Solar energy in India

member_28985 · Post by **member_28985** » 04 May 2016 07:47

Because I was hoping people who contribute to this forum will know the intricacies of PV in India and will be better than me randomly googling for answer. I guess not, nevermind

Suraj wrote:
ashbhee wrote:I am sorry, I have to ask again. How much solar panels are manufactured in India? Do we just keep importing Chinese panels and installing them.
Why not take the initiative to find out for yourself instead of repeatedly asking ?

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 05 May 2016 22:16

alexis wrote:^^
3 factors:
1. Good tariff (> Rs.5/unit)
2. Less red tape
3. Ample availability of land

Do windmills allow for more kW/acre vs solar?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 May 2016 21:41

ashbhee wrote:Because I was hoping people who contribute to this forum will know the intricacies of PV in India and will be better than me randomly googling for answer. I guess not, nevermind

[quote="Suraj"
ashbhee wrote:I am sorry, I have to ask again. How much solar panels are manufactured in India? Do we just keep importing Chinese panels and installing them.
Why not take the initiative to find out for yourself instead of repeatedly asking ?

did your mind went by this link?
http://www.enfsolar.com/directory/panel

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 28 Sep 2016 03:45

1 Kwh for Rs 1.6

SaraLax · Post by **SaraLax** » 29 Sep 2016 11:10

648MW in Kamuthi, Tamil Nadu - World’s largest solar power plant in a single location starts its operations

Sep 2016
Kamuthi in Ramanathapuram district was once known for caste conflicts and backwardness. Now it can take pride in hosting the world’s largest solar power plant.

Developed by Adani group with an investment of Rs 4,550 crore, the solar plant was dedicated to the country yesterday. The entire solar plant, spread over 2500 acres, will produce 648 megawatts (MW) of power, making it the world’s largest solar power plant in a single location.

It took just eight months for the developers to execute the project. More than four thousand people worked on the project putting together 25 lakh solar modules, 3.8 lakh foundations, 27,000 metric tonnes of structure, and 6,000 km length of cables employing 576 inverters and 154 transformers.

According to its 2012 policy, Tamil Nadu government plans to generate 3,000 MW of its total electricity requirement through solar power. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also set an ambitious goal of generating 100,000 MW of solar power by 2022.

alexis · Post by **alexis** » 29 Sep 2016 12:36

Y. Kanan wrote:
alexis wrote:^^
3 factors:
1. Good tariff (> Rs.5/unit)
2. Less red tape
3. Ample availability of land
Do windmills allow for more kW/acre vs solar?

Based only on footprint, yes.. However, there is a distance requirement between 2 adjacent windmills.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 20 Oct 2016 13:27

x-post

Prem wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -factories
Modi Said to Plan $3.1 Billion Boost for India’s Solar Factories

