Solar energy in India

[Rishirishi]

How coal is undercut by solar power in Dubai.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-in-dubai

[disha]

Why do I need to know how its made ?

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

Sir., check this out

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-Cell.html

It takes 7 years of cell energy to produce a cell. That is after 7 years., the cell starts paying off in terms of net energy. Till that point., the cell has taken a debt of energy. This energy debt is provided by coal and other base load systems.

And BTW., solar cell does contribute to CO2 emissions., significant. If you are producing 1 tonne of solar cell., that much of CO2 is vented into atmosphere? Tell me how it is "completely" green?

[Rammpal]

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

Won't need to go there with CSP !!

[Rishirishi]

Solar power supplied at 2,42 cents KWh. or RS 1,54 per unit. For coal and gas the price is arround 5 to 6 cents per KWh 3 to 4 times the price.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/world-rec ... abu-dhabi/

I feel any further discussions should be backed up by facts.

[Hitesh]

Don't forget the cost of mining the coal and the health costs that come with it. Same thing goes for nuclear fuel.

[Mort Walker]

Don't forget the cost of mining the coal and the health costs that come with it. Same thing goes for nuclear fuel.

And what about the rare earths mining for PVs? Then all of the land that is covered which really disrupts the ecosystem. What about wind turbines killing birds and its shadows that cause stress to wildlife?

[Mort Walker]

Solar power supplied at 2,42 cents KWh. or RS 1,54 per unit. For coal and gas the price is arround 5 to 6 cents per KWh 3 to 4 times the price.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/world-rec ... abu-dhabi/

I feel any further discussions should be backed up by facts.

That's just a bid and not actual costs. Show us some actual production costs. At less than 13% efficiency, solar power on a large scale makes little sense at present time.

[Gyan]

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.

But the hard reality is that MODI Govt is very heavily committed to Solar. I would have thought that our main push should be towards indigenous PHWRs using imported fuel. The cost of indigenous reactor plus 30 years fuel being stocked, would be still less than imported nuclear reactors or renewables.

Solar is not maintenance free. For instance, solar panels need to be washed everyday. If this water is recycled then cost goes up further. Though combing wind and solar may provide better efficiencies. But Solar, wind still cost 3-4 times the conventional electricity in base load delivery.

Off shore can have average load factor Upto 30%, compared to on shore 15% and solar 10% average per annum load efficiency. I think we need to explore off shore wind energy more aggressively.

Per me, short term solution (less than 5 years) has to be upgrading our old coal plants and improving transmission, usage efficiency. Long term (10-20 years) indigenous PHWRs and Hydro. Super long term (15-30 years) off shore wind and other renewables. Mid term ie 5-10 years is the real question which has no clear answer and depends a lot on market economics.

[disha]

Look at Modi Sarkaar's plan., he has fixed the coal mining and its consumption to solve the base load problem., currently coal power is growing rapidly. This is a mid-term solution. Long term is nuclear power plant. He is also using solar power to reach to a minimum clean energy goal. That is gaps are being filled with immediate, mid and long term solutions.

Think it this way., Indian economy needs some 16-20% growth YoY in energy production for the next 2 decades. To cope up with the economic demand due to growth and also to fill in the deficit created over decades (large areas in east and NE are still decades back).

Hence any and all sources that can be commercialized to generate power must be pursued. Including Solar.

[Dinesh S]

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.

Yes, people don't need electricity at night after the sun has set. No no no. They onlee need electricity during day. They all go to sleep after 6pm when sun sets. They don't do any other work which needs electricity. Thanks for ejicating me sir. Deepfully thankful.

Do us and humanity a favor, disconnect yourself and your home from central power grid and use solar power onlee as it is half as costly as other sources like you have pointed out

[Dinesh S]

Look at Modi Sarkaar's plan., he has fixed the coal mining and its consumption to solve the base load problem., currently coal power is growing rapidly. This is a mid-term solution. Long term is nuclear power plant. He is also using solar power to reach to a minimum clean energy goal. That is gaps are being filled with immediate, mid and long term solutions.

Think it this way., Indian economy needs some 16-20% growth YoY in energy production for the next 2 decades. To cope up with the economic demand due to growth and also to fill in the deficit created over decades (large areas in east and NE are still decades back).

Hence any and all sources that can be commercialized to generate power must be pursued. Including Solar.

While what you say is true , any investment in solar is very costly considering the energy backups it needs if we need 24/7 power supply. We are not germany or other super rich country to waste away our resources on expensive crap like solar.

