 60% of load. A load increase of 10% will probably result in over 50% thermal power efficiency.

Surplus power is only there due to cost. For per capita incomes, power price in India is high. The demand is actually higher.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 05:11

Katare wrote:Point is not what it is for but the point was that the solar beat fossil fuel in an open auction with energy storage.

For a peaker plant in Arizona it does in this instance, but natural gas plants are going up like mushrooms all over the US. In India it makes sense to have a few solar power parks for peak load within +/- 5 degrees of 22.5N. Bhadla and Rewa are in this range.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Feb 2018 05:15

Natural gas is replacing coal and it will be replaced by solar in coming years. Its simple economic math whatever is cheaper wins. Coal was always cheapest until fracking made gas the cheapest fuel in USA. It seems now solar is cheaper than gas in some places at least

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 23 Feb 2018 05:22

Here is Colorado bids from last months........prices are dropping pretty fast...

colorado Solar

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 05:36

Katare wrote:Natural gas is replacing coal and it will be replaced by solar in coming years. Its simple economic math whatever is cheaper wins. Coal was always cheapest until fracking made gas the cheapest fuel in USA. It seems now solar is cheaper than gas in some places at least

It only makes sense if your power is available 24/7. With storage it is in certain places it is, in other places no.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 05:43

Katare wrote:Here is Colorado bids from last months........prices are dropping pretty fast...

colorado Solar

The bids are based on tax credits and cheap Chinese PVs.

Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said any discussion of the proposals beyond what the utility provided in a Dec. 28 report is premature.

Again, this is about India's Power Sector, not the US where it can afford to play with experimental ideas even if they run at a loss. The US Dept. of Energy is putting a significant amount of into solar research funds in order to get production PVs near 40% efficiency using thin films and new chemistries.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 23 Feb 2018 09:54

Mort Walker wrote:
Theo_Fidel wrote:
Maybe early and late in the day but not normally during the day. The rating is linked to inverter capacity not panel, inverter is always undersized to panel. The extra is clipped. 100% and above of capacity during maid day is normal.
No sir. This is the solar PV output before being inverted. I’m not talking about breakers in panel, but rather the output from a commercial solar park like the one being completed in Rewa, MP.

Before inverter is never counted. Nameplate is inverter linked not panel. Thx.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 23 Feb 2018 10:34

So for commercial use the installed capacity is rated by adding the output of all the inverters? Not by summing the output of the panels themselves? That would also account for losses too. More reason we should switch to DC. Building voltage dividers is a lot easier and less lossy.

I’ll get a chance to visit Rewa next year. Some distant relatives with the MPEB should be able to arrange me a tour.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 02 Mar 2018 04:59

The Fourth Solar Plus Storage Project in India has been Cancelled

At this time it appears that solar + storage is not economically viable. Solar power for peak load will continue for some time, but soon this situation between average and peak power demand will stabilize making solar less viable until there is a technological breakthrough. I doubt that 100 GW solar installed will be achieved by 2022.

disha · Post by **disha** » 03 Mar 2018 01:43

Solar + Storage will not be viable for at least a decade if not more.

The key here is for the solar cell productivity to go to a minimum 26% efficiency on commercial installation AND the cost of storage (batteries) to be halved, and their capacity increase twice and their charge/discharge cycles on average should be at least 9000.

I have to confess, I have installed residential capacity of 6.2 Kw DC Solar Cells (with micro inverters) and have recommended @18 Kw DC solar cell installation. And I have completely converted over to electric vehicles., totaling some 90k-100k Kms per year.

Hence I do live the "Solar" dream. Atleast I am *not* a luddite who does *not* understand the potential of solar.

All of the solar was possible because:

1. Solar installation is heavily subsidized (@30-40%)
2. EV Cars are heavily subsidized (@30%)
3. Other intangible incentives for EV cars (IMO equivalent to another 10% discount on the price)
4. Higher energy consumption - paying say @30-40 cents/KwH was not surprising. And being able to sell back to the grid lowers my cost.

Given all of the above, I find it amusing when people claim Solar+Storage will provide the base load energy requirement as of yesterday. And that too without any subsidization!?