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is planning a 210 billion-rupee ($3.1 billion) package of state aid for India’s solar panel manufacturing industry, according to two officials.The so-called Prayas initiative, short for “Pradhan Mantri Yojana for Augmenting Solar Manufacturing,” a central-government plan designed to lift India’s installed photovoltaic capacity as well as to create an export industry, according to two senior government officials with direct knowledge of the plan. They asked not to be identified because the policy isn’t yet public.
Modi wants to raise renewable capacity to 175 gigawatts by 2022 from 45 gigawatts at present. In addition to meeting its own energy targets, which Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates may cost $200 billion, India wants to emulate industrial developments in neighboring China, where solar manufacturers have created a world-leading export industry.The Prayas program, part of Modi’s “make in India” campaign, is intended to create 5 gigawatts of photovoltaic manufacturing capacity from 2019 and build 20 gigawatts of projects in the country by 2026, according to the officials. The policy, which is being developed by the ministry in charge of renewable energy and industrial policy, along with the Niti Aayog government research group, will be presented to the Finance Ministry within a month before going to the cabinet for final approval, they said.
Catching ChinaLast month Power Minister Piyush Goyal said in Mumbai that a policy to encourage domestic manufacturing of solar equipment is in works. When reached on phone, the spokesman for the power and renewable energy ministries declined to comment.India has become one of the biggest clients of Chinese photovoltaic manufacturers and in the absence of its own domestic capacity, that reliance could potentially grow. In the first six months of 2016, India imported 18 percent of China’s production worth $1.1 billion, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
India’s policy proposal, expected to create thousands of jobs, is also in response to the industry’s demand for help to the country’s solar manufacturers, one official said, adding that multiple tenders of a few hundred megawatts each would be issued for the manufacture of everything from wafers to modules.The government could offer about 9 million rupees a megawatt for manufacturing tenders and 5 million rupees a megawatt for local deployment, according to one of the officials, who said the numbers are subject to change.
The plan “might give a price advantage” if the manufacturing-hub logistics are “well planned,” according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Jenny Chase. Money alone isn’t a sufficient incentive for companies to set up the most high-tech automated factories needed to compete, she said.Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp. told Bloomberg News last month it’s considering a manufacturing joint venture in India that could produce the solar panels needed to meet Modi’s energy targets.“To build large-scale manufacturing efficiency matching Chinese economics of scale will require government support,” Manoj Kohli, executive chairman of SB Energy said in an interview in New Delhi. He described Indian support policies in an “evolution stage.”

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Oct 2016 19:29

The average output of PV Solar will be around 12-16% per annum of its Gross Capacity. Power production is max for 6-7 hours a day. If we add thermal solar, energy storage, on shore wind, offshore wind and better transmission to the mix to get 24 hours power production then cost trebles and fossil fuel alternatives become more attractive.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 22 Oct 2016 19:28

It seems that Modi is more into Renewables rather than accelerating Indian Indigenous PHWRs.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 22 Oct 2016 21:16

Problem is manufacturing and long time lead items. With solar it is easier to set it up faster. Modi wants to electrify the entire nation within 5 years.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 26 Oct 2016 04:21

Gyan wrote:It seems that Modi is more into Renewables rather than accelerating Indian Indigenous PHWRs.

That is becase renewables are safer and better for the environment. But above all, it is the cheapest alternative also.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 26 Oct 2016 04:24

Gyan wrote:The average output of PV Solar will be around 12-16% per annum of its Gross Capacity. Power production is max for 6-7 hours a day. If we add thermal solar, energy storage, on shore wind, offshore wind and better transmission to the mix to get 24 hours power production then cost trebles and fossil fuel alternatives become more attractive.

Solar is cheaper then coal. That is a fact.
The storage problem can be solved by using the hydro electric power stations as batteries. You simply pump water up during the day and release when needed. The loss is not all that great.

Dinesh S · Post by **Dinesh S** » 26 Oct 2016 06:53

Rishirishi wrote:
Gyan wrote:It seems that Modi is more into Renewables rather than accelerating Indian Indigenous PHWRs.
That is becase renewables are safer and better for the environment. But above all, it is the cheapest alternative also.

No it isn't. It is not cheaper, the cost is stupidly high even if the cost of solar power is half of the cost of power from natural gas generated power as it is being claimed. This is because for every kWh of energy you get from solar in the day to meet your need, you need to either establish another 1 kWh of energy from conventional sources or deploy stupidly expensive and inefficient batteries for power needs during night time because solar is not available at night. So the real cost of solar power is not 2cents/kWh as claimed by the propagandists. It is not safe, if you take into account the amount of silica and rare earths needed to be mined for fabricating and maintaining solar operations. And it isn't reliable- power is not available whenever you want.

