India may build new coal plants due to low cost despite climate change(reuters.com)
reuters.com
India may build new coal plants due to low cost despite climate change
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-build-new-coal-plants-due-low-cost-despite-climate-change-2021-04-18/
124 comments
People worldwide need education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility. We have to solve so many other problems in the world before clean energy really works.
Nothing we're doing will matter if the rest of the world keeps dumping carbon into the atmosphere.
Nobody will admit this. We're just posturing here. We can't tell these economies to turn green (it doesn't make sense for them to!), yet we're not pouring in money to help fix the structural blockers.
We need to put manufacturing, finance, resources, education, and more into developing economies. It's a win-win. Developed nations can benefit from cheap labor while developing nations catch up and get an influx of export activity that spurs their growth.
Eventually we'll all reach economic parity and can find consensus on this problem.
A wealthy and prosperous nation doesn't want coal and can afford the cost of switching to alternatives.
Nothing we're doing will matter if the rest of the world keeps dumping carbon into the atmosphere.
Nobody will admit this. We're just posturing here. We can't tell these economies to turn green (it doesn't make sense for them to!), yet we're not pouring in money to help fix the structural blockers.
We need to put manufacturing, finance, resources, education, and more into developing economies. It's a win-win. Developed nations can benefit from cheap labor while developing nations catch up and get an influx of export activity that spurs their growth.
Eventually we'll all reach economic parity and can find consensus on this problem.
A wealthy and prosperous nation doesn't want coal and can afford the cost of switching to alternatives.
.. or economical parity will mean that West becomes poorer to match the rest of the world. And then nobody will care about pollution.
It's a wee hard sell to locals in developed nation. Hey, let's move jobs abroad and lets use our resources to prop up other nations. What is left back home? Why bother paying taxes if objective is far away and and far in the future.
It's a wee hard sell to locals in developed nation. Hey, let's move jobs abroad and lets use our resources to prop up other nations. What is left back home? Why bother paying taxes if objective is far away and and far in the future.
Would you rather be poor or face the collapse of global civilization?
Now that's a good fear mongering propaganda :) Destroy the bourgeois or face the eternal hunger and enslavement! Get rid of {insert your preferred ethnicity} or face the downfall of the nation!
When in reality it's "be poor now (and likely to face the collapse of global civilisation and ecological crisis is still in roadmap) or maybe your grandkids will face the ecological crisis".
When in reality it's "be poor now (and likely to face the collapse of global civilisation and ecological crisis is still in roadmap) or maybe your grandkids will face the ecological crisis".
So, because collapse isn't certain, you'd rather stuff cotton in your ears, cover your eyes and yell "lalalala can't hear you?"
BTW, your suggestion that my post in any way represents or resembles a call for ethnic cleansing is in extremely poor taste and bad faith. Stop putting words in my mouth.
BTW, your suggestion that my post in any way represents or resembles a call for ethnic cleansing is in extremely poor taste and bad faith. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Not ethnic cleansing. Just a regular regime that pushes through using emotional calls.
The problem is not that collapse isn't certain. The problem is that solution is iffy to say the least. So it's one possibly bad outcome vs another possibly bad outcome. On top of that, one out come may come much faster than the other.
The problem is not that collapse isn't certain. The problem is that solution is iffy to say the least. So it's one possibly bad outcome vs another possibly bad outcome. On top of that, one out come may come much faster than the other.
There's plenty of good research out there showing that global civilization will collapse before the end of the century given the amount of warming we're on track for. You should read it.
However, assuming it is coming, what is the solution? Besides "stop pumping greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere," I just don't see one. And, doing that is going to lower a lot of peoples' standards of living, i.e. make them poor.
However, assuming it is coming, what is the solution? Besides "stop pumping greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere," I just don't see one. And, doing that is going to lower a lot of peoples' standards of living, i.e. make them poor.
I did read it and IMO it's emotionalised bullshit. Few cities may be vacated, few major seaside cities will solve it with expensive technological installations. But it certainly won't be {insert your favourite dystopian movie} style collapse.
Solution is "stop pumping greenhouse misions and consuming so much crap shipped all around the world". But developed countries paying off developing countries won't bring us to that solution.
The world as a whole has to consume much much less, yesterday. Developed countries can start by bringing manufacturing and agriculture back home. This will increase costs and lower consumption.
Solution is "stop pumping greenhouse misions and consuming so much crap shipped all around the world". But developed countries paying off developing countries won't bring us to that solution.
The world as a whole has to consume much much less, yesterday. Developed countries can start by bringing manufacturing and agriculture back home. This will increase costs and lower consumption.
[deleted]
For most people it's:
A) be poor now
versus
B) maybe face the collapse of global civilization in 40 years.
They'll chose B) everytime.
A) be poor now
versus
B) maybe face the collapse of global civilization in 40 years.
They'll chose B) everytime.
Do you have any historical examples of this? As I believe in opposite.
Tragedy of the commons is a thing for a reason.
Why do you think that a lot of people want "small government"? The state/government is by definition in those "commons".
Regarding examples, they're countless. Think of petty tyrants fighting over the remains of the Byzantine Empire just as about the Ottomans were about to conquer it. Almost every falling empire had this behavior going on, selfish people "getting theirs" just before the fall.
It's human nature, unfortunately.
Why do you think that a lot of people want "small government"? The state/government is by definition in those "commons".
Regarding examples, they're countless. Think of petty tyrants fighting over the remains of the Byzantine Empire just as about the Ottomans were about to conquer it. Almost every falling empire had this behavior going on, selfish people "getting theirs" just before the fall.
It's human nature, unfortunately.
And new regime is usually coming to get rich fast, not fight for a noble goal achievable in 100 years. Even if leaders are naive idealists, usually the masses get behind them for a quick buck.
I love evolution of USSR for this reason. First the masses took down Tsarist regime to take property of the rich. Then masses took down Soviet regime to privatise the property. Both events happened because life was shit and people were looking for a quick way to live better.