In the Indian context, India current per-capita consumption is @800 Kwh. China is @4000 KwH and US is @13000 Kwh. In 10 years, India's per capita electricity needs to quadruple to minimum @3200 KwH and that is @15% per year growth. Given the accompanying population growth, it is @20% per year growth (at the minimum). Given @300 GW of installed capacity, we are talking of adding at minimum @60 GW new capacity per year. One should aim for @75 GW new capacity per year for the next 10 years

Where is 75 GW new capacity per year going to come from?

Corollary to that,

Where is 75 GW new capacity per year at @3-5 cents/KwH going to come from?

And further corollary to that,

Where is 75 GW new capacity per year at @3-5 cents/KwH without massive subsidies going to come from?

And further corollary to the above corollary,

Where is 75 GW new capacity per year at @3-5 cents/KwH without massive subsidies and without generating massive amounts of GHG (CO2) going to come from?

And of course without bankrupting the nation by making them dependent on other nations.

I think any suggestion of electricity generation has to address the final question. If it cannot, it is not a viable solution.

And only one technology ticks of all the boxes and it is Nuclear.

disha · Post by **disha** » 03 Mar 2018 01:50

And hence the following articles are very very imperative to be read:

1. China's plan to increase its nuclear generation by 300% https://swarajyamag.com/insta/china-to- ... us-by-2030

2. What India needs to do https://swarajyamag.com/technology/30-o ... t-50-years

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 05 Mar 2018 02:00

disha,

Thanks for the information. Your numbers roughly corroborate the data from the CEA.

In May 2017, 115,961 MU were generated. This is the peak month of power generation from all sources according to CEA data.
115,961 MU = 1.16e11 KWHr = 4.18e17 Joules
For 31 days of May 2017, this is 156 GW actual generated
Installed capacity = 330.2 GW

In Nov 2017, 102,499 MU were generated. This is the low month of power generation from all sources according to CEA data.
102,499 MU = 1.02e11 KWHr = 3.69e17 Joules
For 30 days of Nov 2017, this is 143 GW actual generated
Installed capacity = 330.9 GW

For 2017:
Low estimate: 1.02e11 KWHr/1.35e9 persons * 12 months = 911 KWHr per capita use of electric energy
High estimate: 1.16e11 KWHr/1.35e9 persons * 12 months = 1030 KWHr per capita use of electric energy

For 2016:
Low estimate: 98,598 MU = 9.86e10 KWHr/1.33e9 persons * 12 = 890 KWHr per capita use of electric energy
High estimate: 106,723 MU = 1.07e11 KWHr/1.33e9 persons * 12 = 963 KWHr per capita use of electric energy

Conservatively, at an average annual growth of 5% per capita electric energy consumption, by 2030 use will be 1800 KWHr per capita. By 2030 India’s population will be 1.5 billion, this means that 2.7e12 KWHr or 9.72e18 Joules of electric energy must be generated. This is an actual generation of 309 GW. This is very much a low estimate and by 2030 actual power need will be 400 GW. Today 156 GW is actually generated, therefore new generation by 2030 will need to be 153 GW.

Solar is some 17% efficient in actual/installed. If only solar power is installed, and assuming advances in solar, and yield is 26%, this would mean additional solar installed of 588 GW by 2030. This is simply not going to happen. The primary energy sources must come from nuclear and natural gas. If not, there will be severe power shortages across India coupled with high electric power prices and poor economic growth.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 08 Mar 2018 00:47

Solar is some 17% efficient in actual/installed. If only solar power is installed, and assuming advances in solar, and yield is 26%, this would mean additional solar installed of 588 GW by 2030. This is simply not going to happen. The primary energy sources must come from nuclear and natural gas. If not, there will be severe power shortages across India coupled with high electric power prices and poor economic growth.

This is simply not relevant. The only 2 factors that are relevant is the price and stability of supply (24hours). Solar and wind are cheaper. Solar panels on an area of 100 km x 100 km in the Thar desert would do the trick. No matter what the coal or oil lobby say. It is a fact. Ultimately it is storage of energy that is now going to be the decideing factor.

As an average 10 acre of land can produce 1 MW.
An area of 100km x 100 km would yield 250 000 MWh average. The Thar desert alone can Yield 20 such power plants.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 08 Mar 2018 10:58

Rishirishi wrote:
This is simply not relevant. The only 2 factors that are relevant is the price and stability of supply (24hours). Solar and wind are cheaper. Solar panels on an area of 100 km x 100 km in the Thar desert would do the trick. No matter what the coal or oil lobby say. It is a fact. Ultimately it is storage of energy that is now going to be the decideing factor.

