Solar Powered Computers Planned for Rural India

securitas writes "BBC Technology correspondent Ram Dutt Tripathi reports on India's Uttar Pradesh state where authorities plan to use solar energy to power computers in rural village schools. The cost to run the solar panels is anticipated to be £1,000 per school. According to the report, up to 80% of homes have no power and most government-run primary schools have no power at all. In 2003 the Uttar Pradesh state government bought '1,000 computers for selected primary schools in all 70 districts' with another 1000 to be purchased this year, 'but most of these will not work because there is no power available.' The project is similar to a solar-powered school computer lab on the Isle of Wight."

Comments

who would have thought...

[calculadoru]

...that it was going to be a nation as poor as India that would first try to use technology without damaging the environment? I get this nagging feeling some nations should take notice...

Re:who would have thought...

[Daetrin]

The fact that it's a "green" energy is really just a nice side effect. India is presumably doing it because it's much cheaper than trying to fix a the massive problems in their power grid.

When we've actually take the time to focus on it, we've been able to improve technology to do a lot more stuff with the same or less amount of energy, while at the same time improving our methods of generating and storing energy. This is making distributed energy generation feasible for people who want to live off the grid or for people who have no effective grid in the first place.

In other words this is a boon both for activists and poor countries with crappy infrastructure. It may mean that even if the US and other developed countries fall down on the job, some second or third world country may get around to building an energy web just by following the path of least resistance.

Re:who would have thought...

[Stephen Samuel]

The fact that it's a "green" energy is really just a nice side effect. India is presumably doing it because it's much cheaper than trying to fix a the massive problems in their power grid.

That's why places like Indonesia had a strong cell phone culture long before it became as big in North America -- they didn't have a choice.
It's SOOOO much easier to pop a microwave antenna and a cell tower on a pole somewhere and give everybody a cell phone than it is to run a wire to every house and end up with non-mobile service.

The only reason why wireline phone service is (was) cheaper than cell phones is that the vast majority of the infrastructure has been in place and paid for for decades. As a (phone company manager) friend of mine once said, once you've paid for the overhead, the rest of the usage is almost pure profit".

I can see similar effects taking place WRT 'off-grid' power production. If there's no grid to be off of, then it's a no-brainer.

Wonder why 1000 pounds!?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to what I know at least 80% of it will be pocketed by corrupt politicians and other 'officials'.
That is the way things function in India.

Next

[xedx]

is figuring out how to get them internet access

Sounds like the US

[CAIMLAS]

This sounds like the US: lots of expensive computers bought for schools where there is no need, no practical application for them all, or even a single fucking use, as there's way too many.

Computers are education's snake oil, and Microsoft the salesman.

Re:Sounds like the US

[dark404]

yeah because a computer is a resource that only has a few functions, so the schools need to have a specific use in mind before they buy them. I mean it's not like they could buy a bunch of them, and place them in some sort of "Lab" where students could use them when they needed them?

Re:Sounds like the US

[barzok]

Except they don't just know how to use them with zero instruction. And the schools lack a curriculum for educating them in the use of the computers, or lack any practical applications of them.

I saw this when I was volunteering at a local school about 18 months ago. We were getting donated PCs cleaned up and usable so that each classroom would have a computer. What did the teachers intend to do with them? "Oh we don't know yet, but we want the computers. We can use PowerPoint to put our lesson plans on the TV in the classroom, right?" The PCs that were already in the school that we were supplementing were all loaded with spyware, games, and other assorted crap that made the machines barely usable (or in some cases, unbootable entirely).

I'm not expecting the school to have a specific use in mind - but at the very least, have some practical reason for laying out the time and money. You don't buy a car and then say "hmmm....now, what will I do with this thing?" - you identify a need for personal transportation, then purchase the device that helps you achieve that goal.

Re:Sounds like the US

[russint]

Except they don't just know how to use them with zero instruction. And the schools lack a curriculum for educating them in the use of the computers, or lack any practical applications of them.

So let them learn by them selves? Kids are great at learning and exploring new things.

Re:Sounds like the US

[16K Ram Pack]

Relifram,

I remember seeing some education software for schools some years ago, and across the board it was rubbish.

The UK curriculum, led by the dear leader Tony Blair is very big on kids using computers. It's the same as that Simpsons episode about the monorail - spend millions on something shiny rather than dealing with the real issues.

I think the money spent on computers in schools would generally be better spent on more teachers, allowing class sizes to be reduced.

What makes no sense to me is that PCs are very much a solo activity - it's you interacting with the computer. How does that really fit in with a classroom situation well?

One argument I've heard is that people need computers for work, but then that brings in the question of the purpose of education. Even viewing education as producing children for workplaces, you have to then accept that a whole heap of jobs like childcare, plumbing, construction, haulage and some of the creative industries actually have very little use of computers. General call centre work is an oversubscribed industry (partly a result of people thinking that office work would remain as a high earner) and things like plumbers, builders, "creatives" and nannies are in undersubscribed. Teaching kids how to use computers (as in general use and not programming or multimedia) is like teaching someone in the 19th century how to operate a loom.

I also have myself tried to use CBT packages for software, and nothing replaces being taught a subject by an expert - even on a cost/benefit basis, I still think that a tutor wins.

I'm afraid I don't understand...

[The Master Control P]

They're buying a thousand, and now another thousand computers and showing the teachers how to use them... but most people are fortunate to have enough electric power to run a light bulb at night? Somehow the logic behind that escapes me...

I mean, I'm all for computers for the poor, but first things first... clean water and electric power.

Re:I'm afraid I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fsck good is a lightbulb if you are still stuck in the third world? Hmm, a lightbulb at night (which these people have ALWAYS lived without) or my child's education. Tough one.