I love evolution of USSR for this reason. First the masses took down Tsarist regime to take property of the rich. Then masses took down Soviet regime to privatise the property. Both events happened because life was shit and people were looking for a quick way to live better.
The government isn't really part of "the commons" at all:
> "The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all [on what becomes law]."
https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/
> "The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all [on what becomes law]."
https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/
It is of the commons. That's the problem. If the government were pmiller2's property, nobody could take it over, you'd defend it.
But because the government/state is ill-defined and shared, it can be abused and it's much harder to do anything about it.
Private property is selfish but efficient and clearly separated from the rest (in general) while public property is altruistic, not that efficient and generally not that well delineated from the rest.
But because the government/state is ill-defined and shared, it can be abused and it's much harder to do anything about it.
Private property is selfish but efficient and clearly separated from the rest (in general) while public property is altruistic, not that efficient and generally not that well delineated from the rest.
Our government has more characteristics of private property than the commons, then.
Take a look at any (r)evolution. Pretty much every time people took "get rich soon" over hippy paradise. French revolution, Soviet revolution, Dissolution of USSR, Hitler coming to power...
Do you have any arguments to believe in the other option?
Do you have any arguments to believe in the other option?
It doesn't work this way from a macroeconomic perspective.
If a foreign nation runs a trade surplus and the US runs a trade deficit as a result, that means that spending by foreigners is smaller than their income, in other words, foreigners are saving money which they can invest in the USA. If they invest then the money flowing outside the US will also flow back to the US.
The Chinese buy US treasury bonds, that is where most of the USD China receives eventually end up. The government can issue debt to tap into the savings and invest them on behalf of the people buying treasury bonds. The investment will create new jobs and hopefully a return over the long term that beats inflation.
Of course the assumption was that the money is being invested. From what I have seen Donald Trump merely used the low yields on the treasury bonds to cut taxes for the rich. This will increase the corporate savings rate at the expense of the household savings rate. It's entirely possible that the additional savings end up in treasury bonds again and we are stuck in a loop.
If a foreign nation runs a trade surplus and the US runs a trade deficit as a result, that means that spending by foreigners is smaller than their income, in other words, foreigners are saving money which they can invest in the USA. If they invest then the money flowing outside the US will also flow back to the US.
The Chinese buy US treasury bonds, that is where most of the USD China receives eventually end up. The government can issue debt to tap into the savings and invest them on behalf of the people buying treasury bonds. The investment will create new jobs and hopefully a return over the long term that beats inflation.
Of course the assumption was that the money is being invested. From what I have seen Donald Trump merely used the low yields on the treasury bonds to cut taxes for the rich. This will increase the corporate savings rate at the expense of the household savings rate. It's entirely possible that the additional savings end up in treasury bonds again and we are stuck in a loop.
If they invest in the US :) But why would they invest in US if developed world is focusing on propping up the developing nations?
Developed countries could pay to build nuclear power in the developing world. Terms being that the foreign country paying has 100% autonomy to build and operate the plants for their lifetime.
It’d create good jobs for developed nations workforce that gets sent to build the facilities. It’d create low cost green energy in the developing world. Not to mention tons of new economic activity in the area these get built to serve the foreigners coming in to build the plants.
It’d create good jobs for developed nations workforce that gets sent to build the facilities. It’d create low cost green energy in the developing world. Not to mention tons of new economic activity in the area these get built to serve the foreigners coming in to build the plants.
We already tried this. After 40 years of this policy towards China, China is an environmental disaster and burns more coal than the all of the rest of the world combined.
Not per capita, though
Chinese citizens emit more CO2 per capita than citizens from the EU, and since 2013.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-enviro...
How much of the CO2 per capita that China emits goes into making products for EU/US citizens? Is that factored in?
Probably not. We want to feel good about ourselves, so we twist the numbers in our favor and can point at China as a "reason" not to change anything here.
I really hate to write this, but this is outsourced CO2 from EU. EU manufacturing is dead. I look at my home office around me - everything is made in China. Some pieces of furniture are EU made, but the rest - made in China things. Old Tektronix scope is “made in USA”, but it is really old.
Old numbers from the top of my head:
14% China's emissions can be directly attributed to Chinese exports. The domestic economy is a much bigger source of pollution, unless of course you consider the entirety of China a western colony that only exists to export products to the west. I consider the latter option untenable.
14% China's emissions can be directly attributed to Chinese exports. The domestic economy is a much bigger source of pollution, unless of course you consider the entirety of China a western colony that only exists to export products to the west. I consider the latter option untenable.
not exactly, US outsourced polluting manufacturing to China and anything that could be done cheaper there through less regulations.
Of course they will pollute more.
Also, they're not exactly a democracy so people don't have much of a choice anyway. I'm pretty sure they're not exactly happy either. (last time I visited I had a coughing fit in shanghai and the sky was gray-ish)
Of course they will pollute more.
Also, they're not exactly a democracy so people don't have much of a choice anyway. I'm pretty sure they're not exactly happy either. (last time I visited I had a coughing fit in shanghai and the sky was gray-ish)
Environmental regulations, like air quality, water treatment is a lot tougher these days. Air and water quality has been improving for the past 7 years. These days a lot of people are giving approvals for increase environmental quality, though much work has to be done. I feel people outside don't understand how china's political system works at all. We support democracy, it's just that we think there could be different governance structures to achieve democracy and more effective governance. A lot of people, like environmental scientists, are in position of power to make changes to regulations and policy. At the same time, we are doing things to mitigate negatives of climate regulations such as increasing hassle, more costs to businesses and so on that climate regulations deniers use as excuses. It's very comprehensive.
Where I'm from used to be communist... I have a good idea how it works... There's a way the country presents itself to its people and outside and the reality is most often very different.
In the comment you replied to, it says
> A wealthy and prosperous nation doesn't want coal and can afford the cost of switching to alternatives.