Like it or not, nuclear (and coal) is the cheapest and most reliable and arguably safest source of electricity. Indians have been conned by the western mafia into accepting this white elephant as an alternative for energy needs. It isn't. We should stop wasting time with solar and should go nuclear. It will not run out for 1000 yrs, and we can slowly adopt solar when the battery technologies have cought up with the solar energy generations. Batteries have made piss poor progress for the past 50 yrs. Betting on them to change in a few decades is nothing short of gambling in a Russian roulette

Dinesh S · Post by **Dinesh S** » 26 Oct 2016 06:56

Rishirishi wrote:
Gyan wrote:The average output of PV Solar will be around 12-16% per annum of its Gross Capacity. Power production is max for 6-7 hours a day. If we add thermal solar, energy storage, on shore wind, offshore wind and better transmission to the mix to get 24 hours power production then cost trebles and fossil fuel alternatives become more attractive.
Solar is cheaper then coal. That is a fact.
The storage problem can be solved by using the hydro electric power stations as batteries. You simply pump water up during the day and release when needed. The loss is not all that great.

The efficiency of such a system, .ie storing solar energy in hydroelectric dams would be stupidly low to make it even worthwhile from a cost point of view let alone practicality of it

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 26 Oct 2016 09:17

Dinesh S wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:
That is becase renewables are safer and better for the environment. But above all, it is the cheapest alternative also.
No it isn't. It is not cheaper, the cost is stupidly high even if the cost of solar power is half of the cost of power from natural gas generated power as it is being claimed. This is because for every kWh of energy you get from solar in the day to meet your need, you need to either establish another 1 kWh of energy from conventional sources or deploy stupidly expensive and inefficient batteries for power needs during night time because solar is not available at night. So the real cost of solar power is not 2cents/kWh as claimed by the propagandists. It is not safe, if you take into account the amount of silica and rare earths needed to be mined for fabricating and maintaining solar operations. And it isn't reliable- power is not available whenever you want.

Like it or not, nuclear (and coal) is the cheapest and most reliable and arguably safest source of electricity. Indians have been conned by the western mafia into accepting this white elephant as an alternative for energy needs. It isn't. We should stop wasting time with solar and should go nuclear. It will not run out for 1000 yrs, and we can slowly adopt solar when the battery technologies have cought up with the solar energy generations. Batteries have made piss poor progress for the past 50 yrs. Betting on them to change in a few decades is nothing short of gambling in a Russian roulette

CSP - gas/steam turbo power generation by day, CAES powered-coal heated, gas turbo by night, or no-sun period.
Cheaper, proven and reliable.

Dinesh S · Post by **Dinesh S** » 27 Oct 2016 02:26

Rammpal wrote:
Dinesh S wrote: No it isn't. It is not cheaper, the cost is stupidly high even if the cost of solar power is half of the cost of power from natural gas generated power as it is being claimed. This is because for every kWh of energy you get from solar in the day to meet your need, you need to either establish another 1 kWh of energy from conventional sources or deploy stupidly expensive and inefficient batteries for power needs during night time because solar is not available at night. So the real cost of solar power is not 2cents/kWh as claimed by the propagandists. It is not safe, if you take into account the amount of silica and rare earths needed to be mined for fabricating and maintaining solar operations. And it isn't reliable- power is not available whenever you want.

Like it or not, nuclear (and coal) is the cheapest and most reliable and arguably safest source of electricity. Indians have been conned by the western mafia into accepting this white elephant as an alternative for energy needs. It isn't. We should stop wasting time with solar and should go nuclear. It will not run out for 1000 yrs, and we can slowly adopt solar when the battery technologies have cought up with the solar energy generations. Batteries have made piss poor progress for the past 50 yrs. Betting on them to change in a few decades is nothing short of gambling in a Russian roulette
CSP - gas/steam turbo power generation by day, CAES powered-coal heated, gas turbo by night, or no-sun period.
Cheaper, proven and reliable.

Do you understand logic and maths? The power needs of the country is usually the same throughout the day with very little noticeable variation. That is, if india needs 100GW of power during day, it needs 100GW of energy during night too. So, if you want to get 100GW of solar during day, you will have to install 100 GW of gas/coal etc for generation during night/evening etc too in addition to installing solar plants for day, which is extra cost which the solar hippies don't consider in their calculations . So your total installation will be for 200GWs even though the need is only 100GWs. So, The money saved from "cheap" solar at day will not be enough to make up for the money you are investing additionally to set up coal/gas plants as backups for the solar in the first place unless the cost of solar is half the cost of that produced by gas/coal, outside subsidies

Btw, throwing buzzwords like clean cheap and others with no basis is not an argument. Its just throwing buzzwords

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 27 Oct 2016 04:53

Dinesh S wrote:
Rammpal wrote:
CSP - gas/steam turbo power generation by day, CAES powered-coal heated, gas turbo by night, or no-sun period.
Cheaper, proven and reliable.
Do you understand logic and maths? The power needs of the country is usually the same throughout the day with very little noticeable variation. That is, if india needs 100GW of power during day, it needs 100GW of energy during night too. So, if you want to get 100GW of solar during day, you will have to install 100 GW of gas/coal etc for generation during night/evening etc too in addition to installing solar plants for day, which is extra cost which the solar hippies don't consider in their calculations . So your total installation will be for 200GWs even though the need is only 100GWs. So, The money saved from "cheap" solar at day will not be enough to make up for the money you are investing additionally to set up coal/gas plants as backups for the solar in the first place unless the cost of solar is half the cost of that produced by gas/coal, outside subsidies

Btw, throwing buzzwords like clean cheap and others with no basis is not an argument. Its just throwing buzzwords

No you do not need coal backup. A mix of wind, hydro and hydro storate will do the trick. Please do research before making blunt statements. It is a fact that the cheapest electricity supply contract ever so far is solar. Also round trip loss of pumping water in hydro electric dams is nominal. see link below. And the power demand is NOT the same through out the day. It is very low during the evening and night, when the industry is shut down.

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage ... ic-storage

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 27 Oct 2016 07:55

"...Do you understand logic and maths? The power needs of the country is usually the same throughout the day with very little noticeable variation. That is, if india needs 100GW of power during day, it needs 100GW of energy during night too. So, if you want to get 100GW of solar during day, you will have to install 100 GW of gas/coal etc for generation during night/evening etc too in addition to installing solar plants for day, which is extra cost which the solar hippies don't consider in their calculations . So your total installation will be for 200GWs even though the need is only 100GWs. So, The money saved from "cheap" solar at day will not be enough to make up for the money you are investing additionally to set up coal/gas plants as backups for the solar in the first place unless the cost of solar is half the cost of that produced by gas/coal, outside subsidies

Btw, throwing buzzwords like clean cheap and others with no basis is not an argument. Its just throwing buzzwords..."

1. My proposal is an alternative setup, vis-a-vis, PV and battery.
2. With CSP, only the conventional fuel(hydrocarbon, biomass, etc) is replaced with thermal solar.
3. Steam or gas-turbo, is required for conventional plant anyway.

Now, why CAES?
A lot more compact and flexible, as compared to pumped up hydro, with plenty of commonality of equipment as well, vis-a-vis, turbo gen-sets.

The other important aspect is - seamless transition from full solar power generation to zero solar power condition, at sunset, for example.
i.e.: just before sunset, CAES based power system is revved up, while solar generated power is steadily channeled to CAES.
This way, by the time sun sets, CAES system would be in full swing, i.e.: seamless transition.

Ref;
Adani's Kamudhi giant solar plant needs complex control switchgear system to make such roll over from solar to conventional power system possible.
Not exactly a rugged setup is it ?

Another alternative to CAES-turbo, is PHCA - Pumped Hydro Compressed Air, whereby water, pressurised by compressed air, runs hydro-turbine to generate power.
Argument for it, is that it's a lot more simple and compact as compared to CAES-turbo or conventional pumped up hydro systems.

However, with PHCA, heat can't be added to compressed air to increase its latent energy.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 27 Oct 2016 09:18

[quote=Rishirishi]

No you do not need coal backup. A mix of wind, hydro and hydro storate will do the trick. Please do research before making blunt statements. It is a fact that the cheapest electricity supply contract ever so far is solar. Also round trip loss of pumping water in hydro electric dams is nominal. see link below. And the power demand is NOT the same through out the day. It is very low during the evening and night, when the industry is shut down.

