Opinion - News Analysis   

Why India should cut carbon emissions

K. Venugopal

It is simply a matter of raising energy efficiency.

PRIME MINISTER Manmohan Singh was playing the political card when he told the members of the G8, the group of eight industrialised nations, at Heiligendamm earlier this month that "we have come here not as petitioners but as partners."

It was obvious that India and the four other rising economies, China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, which make up the G-5, were miffed that the G8 declaration issued a day before their joint meeting had already laid out the terms of a purported agreement on ways to counter climate change. Much as the world's rich nations that comprise the G8, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Japan, France, Russia, Italy, and Canada, would like to co-opt the G-5 in the plan to reduce carbon emissions around the world, it was quite evident that none of the five was happy being told to go easy on carbon emissions.

"We have not come here to discuss targets or accept internationally enforced targets on us," Dr. Singh said at the meeting. But in an interaction with the German Chancellor and summit host, Angela Merkel, he did say that the developing nations would accept their responsibilities. "We can assure the world that at no time, our per capita emissions will exceed that of the developed countries."

He went on to add, "This will act as a two-way incentive. If the developed countries do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions per capita, we will also reward them by doing more."

Dr. Singh might have been tempted to tell the leaders of the developed world to first reduce their consumption of fossil fuel before lecturing others. Of course he and his colleagues on the G5 did emphasise the larger role the developed world had in addressing climate change "given their responsibilities in causing it." But one must compliment him for going beyond the rhetoric and offering to do some corrections at home. A country on the road to development will get there quicker and more certainly if it chooses the more efficient energy route.

For India, the time for choosing is now. Take electricity: nearly two billion units (kilowatt hours) of electricity are consumed every day across the country; two-thirds of this energy spins out of some 380 thermal plants that burn coal. It would be heartening if in the future there can be a quantum jump in the availability of renewable energy from wind turbines, hydropower, or solar cells, but in practical terms, these sources are unlikely to scale up sufficiently quickly to help electricity grids cope with the surge in demand. Much of the burden will continue to rest on coal.

The energy loss

Over 320 million tonnes of coal was burnt in 2006-07 to produce electricity, a lot of it in power stations owned by State electricity boards whose boilers are not terribly efficient in extracting the energy in the coal. Critical appraisals show some of these power plants have a thermal efficiency (a measure of how much electrical energy they can extract from coal) of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. (source: NTPC presentation to the IEA, 2004) Take out the energy used in running the power plant, estimated to be 8.5 per cent of energy that is generated, (source: Central Electricity Authority) and the losses in transmission and distribution (about 20 per cent), the other example of crushing inefficiency in the electricity system, just about 14 per cent to 22 per cent of the energy in the coal finally reaches the plug point in your home.

And in the evening when you switch on the light, typically a 60 W incandescent bulb, in your living room, the decisive wastage takes place. The bulb uses just 10 per cent of the energy to light up the room; the other 90 per cent is released as heat.

So just 1.4 per cent to 2.2 per cent of the energy that once was in the coal turns up as the light that you want.

In contrast, modern thermal plants are now capable of a thermal efficiency in excess of 40 per cent, they consume only about 5 per cent in-station, and if transmission and distribution losses can be contained at levels prevalent in developed countries, up to 35 per cent of the energy in the coal can be served up as electricity to the consumer.

This implies that if all plants and transmission lines are upgraded — obviously the vintage units are beyond makeover and need to be shut down — the country can make do with just two-thirds of the coal that it currently burns. Emissions will drop proportionately.

However, if such corrective action is not launched, the scenario will get bleaker.

Already the availability of electricity is 10 per cent short of demand and just about half the population has access to it. A 57 per cent increase in capacity is needed over the next five years to meet the anticipated energy needs of an economy growing at around 8 per cent a year and the other half of the populace aspiring to join the bandwagon.

Some 542 million tonnes of coal will be required each year by 2012 to meet the demand for electricity. Coal mines in the country may not be able to produce enough; imports may be necessary and will be costly in a global market where supplies are taut. The additional load of carbon emissions may be embarrassingly large.

The challenge for the energy managers therefore would be to see that the rapid ramp up in generation happens with a much smaller increase in the quantity of coal burnt. Mandating minimum energy efficiency standards at power plants could well be the key to achieving that.

Efficiencies must be improved at the customer end as well. Lighting accounts for about 20 per cent of the electricity consumed, with most illumination coming from incandescent bulbs that produce more heat than light. A switch to the more effective compact fluorescent lamps can save consumers a significant amount of energy. Take the case of the light in your living room again, not the 60 W incandescent bulb but a 14 W compact fluorescent lamp that gives the same level of light. You can now light up four lamps with the same energy. Cities such as Bangalore are already urging their citizens to do so.

The CFL idea, if pushed through nationally, can reduce electricity consumption by at least 10 per cent. The environmental problems associated with the disposal of used CFL lamps, which contain some quantity of mercury, must of course be simultaneously addressed with institutional mechanisms for collection and recycling.

Pumpsets used by farmers, which account for about 15 per cent of the electricity used nationwide, are notoriously profligate. Various studies have shown a potential for a 100 per cent improvement in efficiency, which means a 7 per cent reduction in the overall electricity consumption.

Improving efficiencies in the use of petroleum products constitute the bigger challenge given the rising price of crude oil, 70 per cent of which is imported. With a fast-increasing proportion of the population shifting away from public transportation to two-wheelers and cars, fuel consumption for daily commuting will rise steeply. No technological solutions are available off the shelf to make personal vehicles dramatically more fuel-efficient.

It will be interesting therefore to see what strategic options planners have to address this segment. Will they try redesigning cities and towns to make daily commutes for people shorter and therefore less demanding of fuel?

Will they make public transportation attractive and persuasive enough to get people to return to the fold or will they do nothing and let the excessive congestion on the road force people to take the train or bus to work?

Will better-designed and less congested highways and roads offer faster transit and save fuel for motorists?

Will the Railways provide the superior logistics service so that they can wean away long-distance freight from the less-fuel-efficient trucks?

Will the airports improve their infrastructure so that aircraft do not burn fuel awaiting their turn to take-off or land?

Before he left for the G8 summit, the Prime Minister set up a high-powered committee to go into the question of addressing carbon emissions and climate change. One trusts the committee will come up with the right strategy choices.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Ms. Patil and the Presidency
A shattered dream
Nuclear weapon-free world — a mirage?
Why India should cut carbon emissions
Little to celebrate at the birth of `Hamastan'
Corrections and Clarifications
Woman President
Telling cartoon
Helmet debate

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu