Karnataka - Mysore   

Gas-based thermal plants better, says expert

MYSORE: The opposition to the 1000-MW coal-fired thermal power plant proposed at Chamalapura near Mysore on environmental grounds and the need to generate more power call for alternative views to meet the energy requirements to fuel economic growth.

While the environmental hazards of coal-fired thermal power plants have been documented, ranging from acid rain to groundwater pollution and lung disease, coal continues to be the mainstay of power generation in India given the vast reserves and easy availability at a very low cost.

Proponents of coal-fired power plants underline the fact that coal is the cheapest source of fuel available in India and is expected to last another 200 years. The cost per unit of power generation is also very low.

However, energy experts point out that those supporting coal-fired thermal stations only take the base cost of establishing a plant into consideration, which gives only half the picture. Bhamy V. Shenoy, an energy expert who is a consultant on energy and oil issues for many Central Asian countries, said that this school of thought ignores other factors such as the cost of acquiring state-of-the-art technology to reduce and infrastructure, including a railway track for the transport of coal and ash. Other negative factors include the impact on the environment and public health, loss of biodiversity, groundwater pollution and the cost involved in minimising.

Citing many studies conducted by leading institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Dr. Shenoy, who is an alumnus of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, said that when these external factors are included, coal-fired plants prove to be expensive.

In another cost-benefit analysis of coal vs. natural gas conducted by Ontario Ministry of Energy, Canada, it was proved that the cost per kWh generated by a coal-fired thermal power plant was 67 per cent higher than power generated by natural gas-fired power plants. The study evaluated the economic costs of environmental damage and pollution-related illnesses.

Dr. Shenoy said gas-fuelled power plants had more positives than negatives. Citing various studies, Dr. Shenoy pointed out that the land required for a 1000-MW gas-fired thermal plant was 150 to 200 acres as against nearly 3,000 acres required for a coal fired power plant. There would be no displacement of people if wasteland was identified. Gas had a higher thermal efficiency of 60 per cent as against 35 per cent for coal.

The base cost of establishing a gas-fired power plant may be slightly higher than for a coal-fired power plant, but other costs are almost negligible and the environmental impact is limited. Gas is reckoned to be relatively clean among the fossil fuels, whereas coal has a higher carbon and nitrogen content though the sulphur content in Indian coal is negligible. The problem of fly ash is also non-existent in gas-based plants, whose carbon dioxide emission is 45 per cent less than coal-based plants.

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

Stories in this Section

An evening in memory of Mohammad Rafi
Civic polls date comes as a shock to parties in Mandya
MCC demolishes 35 shops on pavement
Crush cane grown on unregistered area first, factory told
Two arrested, 27 stolen LPG cylinders seized
Gas-based thermal plants better, says expert
Police step up vigil against naxals

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