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage ... ic-storage[/quote]

How do you deal with evaporation issues?

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 28 Oct 2016 06:07

Hitesh wrote:
Rishirishi wrote:

No you do not need coal backup. A mix of wind, hydro and hydro storate will do the trick. Please do research before making blunt statements. It is a fact that the cheapest electricity supply contract ever so far is solar. Also round trip loss of pumping water in hydro electric dams is nominal. see link below. And the power demand is NOT the same through out the day. It is very low during the evening and night, when the industry is shut down.

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage ... ic-storage
How do you deal with evaporation issues?

Evaputation is not the greatest problem. it is more theoretical then practical. the 15-20% loss is mostly due to loss of energy in pumps.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 29 Oct 2016 00:10

Dinesh S wrote:
Rammpal wrote:
CSP - gas/steam turbo power generation by day, CAES powered-coal heated, gas turbo by night, or no-sun period.
Cheaper, proven and reliable.
Do you understand logic and maths? The power needs of the country is usually the same throughout the day with very little noticeable variation. That is, if india needs 100GW of power during day, it needs 100GW of energy during night too. So, if you want to get 100GW of solar during day, you will have to install 100 GW of gas/coal etc for generation during night/evening etc too in addition to installing solar plants for day, which is extra cost which the solar hippies don't consider in their calculations . So your total installation will be for 200GWs even though the need is only 100GWs. So, The money saved from "cheap" solar at day will not be enough to make up for the money you are investing additionally to set up coal/gas plants as backups for the solar in the first place unless the cost of solar is half the cost of that produced by gas/coal, outside subsidies

Btw, throwing buzzwords like clean cheap and others with no basis is not an argument. Its just throwing buzzwords

It is you that need to learn and understand the logic and math and the meaning of throwing buzzwords for you are the one doing that. At night, you don't need 100 GWs of power because that is the time when most people are sleeping and not using energy. You have to look at peak times and base power load to truly understand the needs of power. Judging from your post, you haven't got a clue how power works.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 29 Oct 2016 04:34

^^^Power demands that are not otherwise posted are average power. It is not peak power. If you want to talk about energy, then use Joules or better yet, Watt-Hours. If it is 100GW, then it is 100GW. Period.

At night time, there is still air conditioning, lighting, cooking, and so forth. Solar energy should be in the mix of an energy basket, but it is not the full answer to India's energy demands. Nuclear power would provide the base load along with hydro, natural gas, and coal. Solar energy is great, but it is best suited to be used for daytime peak load. I would say if enough nuclear power is present, then in India we can switch to plug-in hybrid vehicles for transportation. It would clean up the air quality in all of the metros.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 29 Oct 2016 06:11

Solar energy should be in the mix of an energy basket, but it is not the full answer to India's energy demands.

'Mix of energy basket'- exactly !

Challenge lies not in the type of energy source, but rather which is the best 'battery'or energy storage system.
i.e.: is electro-chemical battery better than PH, or CAES, or flywheel, etc.

Can India's energy needs met completely by solar ?
Why not ?
With the right type of energy storage system mix, it can indeed be !

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 29 Oct 2016 19:18

^^^India's total energy needs for power alone can NOT be met by solar. Natural gas and nuclear should provide the base load, solar will provide the peak load. We can argue all day about this, but solar will never become the predominant energy source in India or anywhere else in the world until PVs get above 60% efficiency. The numbers simply don't work out.

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 29 Oct 2016 23:02

Mort Walker wrote:^^^India's total energy needs for power alone can NOT be met by solar. Natural gas and nuclear should provide the base load, solar will provide the peak load. We can argue all day about this, but solar will never become the predominant energy source in India or anywhere else in the world until PVs get above 60% efficiency. The numbers simply don't work out.

That is a strong statement to make without any backing of facts. I dare say that Nuclear will be phased out, as is happening in most other places in the world, and renewable energy is going to provide 90% of the energy within 25-40 years.