Nuke energy OTOH is a very practical solution , reliable AND cheap

[Dinesh S]

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

How practical is this solution, as in flat lands which make the majority of indian landmass? What will be the additional cost to create these power backups/storage as you call it? Will solar remain still cheap after accounting for these additional cost? That is for every cent you invest in in solar, you need to create back up in the form of this hydro plant, in equivalent or more amount. So even if the cost of solar is only 2.5cents/kWhr it will balloon to 5 cents/kWhr if you factor in these additional costs. And that too after all the useless subsidies for solar by the govts. That's why I am very skeptical of the solar energy hype. We as a poor country don't have luxury to invest in white elephants when far cheaper alternatives are existent.

We can start thinking about saving the planet after we have reached per capita emission levels of the whites. Till then, we need to do what is cheapest and most reliable for us- nuke and coal

[Dinesh S]

Why do I need to know how its made ?

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

Sir., check this out

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-Cell.html

It takes 7 years of cell energy to produce a cell. That is after 7 years., the cell starts paying off in terms of net energy. Till that point., the cell has taken a debt of energy. This energy debt is provided by coal and other base load systems.

And BTW., solar cell does contribute to CO2 emissions., significant. If you are producing 1 tonne of solar cell., that much of CO2 is vented into atmosphere? Tell me how it is "completely" green?

Co2 is an irrelevant discussion atm as far as indians are concerned. Unless the Americans and Europeans pay us to use clean energy, we have no moral obligation to use clean energy. Our primary objective is to our poor citizens and duty is to uplift them out of poverty. Not drink liberal kool aid and feel guilty for something the whites are responsible. Do you see west giving up their dams when they make documentaries on how dams are bad for environment? These people are so pathetic that even wind energy is bad because it cause death of birds and we have to take them seriously?

As i already said, unless European/Americans ,who are responsible for the co2 emissions historically/today are going to pay for it,we have no moral obligation to go for clean expensive energy

[Indranil]

^^^ It is not a matter of who is morally responsible. When the consequences of environmental degradation have to be faced, India will have pay to equally whether we are morally responsible or not. The problem with environmental degradation is that it has not started affecting our lives yet. The day it does, we will start to act. Till then we will all doubt science and pass the buck on who needs to do what.

On the issue of solar energy, I have had long discussions with friends who are working in the field to make solar cells with the smallest impact on the environment. There are several directions, but having an (indirect) impact much below the fossil fuels is yet to be cracked. The most practical solution is to combine wind and solar together. Other methods involve directions like generation organic solar cells. However, the jury is definitely still out. We also have to wait for the lifecycle of the first solar cells to complete, and see how these cells are discarded responsibly in a mass scale.

Question is what is India's options in the interim. Clearly, it needs to generate more energy for its population and any govt. has to show a report card of development on this after 4 years in the seat. They can't wait for firm solutions to emerge. Till then solar seems to be a shiny solution.

However, I would love to see India investigate ways to leverage energy from its long coastline with warm waters all around it. There are many countries looking into it seriously, and we should too.

[Rishirishi]

Solar power supplied at 2,42 cents KWh. or RS 1,54 per unit. For coal and gas the price is arround 5 to 6 cents per KWh 3 to 4 times the price.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/world-rec ... abu-dhabi/

I feel any further discussions should be backed up by facts.

That's just a bid and not actual costs. Show us some actual production costs. At less than 13% efficiency, solar power on a large scale makes little sense at present time.

It is the selected bid, where 3 other bidders were close. I am starting to wonder if you are some kind of Nuclear/fossile fuel advocate. That 13% efficiency you keep on talking about has nothing to do with this. Face it. Solar power is cheaper.

[Rammpal]

....However, I would love to see India investigate ways to leverage energy from its long coastline with warm waters all around it. There are many countries looking into it seriously, and we should too.

1. Coastal kinetic energy.
2. Tidal.
3. Cold water from abt. 100m deep.

3. Imagine the amount of condensate that could be harvested from atmosphere alone, around the coastal drylands of TN.
With this, who needs rain anymore !

[Rammpal]

"..In 2014 Atlantis Energy proposed to install and develop 50-200 MW Tidal stream based power plant at Gulf of Chambey..."

http://mnre.gov.in/schemes/new-technolo ... al-energy/

[Mort Walker]

It is the selected bid, where 3 other bidders were close. I am starting to wonder if you are some kind of Nuclear/fossile fuel advocate. That 13% efficiency you keep on talking about has nothing to do with this. Face it. Solar power is cheaper.

Efficiency has everything to do with cost and bogus cost estimates will undermine solar power, which is something no one wants. One of the largest solar plant in the world is in TN. Kamuthi Solar Power Project and it is less than 13% efficient.