It is entirely relevant. Price is irrelevant. This is about understanding the difference between peak power and average power where solar even with storage is not available 24 hours/7 days a week/365 days a year. This is about understanding how much energy is actually generated from a particular source and not putting all of your electricity generation in one source of energy for an entire country - because it is either uneconomical or unavailable.

Some basic facts:
1. Electrical energy use today in India is nearly 1000 KWHr per capita.
2. By 2030 it will be near 2000 KWHr per capita as India will be a wealthier country along with the use of electric vehicles to reduce pollution in the metros.
3. Population by 2030 will be 1.5 billion. 3.0e12 KWHr annual electrical energy consumption = 342 GW actual power generation needed (note this is not installed, but generated).

Rishirishi wrote:An area of 100km x 100 km would yield 250 000 MWh average. The Thar desert alone can Yield 20 such power plants.

Look at your own numbers. 20 x (10,000 sq. Km) = 2e11 sq. meters = 40 GW (assuming 20% panel efficiency). Which is about 10% of the power needed by 2030. Let's go ahead and double the efficiency due to storage, which is a huge assumption, then we get 20% of the power needed by 2030. What do you suggest for the remaining 80% of the power need?

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 09 Mar 2018 03:58

Look at your own numbers. 20 x (10,000 sq. Km) = 2e11 sq. meters = 40 GW (assuming 20% panel efficiency). Which is about 10% of the power needed by 2030. Let's go ahead and double the efficiency due to storage, which is a huge assumption, then we get 20% of the power needed by 2030. What do you suggest for the remaining 80% of the power need?

My calculation has already taken into account panel efficiency. Maths is simple. A unit of energy costs Rs2,5 this is a FACT. Unfourtunately solar power is only available during daytime. Hence you have to add the storage cost, for any power consumed after dawn.

Now the cost of storing the power and using it later is 200 dollars per Mwh. This gives a price of Rs 12,8 per unit. Fortunatly battery costs are falling very fast. Some predict the power storage cost to drop down to Rs 2-3 per unit.

The interesting part is that Hydro power can be used when solar is not available. This is of course in addition to the wind power. Both Wind and Solar are cheaper then coal.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 09 Mar 2018 04:37

No one's saying that Solar would be used for the base load. Why make it a straw man and argue against it?

I think the general trend is for power contracts to go towards fuel neutral bidding, whoever can produce at the cheapest rate for the specific need at the specific place would get the contract.

There is another factor that works in favor of solar which is causing the utility companies, at least in ECDP countries, to diversify their portfolio with renewable energy. The cost of fuel is fixed, it's availability per year is fixed and capital cost is fixed too. This offers kind of certainty that is not available with the conventional fuels. This predictability is a big factor in decisions of some of the utilities, which are as conservative as it gets, to have a look at the solar option.

As for as subsidies are concerned, they'll get phased out as economy of scale is achieved and global supply chain is developed. Cost of solar cell have dropped 75% in last 7 years and projected to fall another 50-70%. This will allow the solar industry to stand on their own feet in next few years. Future Tesla car buyers would be loosing subsidies this year or next, as soon as company passes milestone of fixed number of cars sold. I don't think people who are buying a $50K- $150K car are going to walkaway for $5K of govt subsidies, at least the stock market doesn't think so.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 09 Mar 2018 04:58

Mort,

Watt or Mega Watt is the unit of power, which is used to denote the size of the generation equipment not energy. So 156 GW produced is incorrect, throughput of energy is given in the plant load factors, which depends on the electricity demand, cost of generation and capacity.

You don't need to convert energy units to Joules and than divide that by time, you can simply divide the units produced by the time (in hours) and get your answer.

Energy = Power*Time

115,961 MU/31*24 = 155.8 GW (if we run at 100% plant load factor this is what we would need).

So more than half the installed capacity is unutilized because there is no demand in the night, off season months, plants need maintenance, transmission system breaks down, can't sell because cost is too high, fuel not available (gas fired plants) or customer can not use it.

Not sure what is the point of it, though?

If I get my electricity at affordable rates what do I care if solar plant is running at 15% and Coal is running at 60%. To maintain grid integrity, base loads would need Thermal/nuclear plants while renewable would provide rest of the demand. Not sure why do you keep repeating same thing again and again?