AFAICT, China is a wealthy and prosperous nation, and by nation we mean the state, but the same cannot be said for the people. I could be wrong but that's how I see things through media. If that's correct, then it means that there are just too many people and even China still cannot afford to use clean energy for all.
The elephant in the room has to be mentioned too: They are producing for the rest of the world, enabling the west not to look like an environmental disaster.
> A wealthy and prosperous nation doesn't want coal and can afford the cost of switching to alternatives.
AFAICT, China is a wealthy and prosperous nation, and by nation we mean the state, but the same cannot be said for the people. I could be wrong but that's how I see things through media. If that's correct, then it means that there are just too many people and even China still cannot afford to use clean energy for all.
The elephant in the room has to be mentioned too: They are producing for the rest of the world, enabling the west not to look like an environmental disaster.
India: Hold my beer
More seriously, while China has been slowly cleaning up its act, India is still steadily getting worse. 15 of the world's top 20 most polluted cities are now in India, with Pakistan and Bangladesh accounting for 3 more, and only 2 in China:
https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-cities
Caveat: the definition of "city" is a bit debatable here, with most of those 15 actually a part of greater Delhi's urban sprawl. But it's notable that none of China's megacities make it into the top 50, with the top offenders being primarily remote centers of heavy industry.
More seriously, while China has been slowly cleaning up its act, India is still steadily getting worse. 15 of the world's top 20 most polluted cities are now in India, with Pakistan and Bangladesh accounting for 3 more, and only 2 in China:
https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-cities
Caveat: the definition of "city" is a bit debatable here, with most of those 15 actually a part of greater Delhi's urban sprawl. But it's notable that none of China's megacities make it into the top 50, with the top offenders being primarily remote centers of heavy industry.
China produces more things than the rest of the world. It is super easy to stop them, just stop buying anything they produce.
We do not grant people permission to cause harm on a national level just because there is a lack of social economic factors like education, health, economy, freedom, and mobility. It is acknowledge that those factors play a part in why people do harm, and providing social support reduces the overall rate of harm, but we still have laws that forbid harm.
I don't see any good argument why we should give explicit permission to do harm on a global level. We can and should acknowledge that a lack of education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility are contributing factors for pollution.
I don't see any good argument why we should give explicit permission to do harm on a global level. We can and should acknowledge that a lack of education, healthcare, stable economies, freedom, and economic mobility are contributing factors for pollution.
[deleted]
While US is reducing the coal usage at a rapid rate, the current absolute value of coal usage for power in US is similar to that of India as US generates almost 4 times the power of India
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#El...
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_India#El...
If only India hadn't bent before anti-nuclear-energy protests, this could have been avoided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India#Anti-nu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India#Anti-nu...
21 new nuclear reactors are expected to be set up by 2031.
https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/21-ne...
https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/21-ne...
Bent, not broke.
Current government isn't known to give value to protests on more grave methods. I don't think these protests would have any impact on plan.
Happened a few years ago, not under the current govt. This is one of the things I'd like the current govt to go ahead recklessly with as it does other things, though.
Interestingly, it was the mostly NDA opposition (current govt) that had then went against nuclear plants as a political jibe.
Interestingly, it was the mostly NDA opposition (current govt) that had then went against nuclear plants as a political jibe.
If cost is the driver behind the decision, nuclear wouldn't stand a chance anyway.
It really doesn't matter how cheap wind and solar get; burning coal and oil will always be productive somewhere.
Without enforceable global bans, someone will generate GDP by extracting, exporting, importing and burning hydrocarbons.
Without enforceable global bans, someone will generate GDP by extracting, exporting, importing and burning hydrocarbons.
No? There's very clearly an efficiency past which renewables exceed even the cheapest fossil fuels. Even with falling prices as a result of lowered demand, it's still not free to transport and extract.
It’s hard to compare apples-to-apples, though, since the capital efficiency, payback period, and profit pattern are so different. If you have access to limitless, relatively cheap debt, then yeah, there’s absolutely no reason to build fossil fuel plants anymore. Developing countries don’t have that luxury, and even to the extent that they do have borrowing capacity, they may have even higher-IRR things to use that capital for.
Not saying any of that is true of India specifically - I’m not familiar enough to have an informed opinion there.
Not saying any of that is true of India specifically - I’m not familiar enough to have an informed opinion there.
>> If you have access to limitless, relatively cheap debt, then yeah, there’s absolutely no reason to build fossil fuel plants anymore.
Thats kind of the point. The cost of capital is rightly higher in developing nations. Capital intensive carbon neutral projects just don't make sense for much of the world.
Thats kind of the point. The cost of capital is rightly higher in developing nations. Capital intensive carbon neutral projects just don't make sense for much of the world.
sources would be nice to have here
I doubt the numbers are anywhere close, but if a coal plant and a wind plant cost the same to build, produce the same power output, and use the same footprint, there's almost no reason someone would build a coal plant unless there was coal someone was paying to get rid of. Assuming you've got some wind to harvest anyway.
I'm not sure what kind of sources you're looking for, with such an unbounded hypothetical.
I'm not sure what kind of sources you're looking for, with such an unbounded hypothetical.
Over the past hundred years we've invested trillions globally in developing a hydrocarbon economy. Whether it is regulatory arbitrage, environmental arbitrage, or labor arbitrage, it will always be profitable somewhere to use hydrocarbons.
Well, this lowers the (already very low) credibility of the Paris Agreement
[deleted]
We need more power yesterday. I fully support utilising the cheapest, fastest way to generate. I hate paying for a backup generator, and then a backup UPS to handle the starting time of the generator.
If coal is the cheapest, that means it is the best way to create electricity right now. If western countries feel strongly about this, I welcome their $1T funding to build adequate nuclear and renewable power plants in India over the next decade.
If coal is the cheapest, that means it is the best way to create electricity right now. If western countries feel strongly about this, I welcome their $1T funding to build adequate nuclear and renewable power plants in India over the next decade.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. As somebody living in the west, I wholeheartedly agree. We've known since the 80s our fossil economy is slow-cooking the planet, yet we protest when other countries try to climb out of poverty using the same tools.