[guru.shetty]

Why is solar panel efficiency so important? My panels (on the roof) are only 16% efficient. Since my panels generate energy at 1/3 the cost of my utility provided energy, I still come ahead. And mind you, I live in a area (san francisco) where rooftop solar installation costs right now ($3 per watt) are twice as
in India and Germany.

Indian industries pay exorbitant costs for energy so as to subsidise freeloaders. It is a matter of time, where they will move enmasse to solar.

[Hitesh]

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.

Yes, people don't need electricity at night after the sun has set. No no no. They onlee need electricity during day. They all go to sleep after 6pm when sun sets. They don't do any other work which needs electricity. Thanks for ejicating me sir. Deepfully thankful.

Do us and humanity a favor, disconnect yourself and your home from central power grid and use solar power onlee as it is half as costly as other sources like you have pointed out

Don't be an ass. You are not doing humanity and India any favor when you are at it. Reread my words again and think before you open your trap. Demand for electricity goes down in the middle of the night when most people are sleeping and not doing any activities. Peak times occur around morning times and evening times. Solar power coupled with battery and energy storage devices can alleviate the peak demand. We need base power to provide steady stream of power but not so much of it otherwise we end up wasting it and risk damaging the electric grid. That is where peak power supply come in. Solar power coupled with energy storage devices can supply the majority of the peak power without damaging the grid and without going through a very expensive process of building the necessary power stations.

So do us and humanity a favor; go back to school and hit the books. I suggest starting with elementary 101 and mathematics 101.

[Hitesh]

Don't forget the cost of mining the coal and the health costs that come with it. Same thing goes for nuclear fuel.

And what about the rare earths mining for PVs? Then all of the land that is covered which really disrupts the ecosystem. What about wind turbines killing birds and its shadows that cause stress to wildlife?

Wind turbines killing birds and causing stress to wildlife is a load of bs fed by those NIMBYs. If you station the wind turbines out in the ocean, it become far less of a concern.

As for rare earth mining, at least it is much cleaner than coal mining. You are not really counting the true costs of coal mining and the use of coal. Coal technology is obsolete and a dead end. We need to focus on nuclear power, wind, solar, natural gas, and other sources of energy other than coal in that order.

[Mort Walker]

^^^If you're counting true cost, then you must factor all things in to the calculation for power. Wind turbines killing birds and affecting migration patterns are an issue. The vulture population in India has decreased to endangered levels. Putting up excessive amounts of wind turbines would aggravate an already bad situation.

[Mort Walker]

Why is solar panel efficiency so important? My panels (on the roof) are only 16% efficient. Since my panels generate energy at 1/3 the cost of my utility provided energy, I still come ahead. And mind you, I live in a area (san francisco) where rooftop solar installation costs right now ($3 per watt) are twice as
in India and Germany.

Indian industries pay exorbitant costs for energy so as to subsidise freeloaders. It is a matter of time, where they will move enmasse to solar.

Retail price of power is very different from the actual cost of generating it. Efficiency matters. Residential use is great and that is one of many places for solar power. If you have a plug in hybrid or true EV like a Tesla, then even more better. However, you're not a commercial company generating the power and putting it on the grid for sale. Apples to oranges.

[Rammpal]

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.

The above assumption is terribly simplistic and flawed, and that's the source of your claimed 13% PV panel efficiency.

PV panel is not installed on every square inch of 1270 acres.

i.e.: PV makers brochure efficiency is valid, which is easily above 13%.

[Rammpal]

Coal technology is obsolete and a dead end. We need to focus on nuclear power, wind, solar, natural gas, and other sources of energy other than coal in that order.

A little too soon to call coal industry dead, it's gonna stick around for a few more decades at least
Coal isn't used as fuel alone, ye know !

[Hitesh]

^^^If you're counting true cost, then you must factor all things in to the calculation for power. Wind turbines killing birds and affecting migration patterns are an issue. The vulture population in India has decreased to endangered levels. Putting up excessive amounts of wind turbines would aggravate an already bad situation.

The vulture population does not travel to areas where there are no feeding grounds. Out far in the ocean you will not find feeding grounds for birds and vultures. And the main reason why the vultures are dying out is because of the poisoning of the air and the food chain, not the wind turbines.

[Hitesh]

A little too soon to call coal industry dead, it's gonna stick around for a few more decades at least
Coal isn't used as fuel alone, ye know !

It will stick around a couple decades but it will not last into the last half of this century as a profitable industry. I look at the coal industry at the same way that historians look at whale oil. Obsolete and on the way out.

[nandakumar]

Diclofenac in carcasses especially of cows is the cause of declining vulture population.