Even a high demand Germany is getting over 35% of the power from renewable sources (and they do not have any hydro electric).

It is estimated that 1 MWh required appox 2 acre of land. A patch of 75KM x 75Km of land in the Thar and Rajastan desert would be 1,4 million acres. That is sufficient for producing 700 000 Mwh. In addition will come wind and hydro electric.

Dynamics have changed, renewable are simply more economical now.

disha · Post by **disha** » 30 Oct 2016 05:15

All the solar energy wannabes., how does one manufacture a solar cell?

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 30 Oct 2016 06:16

Mort Walker wrote:^^^India's total energy needs for power alone can NOT be met by solar. Natural gas and nuclear should provide the base load, solar will provide the peak load. We can argue all day about this, but solar will never become the predominant energy source in India or anywhere else in the world until PVs get above 60% efficiency. The numbers simply don't work out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrici ... r_in_India

As of March 2016, total installed thermal power generation capacity is about 211 000 MW.

Let's take Kamuthi solar plant as a comparator, i.e.: 648 MW;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_S ... er_Project

211 000/648 = 326, i.e.: India needs that many Kamuthi type plants to match current installed capacity.
Spread that throughout 29 states and 7 union territories, i.e.: 326/(29+7) = 9.

i.e.: 9 sites of 1270 acres each in every state and UT.

Make that a tad more than 18, as solar is only available part of the day.

Is it impossible to achieve this ?

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 30 Oct 2016 06:16

disha wrote:All the solar energy wannabes., how does one manufacture a solar cell?

What has that got to do with anything ?!!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Oct 2016 07:44

Rishirishi wrote: That is a strong statement to make without any backing of facts. I dare say that Nuclear will be phased out, as is happening in most other places in the world, and renewable energy is going to provide 90% of the energy within 25-40 years.

Even a high demand Germany is getting over 35% of the power from renewable sources (and they do not have any hydro electric).

It is estimated that 1 MWh required appox 2 acre of land. A patch of 75KM x 75Km of land in the Thar and Rajastan desert would be 1,4 million acres. That is sufficient for producing 700 000 Mwh. In addition will come wind and hydro electric.

Dynamics have changed, renewable are simply more economical now.

Let's put this in proper perspective. 700,000 MWHr (energy) = 29,167 MW (power, which is MWHr/24Hr). The best production photovoltaics are 20% efficient. So this is 5834 MW (power) at best. In reality to keep the panels aligned with peak sun, we're looking at even lower efficiency. A square of 75KM x 75KM is a LOT. The desert has an ecosystem even though it is very dry. By covering up this much land, you are detrimentally affecting the wildlife and fauna. This will never be built because the economics of it don't work out. It will be more expensive than coal and natural gas. The power quoted by wind turbine manufacturers are peak power and not average constant power. Wind turbines are at best 15% efficient.

Germany gets 35% from solar, but Germany does get the remaining 65% from natural gas and nuclear from surrounding countries. France gets 75% of its power from nuclear. Japan is restarting its nuclear power generation as well. Newer reactor designs and thorium fuel is very safe - and that is the approach that must be taken to establish a base load. Solar power and wind must also be in the mix. Relying solely on renewable power will not work. Not because of any policy, because the economics of it don't make sense. Hydroelectric has its own problems of submerging large parts of land and displacing many people, so its not free or easy either.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 30 Oct 2016 07:58

"...Not because of any policy, because the economics of it don't make sense...."

It's precisely why going solar/RE needs to be policy driven, vis-a-vis, Indian's over dependence on petro-fuel, vis-a-vis, India's long term energy self-sufficiency outlook !!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Oct 2016 08:01

Rammpal wrote: Let's take Kamuthi solar plant as a comparator, i.e.: 648 MW;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamuthi_S ... er_Project

211 000/648 = 326, i.e.: India needs that many Kamuthi type plants to match current installed capacity.
Spread that throughout 29 states and 7 union territories, i.e.: 326/(29+7) = 9.

i.e.: 9 sites of 1270 acres each in every state and UT.