Indeed, the west should think of ways in leveling the LCOE playing field in the third world through financial and material support.
Indeed, the west should think of ways in leveling the LCOE playing field in the third world through financial and material support.
> yet we protest when other countries try to climb out of poverty using the same tools.
I dont like this view, nor think its fair. ~100 years ago todays developed countries didn't have access to anything like the modern knowledge or scientific consensus about climate change as well as alternate technology / products. Even 30 years ago....
And making this 'but you did it' claim seems cherry picking. These countries take full advantage of the beneficial modern knowledge and equipment like computers. If countries want to justify pouting like the industrial revolution because you did too, then get rid of computers and other tech and have the same journey otherwise accept this is a choice you make today and there is no excuse other than you want to and to hell with the climate science.
And lets also recognise power generation solar is increasingly cheaper than coal so there is likely vested interest pushing government down this path even if we disregard the moral/historic side first google (so forgive if not the best) but these studies come up all the time: e.g. https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa...
tldr: I dont buy this excuse. It sounds fair as a quick one liner but doesnt fly when you consider the detail
I dont like this view, nor think its fair. ~100 years ago todays developed countries didn't have access to anything like the modern knowledge or scientific consensus about climate change as well as alternate technology / products. Even 30 years ago....
And making this 'but you did it' claim seems cherry picking. These countries take full advantage of the beneficial modern knowledge and equipment like computers. If countries want to justify pouting like the industrial revolution because you did too, then get rid of computers and other tech and have the same journey otherwise accept this is a choice you make today and there is no excuse other than you want to and to hell with the climate science.
And lets also recognise power generation solar is increasingly cheaper than coal so there is likely vested interest pushing government down this path even if we disregard the moral/historic side first google (so forgive if not the best) but these studies come up all the time: e.g. https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa...
tldr: I dont buy this excuse. It sounds fair as a quick one liner but doesnt fly when you consider the detail
Yes, but you need to face reality. US, Germany can afford spending huge amounts of money for renewable energy, but many countries just can't.
Worst, India at least recognized that they can't afford that, but for instance Poland signed European version of a "green deal", which costs are estimated to be 0.4 trillion US dollars (according to Polish gov estimates) up to 1 trillion according to McKinsey Consulting. This is roughly 2-4 times Polish GDP. EU funds will cover about 20% of that sum.
Poland will not be able to afford to spend that much money without rising energy prices to the exorbitant level (and because of CO2 certificates they are already the highest in Europe), which means less competitive economy, which means less money in people pocket, which means huge group of electorate angry at democracy and EU. This cannot end well.
Worst, India at least recognized that they can't afford that, but for instance Poland signed European version of a "green deal", which costs are estimated to be 0.4 trillion US dollars (according to Polish gov estimates) up to 1 trillion according to McKinsey Consulting. This is roughly 2-4 times Polish GDP. EU funds will cover about 20% of that sum.
Poland will not be able to afford to spend that much money without rising energy prices to the exorbitant level (and because of CO2 certificates they are already the highest in Europe), which means less competitive economy, which means less money in people pocket, which means huge group of electorate angry at democracy and EU. This cannot end well.
If this results in an increase in the total investment rate there won't be any people left to be angry in Poland.
> Germany can afford spending huge amounts of money for renewable energy, but many countries just can't.
This skips the part where renewable is cheaper.... if a nation can afford a coal power plant, why can they afford the equivalent generation capacity of solar/wind?
This skips the part where renewable is cheaper.... if a nation can afford a coal power plant, why can they afford the equivalent generation capacity of solar/wind?
The thing that enrages me is that these "developed" countries just accuse developing nations of polluting while NOT acknowledging that they did 10x worse before. Those developed nations are not saint and won't ever be yet they act as if they care so much about other nations and environment when they do not.
Also, this argument of "get ride of modern equipment and have the same journey" is weak at best. Although I agree that climate change didn't pick up until a decade or so ago, there were already studies conducted in late 1800s and early 1900s.
edit: I'm not saying that what India is doing is right. It's just that the comments like the parent comment are laughable in my opinion.
Also, this argument of "get ride of modern equipment and have the same journey" is weak at best. Although I agree that climate change didn't pick up until a decade or so ago, there were already studies conducted in late 1800s and early 1900s.
edit: I'm not saying that what India is doing is right. It's just that the comments like the parent comment are laughable in my opinion.
> If coal is the cheapest, that means it is the best way to create electricity right now.
Only it isn't. Not including the negative externalities (too much pollution, too expensive), not excluding them (too expensive).
Only it isn't. Not including the negative externalities (too much pollution, too expensive), not excluding them (too expensive).
Only if you value not getting cancer more than not having electricity.
> too much pollution
How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India.
How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India.
> How much pollution is too much? I feel we are a long way from that point still, in India.
I would argue: any pollution that isn't factored into the cost of the energy production. If it's not priced in then there's no rational acting in the market, which (for better or worse) is the mechanism that we're using to figure out which energy systems to deploy.
Even with that in mind, renewables like solar and wind are already easily cost-competitive with coal in many locations and getting more so every day (by most current measures of levelised cost of energy).
I would argue: any pollution that isn't factored into the cost of the energy production. If it's not priced in then there's no rational acting in the market, which (for better or worse) is the mechanism that we're using to figure out which energy systems to deploy.
Even with that in mind, renewables like solar and wind are already easily cost-competitive with coal in many locations and getting more so every day (by most current measures of levelised cost of energy).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/19/india-suffers-...
> India leads the world in pollution-linked deaths– followed by China and Nigeria – according to a report published on Wednesday that estimated the global impact of contaminants in the air, water and workplace.
[...]
> India and China led in the number of pollution deaths, with about 2.3 million and 1.8 million respectively, followed by Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan.
Air pollution in India is complicated, because there's a mix of industrial and domestic sources. But these numbers feel to me like India urgently needs to do more work to reduce pollution.