[guru.shetty]

Some excerpts from a recent Piyush Goyal speech.

On global warming

if we don’t invest in renewables I suspect going forward with the kind of reports that are emanating about climate change, the dangers of climate change, the dangers of global temperature rising up to two degrees, we may not have a social sector to take care of, going forward. So I think the nation will have to start appreciating and recognizing that renewables is an integral part of our very survival, of the very survival of India as a entity which does not have to face earthquakes and typhoons and thunderstorms and droughts and floods year in and year out, many of these are being traced back to the problems of climate change. So I think both should co-exist, renewables as I said earlier in response to the hydro question, also has a great deal to do with our energy security because the sun and wind, water will never go away from us, we will always have that so that adds to our energy security.

On Nudging Discoms to buy renewables:

It’s a question of the understanding whether renewable power should be looked at as a burden or whether it’s the value-add in their portfolio in the long run, just like hydro wars 50 years ago. After all, when hydro projects were set up, Bhakra Nangal, Sutlej, Yamuna link, all these projects that today, the Salaal plant that I mentioned in Jammu. All of these today are like gems, they are supplying power at such affordable prices that we can’t even imagine, any of here and renewable energy. To my mind, solar, wind and all of these projects that we are setting up today have a similar story. When you contract at Rs 4.5 or Rs 5 for solar power today, you are actually going to get power 25 years later at the same price. So it’s something we are leaving behind for the children of the country. It’s in some sense reflective on our inter-generational equity.

Views on natural gas:

I am extremely bullish on gas. Only thing is I cannot leave my power plants open to a pricing which is based on the Henry Hub which at one point of time was as high as what $12 or 14, $16. At that price point, if I was to contract gas and get gas to India and try and make power out of it at Rs 8-9 a unit, of course, the states and the DISCOMs will kill me but the people of India will throw me out, this guy doesn’t deserve to be a Minister. We can’t, India can’t afford power at those abnormally high prices. What I need is gas at an affordable price by which I can run my gas-based power plants consistently for years and years to come and serve the people of India with affordable power. So my price point, as I can determine it, is about $5

On hybrid CSP and coal:

And lastly to the young man’s question on CSP, some studies have happened on that, so far it’s an economically unviable proposition. CSP by itself, is a very expensive mode of power but I don’t have a close mind. I am not ostrich about it. I am happy to have more research and more experimentation on that and if at some point if we can reach that inflexion where it becomes viable I will be the happiest person to encourage all thermal plants to use the excess steam, combine it with CSP and create a hybrid which can gradually move these thermal plants also into producers of renewable energy.

Entire speech:
http://www.piyushgoyal.in/speeches/5361 ... -new-delhi

[Rishirishi]

It is the selected bid, where 3 other bidders were close. I am starting to wonder if you are some kind of Nuclear/fossile fuel advocate. That 13% efficiency you keep on talking about has nothing to do with this. Face it. Solar power is cheaper.

Efficiency has everything to do with cost and bogus cost estimates will undermine solar power, which is something no one wants. One of the largest solar plant in the world is in TN. Kamuthi Solar Power Project and it is less than 13% efficient.

Do your self a favor. Read below article.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/solar-bids- ... o-below-fi

[Rammpal]

Some excerpts from a recent Piyush Goyal speech.


On hybrid CSP and coal:

And lastly to the young man’s question on CSP, some studies have happened on that, so far it’s an economically unviable proposition. CSP by itself, is a very expensive mode of power but I don’t have a close mind. I am not ostrich about it. I am happy to have more research and more experimentation on that and if at some point if we can reach that inflexion where it becomes viable I will be the happiest person to encourage all thermal plants to use the excess steam, combine it with CSP and create a hybrid which can gradually move these thermal plants also into producers of renewable energy.

Entire speech:
http://www.piyushgoyal.in/speeches/5361 ... -new-delhi

Well, at least he's willing to look deeper into its feasibility.

Note: I did make reference to CSP, without elaborating it further, CSP here includes all methods that extract Thermal Energy from sun.

..move these thermal plants also into producers of renewable energy"..."

That's a gross tech. slip !!

[Rammpal]

Efficiency has everything to do with cost and bogus cost estimates will undermine solar power, which is something no one wants. One of the largest solar plant in the world is in TN. Kamuthi Solar Power Project and it is less than 13% efficient.

Do your self a favor. Read below article.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/solar-bids- ... o-below-fi

Main reason PV based plant is capable of such coal-busting tariff is because these are all half-naked systems, i.e.: sans power storage,

I guess, some solar is better than no solar at all !