Make that a tad more than 18, as solar is only available part of the day.

Is it impossible to achieve this ?

Let's take Kamuti solar power plant as an example.

1270 acres = 5139508 square meters. Solar flux is 1000 W/m^2 on earth's surface. So the solar power from this area is 5,139 MW in perfect conditions with no loss. However it is generating only 648 MW. This works out to an efficiency of less than 13%. Kundakulam nuclear facility is generating 2,000 MW and will soon be generating 2,000 more. So we need only 53 more Kundakulam type facilities across 29 states and 7 union territories.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 30 Oct 2016 08:04

^^ Totally agree.
I was merely showcasing the feasibility of going 100% solar, i.e.: it Is doable.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Oct 2016 08:04

Rammpal wrote:"...Not because of any policy, because the economics of it don't make sense...."

It's precisely why going solar/RE needs to be policy driven, vis-a-vis, Indian's over dependence on petro-fuel, vis-a-vis, India's long term energy self-sufficiency outlook !!

Who said petro-fuels? There is plenty of coal and natural gas within India, but why should the central government go in to debt to finance something which can not stand on its own financially? We want to move away from subsidies.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 30 Oct 2016 08:07

Rammpal wrote:^^ Totally agree.
I was merely showcasing the feasibility of going 100% solar, i.e.: it Is doable.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Kamuthi plant is great, it will be used for peak load. Having lots of cheap electricity in TN has probably helped bring and keep the auto industry manufacturing in southern India. A mix of solar and nuclear is wonderful.

I think the states of Rajashtan, Bihar and eastern UP would benefit tremendously from solar power.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 30 Oct 2016 08:13

Mort Walker wrote:
Rammpal wrote:"...Not because of any policy, because the economics of it don't make sense...."

It's precisely why going solar/RE needs to be policy driven, vis-a-vis, Indian's over dependence on petro-fuel, vis-a-vis, India's long term energy self-sufficiency outlook !!
Who said petro-fuels? There is plenty of coal and natural gas within India, but why should the central government go in to debt to finance something which can not stand on its own financially? We want to move away from subsidies.

Petro-fuel = petro-oleo + coal + NG

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 30 Oct 2016 11:45

Most of the industries work 24 hours hence base load is important. Also base load plant depending on type of fuel can take hours to days to power up and down, though technology in this regard is improving. As a thumb rule peak electricity consumption during day time is around 30% more than night time. Daytime electricity consumption can also be increased for agriculture use. As per my general estimate Solar PV is Rs. 5 per unit for peak daytime 6 hours. Add 6 hours storage, average cost Rs. 7.5 per unit. Wind energy is better available at night on shore Rs. 10 per unit and off shore around Rs. 15 per unit. Add sophisticated transmission network to manage supply demand, one gets Rs. 12.5 to 15 per unit. Compare it to depreciated coal and nuclear base load plants Rs. 2.5 per unit or new coming on line Rs 5 per unit, new being planned Rs. 5-7 per unit.

Solar PV will become important for day time peak loads and for demand which is time independent like agricultural irrigation loads.

For India low handing fruit, is to improve transmission network and upgrade middle age coal plants.

This can be stated in another way. Coal, nuclear, gas 100 MW plant has efficiency of 90%+. Now PV Solar installed capacity has to be around 1000 MW for 15% generation efficiency, then storage and regeneration losses for 18 hours.

Planned 300 GW Capcity of Renewables will provide only 10% of our electricity Need or just 2-4% of our energy need by 2030. But it's a step in right direction.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 30 Oct 2016 21:06

Gyan wrote:Most of the industries work 24 hours hence base load is important. Also base load plant depending on type of fuel can take hours to days to power up and down, though technology in this regard is improving. As a thumb rule peak electricity consumption during day time is around 30% more than night time. Daytime electricity consumption can also be increased for agriculture use. As per my general estimate Solar PV is Rs. 5 per unit for peak daytime 6 hours. Add 6 hours storage, average cost Rs. 7.5 per unit. Wind energy is better available at night on shore Rs. 10 per unit and off shore around Rs. 15 per unit. Add sophisticated transmission network to manage supply demand, one gets Rs. 12.5 to 15 per unit. Compare it to depreciated coal and nuclear base load plants Rs. 2.5 per unit or new coming on line Rs 5 per unit, new being planned Rs. 5-7 per unit.