> India leads the world in pollution-linked deaths– followed by China and Nigeria – according to a report published on Wednesday that estimated the global impact of contaminants in the air, water and workplace.
[...]
> India and China led in the number of pollution deaths, with about 2.3 million and 1.8 million respectively, followed by Nigeria, Indonesia and Pakistan.
Air pollution in India is complicated, because there's a mix of industrial and domestic sources. But these numbers feel to me like India urgently needs to do more work to reduce pollution.
> But these numbers feel to me like India urgently needs to do more work to reduce pollution.
I think we can easily reduce this number if we produce enough power and build enough hospitals and teach enough doctors. There are multiple ways to solve every problem. Reducing pollution is one of them, in this case.
I think we can easily reduce this number if we produce enough power and build enough hospitals and teach enough doctors. There are multiple ways to solve every problem. Reducing pollution is one of them, in this case.
I recently paid Rs. 60000 (almost $1000) for two UPS to backup my two PCs, a TV/game console, WiFi router. The housing complex where I live already has a backup generator, but the generator takes about a minute to kick in.
People living in the Western world will never understand the frustration of having your computer reboot 15 times a day, or getting your game console reset in the middle of a game.
People living in the Western world will never understand the frustration of having your computer reboot 15 times a day, or getting your game console reset in the middle of a game.
Funny thing is I think millions of diesel gensets and UPSes are actually worse for the environment than just having enough power generation capacity, even if that is coal. Imagine all across the country diesel is burning in every housing complex, lithium or lead acid batteries are discharging in so many homes. All that takes valuable resources, causes pollution in various forms. But all that is disregarded in the blind hatred for coal.
We need to satisfy the demand first, as soon as possible. If solar or wind were the most effective source right now, India would have used that for sure. Who wants to pay more than necessary? The fact is that the tech is simply not there yet. In the meantime, why should we suffer?
We need to satisfy the demand first, as soon as possible. If solar or wind were the most effective source right now, India would have used that for sure. Who wants to pay more than necessary? The fact is that the tech is simply not there yet. In the meantime, why should we suffer?
Most of that isn't lack of power per se, but T&D problems. Generation is usually enough to meet the demand.
The west doesn't actually have to fight climate change if we are being pragmatic, we only need to reduce our population fast enough that the remaining land is fertile enough to feed the reduced population. However, India will be screwed.
Decarbonization efforts will slow electrification of developing countries and net out an unprecedented amount of air, water, and soil pollution per a kilowatt hour.
Mankind has known about the fact that some gases absorb outgoing radiation of certain wavelengths was known by Fourier since ~1820.
Arrhenius discovered if you doubled CO2, you'd get an effect on temp. ~1900.
I bought FCG months ago on 2x leverage.
Mankind will thirst through natural gas by embracing renewables in a hope of minimizing CO2.
The only people who are saying otherwise seem to be unable to answer any sort of real questions about chemistry.
A simple example is that you'll find a lot of CS+ Physicist+EE in silicon valley claim that all we need is high voltage transmission lines between renewables corridors in the USA.
Hogwash - if you ascribe to minimizing green-house gases, one of the chemicals you use in insulating high voltage lines is sulfur hexafluoride, a chemical with ~22k the global warming potential of CO2 on a 100 year basis.
I'm now looking to make a long bet on coal if I can find the right stock or ETF. I think natural gas booms under a decarbonization regime.
https://twitter.com/BvddyCorleone/status/1383859373236121611...
I might have done well on FCG esp. on 2x leverage, I think I'll do far better on coal if I can find the right peg.
All developing countries have thirst for steel and nitrogen fertilizer - they will burn coal and natural gas respectively to attain them.
They are the ingredients for scaling a civilization.
Mankind has known about the fact that some gases absorb outgoing radiation of certain wavelengths was known by Fourier since ~1820.
Arrhenius discovered if you doubled CO2, you'd get an effect on temp. ~1900.
I bought FCG months ago on 2x leverage.
Mankind will thirst through natural gas by embracing renewables in a hope of minimizing CO2.
The only people who are saying otherwise seem to be unable to answer any sort of real questions about chemistry.
A simple example is that you'll find a lot of CS+ Physicist+EE in silicon valley claim that all we need is high voltage transmission lines between renewables corridors in the USA.
Hogwash - if you ascribe to minimizing green-house gases, one of the chemicals you use in insulating high voltage lines is sulfur hexafluoride, a chemical with ~22k the global warming potential of CO2 on a 100 year basis.
I'm now looking to make a long bet on coal if I can find the right stock or ETF. I think natural gas booms under a decarbonization regime.
https://twitter.com/BvddyCorleone/status/1383859373236121611...
I might have done well on FCG esp. on 2x leverage, I think I'll do far better on coal if I can find the right peg.
All developing countries have thirst for steel and nitrogen fertilizer - they will burn coal and natural gas respectively to attain them.
They are the ingredients for scaling a civilization.
"We have this handy fusion reactor in the sky called the sun. You don't have to do anything. It just works. It shows up everyday and produces ridiculous amounts of power."
- Elon Musk
- Elon Musk
> It shows up everyday
There are things called clouds that often block it.
There are things called clouds that often block it.
Clouds do not cause solar panels to fully stop working. They only make cause them to produce 20% of their output.
Elon "your server side code is doing too much" Musk.
When it comes to vaccine, the US is even stopping supply of materials needed to manufacture them and India is struggling to ramp up production because of that.
As much as I would like climate change to be treated seriously, if it's going to be we take care of our people first and even then hoard 30m doses that will not be used and also prevent export of materials needed to make vaccines, why should countries like India not look at their own needs first? (If we do have a climate change catastrophic event, it's not like developed world is going to come rushing to help others as we have seen with covid.)
As much as I would like climate change to be treated seriously, if it's going to be we take care of our people first and even then hoard 30m doses that will not be used and also prevent export of materials needed to make vaccines, why should countries like India not look at their own needs first? (If we do have a climate change catastrophic event, it's not like developed world is going to come rushing to help others as we have seen with covid.)