Indians know they can make money doing computer work. I've seen companies in the US that were almost exclusively Indian's with visas. We also outsource a ton of stuff over there.

I tell you right now, if my daughter was starving and I wanted a better way of life for her, I'd give up lightbulbs, sewers, shelter and whatever the fsck else it took to make sure she could afford those things in the future.

Re:I'm afraid I don't understand...

[melkorainur]

> I mean, I'm all for computers for the poor, but first things first... clean water and electric power.
If only things were that easy. You have to remember that building infrastructure is extremely capital intensive. You can only do that if you've got a good budget surplus, and that's something that the Indian government does not have because 1) low tax rate 2) poor tax enforcement quality 3) corruption. Further, very few Indian government officials are altruistic enough to care about development of rural areas [although that has changed significantly due to India's last election results]. I should note that corruption is also decreasing thanks to increasing education standards and knowledge amoung the poor. Also thanks to NGOs that work to address the issue. But there is a tonne more work to be done in that area.

I think the main idea is to drive the demand for infrastructure by all means possible. You give these rural areas a look at computers, an idea of how they can help. You give the teachers in the rural ideas a view of the future. You let them inspire the children and the parents. The next thing you know, the infrastructure demands will increase and slowly but surely it'll get done.

So yeah, first things first is fair enough. They're just trying a different approach to solve the problem. Drive rural demand up and these folk may just get there. You've got to remember things are not that simple when you don't have a spare billion dollars that you can throw at the problem.

Re:I'm afraid I don't understand...

[kfg]

What the fsck good is a lightbulb if you are still stuck in the third world?

Being able to see at night and plug a radio into the socket included in the light fixture, just like in the rest of the world.

Third world doesn't mean stone age, unless, of course, you don't have a lightbulb. It's the lightbulb that makes the difference.

I've lived in the third world in houses without and without lightbulbs and with and without indoor plumbing. The inclusion of a lightbulb is a far more desirable advancment than indoor plumbing.

KFG

tools

[celeritas_2]

Computers are overrated as an educational tool. I think it would be much more important and helpful to have electric lights than access to sex.com. Overrated this post is. as Yoda would say. But really paying to educating teachers in india more, and providing better facilities would help more than a room full of Apple IIs

Whatever you have to do to drag yourself up

[gelfling]

This is a good thing because whatever you have to do to rise yourself up out of this shit is good. If you have to bring in solar panels, burn trash, slaughter a chicken, what-the-fuck-ever.

In 10 years your boss or your senator will be one of these people who absofuckinglutely will not be denied.

Why the power conversion?

[Timbotronic]

Yet another solar power project that's converting the DC output to mains voltage AC and then back again.

Wouldn't it be better just to charge up a big array of car batteries and then feed the power directly to the motherboards (after a bit of voltage conversion etc)? There's no need to use AC power unless you're transmitting it over long distances. Right Mr Tesla?

Re:Donations?

[melkorainur]

Donating money is not the best way for you to help. Instead of donating money, just help create a free, fair society. Let's say your hardware firm needs linux device drivers or hardware designed or software or whatever, don't just consider European and American companies, give a thought to Indian companies too. Prevent governments from instituting unfair tarrifs and sanctions [lookup US textile tarrifs and you'll see why it's cheaper and better [quality included] to make tee-shirts in India than in the US]. Vote for representatives that speak the truth, and truly care for building a better world. I've heard good things about Obama for Illinois, for example. That's the best way you can help. Punish large multinational organizations that do unfair things like attempt to bribe officials [Haliburton, Enron]. Bribery starts there, their money funds the weapons used by illegitimate governements/officials to hold back the civillian populace.

Why solar?

[A coward on a mouse]

I think solar may be preferred because it requires zero infrastructure beyond shipping, installation, maintenance, and disposal. Also, sunlight is (so far) not something that can be bought and sold, so the intended users won't wind up beholden to someone selling fuel. Lastly, little to no day-to-day effort goes in to consuming solar power, so the user won't have to find time to do anything new other than use the electricity.

I think what's most exciting about this sort of thing is the distribution of decentralized power generation technology based on renewable energy sources. I'm sure if a situation arises where compost gas or wind power or micro-hydroelectric power is a better fit, this kind of project could adapt to use an energy source other than solar.

Re:Power

[Aardpig]

These people don't need computers, they need basic electric applicances like a refrigerator and indoor lights FIRST.

From personal experience, kerosine-powered fridges and lamps are far, far better options than electrically-powered equivalents. They can be repaied using local know-how, and distribution networks for kerosene are typically already well established in developing countries.

It's always best to save the electricity for those items that absolutely need it. Computers fall into this category, fridges and lights do not.

Computer skills aren't everything...

[doodlelogic]

If computers are in every classroom, and some of the teachers don't know how to use them fully, that should not matter. The job of an e.g. history teacher is to teach history, some will do that through whizzy technology, others will use group exercises or front of class lectures. They can all be excellent teachers, notwithstanding (because of?) their focussed skill sets.

It sounds trite, but different pupils have different learning styles too, so having some computer incompetent teachers may actually be a good thing.

Re:How efficient is the PhotoVoltaic cell ?

[Yokaze]

> The one which I used many years ago wasn't efficient at all, and they are bulky as hell.

What is it with people being so obsessed with "efficiency" of solar cells? It's not like you're going to log them around all the time or place it right on your lawn. More important is the costs (and enviromental impact) of the production of them.

Imagine a dirt cheap, enviromentally friendly solar cell with 5% efficiency. We'd see all the roofs plastered with them.

> What's the highest solar --> electricity conversion rate achieved so far ?

For most people (those of us, that don't haul a satelites into orbit, or equip cars with them) that number is pureley academically. But, since you asked: Record 25%. Typical: 10-15%.