The reason why industries work 24 hours most of the time is because they suffer from periodic blackouts and shutdowns so they need to work through 24 hours just to make up for production that could be had in 8 hours. This lack of stably steady supply of power is reason for so many of the inefficiencies we see in our Indian industry. Once we implement a steady stable supply of power, we will see an uptick of improvement in the industrial efficiency as the powers that be realize that greater savings could be had if production could be done in 8 hours instead of 24 hours and save down on labor costs and improve response to customer demand and customer satisfaction index and thereby increasing chances of repeated orders.

Solar PV will become important for day time peak loads and for demand which is time independent like agricultural irrigation loads.

For India low handing fruit, is to improve transmission network and upgrade middle age coal plants.

Yes improving the transmission network and cutting down losses and inefficiencies would drastically improve the power supply situation. Another low hanging fruit would be to retrofit existing coal plants with CO2 reduction devices.

This can be stated in another way. Coal, nuclear, gas 100 MW plant has efficiency of 90%+. Now PV Solar installed capacity has to be around 1000 MW for 15% generation efficiency, then storage and regeneration losses for 18 hours.

Planned 300 GW Capcity of Renewables will provide only 10% of our electricity Need or just 2-4% of our energy need by 2030. But it's a step in right direction.

You are forgetting the cost involved in getting the coal and moving the coal to power plants and disposing of the coal ash, the cost of obtaining nuclear materials and refining them for power use and disposal of such nuclear waste. When you factor in those costs, you will start to find renewable technology more cost effective.

disha · Post by **disha** » 31 Oct 2016 05:33

Rammpal wrote:
disha wrote:All the solar energy wannabes., how does one manufacture a solar cell?
What has that got to do with anything ?!!

Everything!

I am totally in

that you are actually shocked! Please learn how a solar cell is manufactured first. Fruitful discussions can be had only after that., till then it is simply undigested pindi chana output.

Rammpal · Post by **Rammpal** » 31 Oct 2016 05:52

"..I am totally in

that you are actually shocked! Please learn how a solar cell is manufactured first. Fruitful discussions can be had only after that., till then it is simply undigested pindi chana output...."

!
I need power from solar, and I go the PV route.
I buy panels and install at my site.
PV panels are available by the truckloads off the shelf !
Why do I need to know how its made ?

I presume there's deep tattva involved in that question, could you kindly elaborate, please ?

disha · Post by **disha** » 31 Oct 2016 05:54

Hitesh wrote:You are forgetting the cost involved in getting the coal and moving the coal to power plants and disposing of the coal ash, the cost of obtaining nuclear materials and refining them for power use and disposal of such nuclear waste. When you factor in those costs, you will start to find renewable technology more cost effective.

Peanuts. The cost to move the coal to a coal power plant is peanuts. So also disposing off the ash. Nuclear materials is even more cheaper and far more cheaper than the coal ash if 3-Stage nuclear program is played out.

When you factor of this costs., you will find Solar technology prohibitively costly.

Coal can be made into a slurry and the slurry transported miles away., or one can set up a power plant right near a coal mine. Wait Modi Sarkaar is doing just that.

A typical 1000 MWe PHWR/CANDU type nuclear plant will produce < 1 tonne of waste. This can be vitrified and stored either on site or in a 3 stage cycle further whittled down to some 5 tonnes vitrified! This is basically a block of 6 ft/6ft /6 ft. A truckload. 100 GWe will produce 100 truckloads per year., which can be stored some 500 mars down below sea floor near a subduction zone near Andamans.

So to say that Solar is cheaper and non-polluting is a myth. Please check how a solar cell is first made.