It's time we set a reasonable carbon price and levy import tariffs from countries that don't do the same.
This is a colonialist policy. Unless the wealthy countries decide to share their clean/green technologies for almost free, that is. Their current wealth (which allows them to be green) was built on dirty energy, just look at Norway.
Just look at the story of UK's moth evolving to dark color due to pollution, and back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
The import tariffs could be used to fund developing clean energy infrastructure in said countries, so no it isn't necessarily a colonialist policy. I could see the EU doing something like that, not so much the US though.
I don't think "colonialist" is the right word to use here and it carries unnecessary connotations. All developing (or developed...) countries need to do to not be subject to import tariffs is joining the carbon price club.
Of course I support giving away green technology, because I think reducing carbon emissions has much higher priority than making profits.
Of course I support giving away green technology, because I think reducing carbon emissions has much higher priority than making profits.
I don’t think it’s colonialist? Hot take, but countries like India and China can take care of themselves. The US and Europe should penalize corporations here too who pollute.
> This is a colonialist policy
nations can’t even do some kind of sanction to promote clean tech without some social justice moralisms? It’s so tiresome.
The plane is going down. First class goes down with coach.
nations can’t even do some kind of sanction to promote clean tech without some social justice moralisms? It’s so tiresome.
The plane is going down. First class goes down with coach.
erm...how many colonies did Norway have?
Those countries can introduce a carbon tax and then decide for themselves whether fossil fuels are worth it.
Do it, based on a 100-year average (or even 50) CO2-per-capita. The world will agree.
Shouldn't it be accompanied by aid to cover the cost of more expensive energy sources? Otherwise this is just wealthy countries asking poor countries to take a hit to their development uncompensated, which is going to have a body count as well.
Of course they will, and who can blame them?
When India has a choice between spending capital on more climate-friendly energy production versus improving education/health care/the conditions of the elderly, who can blame them for prioritizing the latter?
When India has a choice between spending capital on more climate-friendly energy production versus improving education/health care/the conditions of the elderly, who can blame them for prioritizing the latter?
They’re also going to spend the money on fighter jets, tanks, and nukes. Can’t blame them for that either, but anyway.
It isn't just about prioritizing the latter. For india, Money spent on improving the economy or alleviating poverty goes a lot farther than spending on carbon neutral energy.
For a rich western nation like germany? Not a lot of low hanging opportunities so might as well spend on green energy.
For a rich western nation like germany? Not a lot of low hanging opportunities so might as well spend on green energy.
As a young person, who will have their health care and conditions negatively impacted by the economic and humanitarian disaster of climate change, I can blame them.
They are prioritising older voters over younger ones.
This tactic ends with a gerontocracy and ultimately no more humans.
They are prioritising older voters over younger ones.
This tactic ends with a gerontocracy and ultimately no more humans.
That´s doomsday rhetoric. All doomsday cults have one thing in common, they´ve all been wrong. 100%. The climate doomsday cult is no different.
Most previous doomsday cults had the handicap of having little to do with reality, whereas climate change is real and the predictions are getting scarier as we learn more about the climate system.
[deleted]
you should know that "doomsday rhetoric" is backed by very solid climate science. Just check out the latest IPCC report if you dont believe me - we aren't going to make it below 2 degrees C warming and the implications of that alone are catastrophic. Just as an example, we're looking at hundreds of millions of climate refugees as things like drought and lower crop yields destabilize large regions. Even if you live in a country which avoids these types of trends, the refugees created can and will offer a massively destabilizing force to your home country. For reference, the Syrian refugee crisis was triggered by a record drought (which are becoming the new trend) and that created 1 million refugees. Just 1 million dramatically altered the course of domestic & international politics in the EU, imagine what HUNDREDS of millions will do.
Climate change is THE existential threat of our generation. The only ones which will benefit long term from avoiding the problem are those with a vested interest in fossil fuel companies.
Climate change is THE existential threat of our generation. The only ones which will benefit long term from avoiding the problem are those with a vested interest in fossil fuel companies.
Which country do you live in? What is your average yearly per-capita CO₂ and CH₄?
Anyway, I welcome you to India. Stay here for a few years. Live through peak summers with power-cuts due to load shedding. And then repeat your message.
Anyway, I welcome you to India. Stay here for a few years. Live through peak summers with power-cuts due to load shedding. And then repeat your message.
You're saying that as if there are no alternatives to coal. India could build solar panels or nuclear power instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_sta...
India is already building plenty of solar parks. We still need a lot more power.
India is already building plenty of solar parks. We still need a lot more power.
Then build even more?
> "While India is committed to add more capacity through non-fossil sources of generation, coal-based generation capacity may still be required to be added in the country as it continues to be the cheapest source of generation," the NEP draft read.
I don't want to wear a hair shirt while people in other countries wear the finest silks.
I don't want to wear a hair shirt while people in other countries wear the finest silks.
India is going to be hit really hard by climate change too. Coal is only the cheapest option if you don't count the costs of climate change.
Yes, India is going to be hit really hard by climate change too. So please reduce your own CO₂ and CH₄ contributions. Indians are not the problem here. You are welcome to talk about India as a problem once your own per capita contributions are in the same ballpark as that of Indians.
Every ton of carbon is part of the problem. The climate doesn't care where it's emitted.
Good, so I invite you and your countrymen to spend a few years in India, and live like the average Indian. Take back the lessons to your own country. Hopefully, we can conquer this climate change problem together. If you don't like India, that's fine too. There are many other countries with low greenhouse gas lifestyles.
We will, and we will leave you in the dust with our superior energy infrastructure.
These kind of comments just make me laugh. I hope someday you'll get off of your high-horse and would see the world as it is and not from your already privileged position. It's for your own good at the end. Till then good luck decreasing your per capita emissions.