[Mort Walker]

And what about the rare earths mining for PVs? Then all of the land that is covered which really disrupts the ecosystem. What about wind turbines killing birds and its shadows that cause stress to wildlife?

Wind turbines killing birds and causing stress to wildlife is a load of bs fed by those NIMBYs. If you station the wind turbines out in the ocean, it become far less of a concern.

As for rare earth mining, at least it is much cleaner than coal mining. You are not really counting the true costs of coal mining and the use of coal. Coal technology is obsolete and a dead end. We need to focus on nuclear power, wind, solar, natural gas, and other sources of energy other than coal in that order.

You didn't specify wind turbines only out in the ocean, but fine let's take off shore wind turbines as an example. Did you know that most of these off shore wind turbines have been successful in Europe where they don't get cyclones? Off shore wind turbines are rated between Category 1 and 2 storms. Anything more than 100 mph wind is trouble. The newer designs will allow for the blades to fold down during a storm, but they've not been tested. In India we get some strong cyclones in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal every few years. Then there is the issue of what these turbines will do to marine life? Total cost has to be factored in. If you're constantly repairing and have high maintenance and down time, that too has to be considered. Here solar is better. The funny thing is wind turbines are about 30-35% efficient and solar at best is 20% efficient. However, solar is more reliable than wind turbines, so annualized cost when counting down time and maintenance is lower for solar.

[Mort Walker]

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.

The above assumption is terribly simplistic and flawed, and that's the source of your claimed 13% PV panel efficiency.

PV panel is not installed on every square inch of 1270 acres.

i.e.: PV makers brochure efficiency is valid, which is easily above 13%.

Fine. Let's use less than 1000 acres or around 4,000,000 square meters. This is 4,000 MW in perfect conditions. At 648 MW we have an efficiency of around 16%. I would bet they aren't getting more than 18% efficiency.

Now the key is if some kind person here could please post the actual tariff rates for Kamuthi instead of proposals for new plants. Then we would know solar power is actually cost effective.

Here are the Tariff Rates from DAE for other energy sources
Nuclear is Rs. 0.94 to 3.94 per KWHr.

[Rammpal]

Here are the Tariff Rates from DAE for other energy sources
Nuclear is Rs. 0.94 to 3.94 per KWHr.

"...Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd will purchase all of the power from the project at a tariff of ₹7.01/kWh (~$0.11/kWh) over 25 years..."

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/06/ad ... amil-nadu/

[Mort Walker]

It will stick around a couple decades but it will not last into the last half of this century as a profitable industry. I look at the coal industry at the same way that historians look at whale oil. Obsolete and on the way out.

This is a stupid and ignorant analogy. Coal provides over 60% of India's electric power and it will provide most of India's power for well over 50 years more. In India we have lots of coal and I guarantee you it will be used.

[Mort Walker]

"...Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd will purchase all of the power from the project at a tariff of ₹7.01/kWh (~$0.11/kWh) over 25 years..."

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/06/ad ... amil-nadu/

Wow. That's more than twice as much as natural gas. So much for your cheap competitive solar power...

[Rammpal]

......... So much for your cheap competitive solar power...

...wasn't me at all !!

[Hitesh]

It will stick around a couple decades but it will not last into the last half of this century as a profitable industry. I look at the coal industry at the same way that historians look at whale oil. Obsolete and on the way out.

This is a stupid and ignorant analogy. Coal provides over 60% of India's electric power and it will provide most of India's power for well over 50 years more. In India we have lots of coal and I guarantee you it will be used.

I stand by it because looking at the lacking infrastructure and the inefficiency and inability to timely complete large scale projects, solar power gives the people to scale it down to their local needs or scale it up to meet their needs.

It is a good analogy because that is how people back in that time thought about petroleum based oil and electricity. They thought it was too expensive when nature could provide cheap whale oil. Of course whale oil could not compete in terms of power output of those who generated electricity using coal or petroleum or diesel.

[Hitesh]

"...Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd will purchase all of the power from the project at a tariff of ₹7.01/kWh (~$0.11/kWh) over 25 years..."

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/06/ad ... amil-nadu/

Wow. That's more than twice as much as natural gas. So much for your cheap competitive solar power...

This is compared to coal, not solar. Of course nuclear without counting the cost of safely disposing nuclear waste and combined with the ability to finance in billions of dollars is the cheapest option. But for those who do not have access to billions of dollars in financing and with a thought towards long term use will find solar to be the most attractive option because it means that they really don't have to pay large amount of money to secure supplies of fuel. They just need to keep improving the delivery of the electricity and build more add on energy storage devices as needed as power demands grow. The key thing about solar is that it is scalable from the low end to the high end. It has the most flexibility of all power source types.