I live off grid in Portugal. My power comes from solar, wind and hydro, and I retrofitted our ancient hilux to be fully electric, charged here off our renewables. We grow 95% of our own food, the rest comes from less than 10km away, heat in the winter from the hydro, and make do and mend whenever possible, while reforesting degraded agricultural land with mixed native species. I haven’t been more than 20km from here in nearly two years. None of this is a sacrifice - it’s a pleasure beyond measure to be here doing this.
I recognise that this is currently a privileged position - the upfront costs aren’t insignificant - it has cost us about €100k to achieve this degree of low-impact living - but it doesn’t have to be that way.
It’s perfectly possible to direct investment in a direction other than massive centralised and industrialised growth, which incurs the problems you describe, and simultaneously provide a better quality of life for the majority. You could subsidise rooftop solar, or local hydroelectric projects, or passive cooling systems, or subsidise people to nurture nature, and both provide energy and cut energy consumption in one fell swoop. India has the opportunity to make good decisions, rather than becoming burdened by what seem like good decisions now, but are bad decisions in the long term. It’s a shame to see that opportunity squandered.
I recognise that this is currently a privileged position - the upfront costs aren’t insignificant - it has cost us about €100k to achieve this degree of low-impact living - but it doesn’t have to be that way.
It’s perfectly possible to direct investment in a direction other than massive centralised and industrialised growth, which incurs the problems you describe, and simultaneously provide a better quality of life for the majority. You could subsidise rooftop solar, or local hydroelectric projects, or passive cooling systems, or subsidise people to nurture nature, and both provide energy and cut energy consumption in one fell swoop. India has the opportunity to make good decisions, rather than becoming burdened by what seem like good decisions now, but are bad decisions in the long term. It’s a shame to see that opportunity squandered.
I always thought we just had shitty transformers that would constantly blow up.
Nope. Those are local problems, like when your road doesn't have power, but the next road does. Load shedding is announced days in advance and publicized in newspapers.
I guess that in the future, the military of the world will track and hunt down any carbon emissions.
Let me answer many questions targetting India here:
1. Why spend money on defence:
Ans: we have 'peaceful' neighbours like Pakistan and China.
2. Why coal plants when trying to reduce global emissions:
Ans: the west was built on using fossil fuels. All your manufacturing is being outsourced here. You want your products to be built here and therefore we need electricity to produce it. You are not giving us money to build nuclear power plants, only agreements and threats after doing most of the damage to the environment yourselves.
Link to youtube for a news report that mentions the same:
https://youtu.be/NVyM6J2jbAU
If I were at the negotiating table, I'd say, as India, come preach to me once you (i.e. OECD / NATO / Western Europe) reduce your carbon intensity first. [1]
Why should my citizens give up basic development and quality of life when the prime drivers of global warming most recently withdrew from the Paris agreement in a fit of right wing nationalistic self interest, because they felt their lifestyles / livelihoods were threatened? India and China have shown far more maturity than the US in sticking with the agreement and continuing to work with the world to find a path.
CN is where most manufacturing is, even though consumption is in again the rich nations. [2]
Yes, the impact of global warming will be disproportionately borne by counties such as India and pretty much all of Africa if the worst of climate change isn't mitigated. But I am screwed anyway if I cut my development to meet emission targets. So I'd rather develop rapidly to build the economic and infrastructure wherewithal to withstand the climate change disruption; the biggest producers / consumers of the carbon economy are still driving climate change [3], and those guys (including Australia) aren't too keen on actually making the painful decisions they need to. Why ask me?
The US automobile industry still promotes gas guzzling trucks. Ford has completely stopped selling sedans in the US, because sedans, though fuel efficient, are not profitable. Because the US can't be arsed to extend / demand / price for the fuel efficiency standards for trucks. And John Kerry has the temerity to come preach to the rest of the world.
China is already the world's largest manufacturer and consumer of electric vehicles. They have a remarkably impressive mass rapid transport system. They are doing more than the US and EU are, at this point [4]. Let us see the US invest in mass rapid transport; in rail networks. I've lived in the US for almost 10 years; while I get that some parts of the vast country are too low in population density to support or justify mass transit, that's simply not the case for the ACELA corridor, or the large cities and economic regions on the coasts. These are hard social changes, and none of the OCED countries have demonstrated the necessary will-power and willingness to accept some disruption to their lives; don't ask others do to what you aren't willing to do first.
The EU has started to some limited extent, but there's barely any carbon intensive manufacturing left in the EU: all of it has been outsourced to CN and other developing nations. Once I see them start imposing a carbon consumption tax, then I'll accept they are actually serious about climate change. Come preach / pontificate to me then, or ask me to make my own hard choices in terms of such trade-offs.
I didn't create this problem. It is my shared responsibility to solve the problem, because I have benefited from the carbon powered technological and trade innovation. But don't expect me to assume the lion's share of the burden while the countries that drove, still drive climate change, pay lip service to making the hard choices they need to be doing as well. :shrug:
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/share-co2-emissions
[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270537/forecast-for-elec...
Edit: Clarified and expanded on a few points, corrected spelling & grammatical errors.
Why should my citizens give up basic development and quality of life when the prime drivers of global warming most recently withdrew from the Paris agreement in a fit of right wing nationalistic self interest, because they felt their lifestyles / livelihoods were threatened? India and China have shown far more maturity than the US in sticking with the agreement and continuing to work with the world to find a path.
CN is where most manufacturing is, even though consumption is in again the rich nations. [2]
Yes, the impact of global warming will be disproportionately borne by counties such as India and pretty much all of Africa if the worst of climate change isn't mitigated. But I am screwed anyway if I cut my development to meet emission targets. So I'd rather develop rapidly to build the economic and infrastructure wherewithal to withstand the climate change disruption; the biggest producers / consumers of the carbon economy are still driving climate change [3], and those guys (including Australia) aren't too keen on actually making the painful decisions they need to. Why ask me?
The US automobile industry still promotes gas guzzling trucks. Ford has completely stopped selling sedans in the US, because sedans, though fuel efficient, are not profitable. Because the US can't be arsed to extend / demand / price for the fuel efficiency standards for trucks. And John Kerry has the temerity to come preach to the rest of the world.
China is already the world's largest manufacturer and consumer of electric vehicles. They have a remarkably impressive mass rapid transport system. They are doing more than the US and EU are, at this point [4]. Let us see the US invest in mass rapid transport; in rail networks. I've lived in the US for almost 10 years; while I get that some parts of the vast country are too low in population density to support or justify mass transit, that's simply not the case for the ACELA corridor, or the large cities and economic regions on the coasts. These are hard social changes, and none of the OCED countries have demonstrated the necessary will-power and willingness to accept some disruption to their lives; don't ask others do to what you aren't willing to do first.
The EU has started to some limited extent, but there's barely any carbon intensive manufacturing left in the EU: all of it has been outsourced to CN and other developing nations. Once I see them start imposing a carbon consumption tax, then I'll accept they are actually serious about climate change. Come preach / pontificate to me then, or ask me to make my own hard choices in terms of such trade-offs.
I didn't create this problem. It is my shared responsibility to solve the problem, because I have benefited from the carbon powered technological and trade innovation. But don't expect me to assume the lion's share of the burden while the countries that drove, still drive climate change, pay lip service to making the hard choices they need to be doing as well. :shrug:
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/share-co2-emissions
[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270537/forecast-for-elec...
Edit: Clarified and expanded on a few points, corrected spelling & grammatical errors.
I think the policy swings from state to state. There are some states that are going big on renewables.
In India , Thermal power is provided by NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation) , when state power supplies dwindle , power is procured from NTPC. The per unit price of this is way higher than the one from local grids.
Some power supply companies and the central government now provide subsidies for roof top solar and buy the power into the grid at a fixed price slab (consumer gets it at variable slabs). This is quite good in few states e.g (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/kseb-plans-to-...) , Gujarat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Gujarat , https://theprint.in/india/how-gujarat-is-building-worlds-lar...). Consumer demand is also on the rise , eventually this will balance out with Renewables and Nuclear power (India is one of the largest renewable energy adopters , and there is a good subsidy for this)
OK, people please relax.
1. This is a draft policy. 2. Which hasn't even been released, so we can't see the context in which it says this. 3. Article itself says "State-run NTPC Ltd (NTPC.NS), India's top electricity producer, said in September it will not acquire land for new coal-fired projects. Private firms and many run by states across the country have not invested in new coal-fired plants for years saying they were not economically viable.", so at best this is a policy saying "we are open to building coal if necessary". 4. "While suggesting flexible use of coal-fired and natural gas-fired power to ensure grid stability in the coming years, the draft policy lists promoting clean power as its primary objective."
Any case, coal is kind of expensive for India - we don't have any good Anthracite, so we import most of it. What we do have is Lignite which is less efficient and therefore more expensive to run. We haven't built new coal in years, and the last series of coal plants got mostly halted in court cases, or were shelved because they were not going to meet their targets.
Anyway, when they release the actual document, we can see what they're saying...
1. This is a draft policy. 2. Which hasn't even been released, so we can't see the context in which it says this. 3. Article itself says "State-run NTPC Ltd (NTPC.NS), India's top electricity producer, said in September it will not acquire land for new coal-fired projects. Private firms and many run by states across the country have not invested in new coal-fired plants for years saying they were not economically viable.", so at best this is a policy saying "we are open to building coal if necessary". 4. "While suggesting flexible use of coal-fired and natural gas-fired power to ensure grid stability in the coming years, the draft policy lists promoting clean power as its primary objective."
Any case, coal is kind of expensive for India - we don't have any good Anthracite, so we import most of it. What we do have is Lignite which is less efficient and therefore more expensive to run. We haven't built new coal in years, and the last series of coal plants got mostly halted in court cases, or were shelved because they were not going to meet their targets.
Anyway, when they release the actual document, we can see what they're saying...
You know how people in the "West" countries say that why do we need to pay for green tech today while China is doing blablabla? Well, people in India think exactly the same. And I wager people in China too, only they use some other Boogeyman, Russia maybe. That's why we can't have nice things.
May build? There's about 500,000 MW of coal plants under construction right now in the world. Roughly 30% increase vs operating coal plants. There is no may, there is only will.
What are you to build otherwise? Nuclear? Environmentalists are against those as well.
What are you to build otherwise? Nuclear? Environmentalists are against those as well.
FWIW, India has been doing a lot in generating power from solar and there is a push (or at least frequent public statements by those in power) for electric vehicles and getting rid of fossil fuel powered vehicles. This will take time, especially with the current pandemic that has crippled a lot of plans and the economy, but India is a power deficit nation and can do a lot more for its people with more energy production. Switching from fossil fuels to electric with the current state of affairs is a huge task.
If some developed countries have a problem with this draft policy, they could’ve done a lot more in making nuclear technology and fuel easier to access for a cleaner source. But no, even though a historic deal was signed between the U.S. and India by 2008, there have been a lot of impediments and delays in supplying uranium or getting into deals for supplying uranium. Unlike a couple of its neighbors who have a history of selling such technology and materials to hostile/rogue nations with impunity, India doesn’t do that.
With China dumping cheap solar panels and related materials, India has also made it a priority to manufacture these within the country. This will also take time to scale up.
Meanwhile, there’s a growing population with growing energy needs.
If some developed countries have a problem with this draft policy, they could’ve done a lot more in making nuclear technology and fuel easier to access for a cleaner source. But no, even though a historic deal was signed between the U.S. and India by 2008, there have been a lot of impediments and delays in supplying uranium or getting into deals for supplying uranium. Unlike a couple of its neighbors who have a history of selling such technology and materials to hostile/rogue nations with impunity, India doesn’t do that.
With China dumping cheap solar panels and related materials, India has also made it a priority to manufacture these within the country. This will also take time to scale up.
Meanwhile, there’s a growing population with growing energy needs.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/15/mexico-coal-fo...
While the Western industrialized countries are starting to make modest progress in fighting climate change, this is not happening in much of the third world.