Slashdot Mirror


India Eyeing a New Monster 100GW Solar-Capacity Goal (arstechnica.com)

AmiMoJo writes: In a confirmed report India's energy minister suggested that the country is considering issuing a tender for 100 gigawatts of solar energy, which may be tied to solar panel-manufacturing buildout. In 2015, India set a goal to reach 100GW of solar capacity as part of its larger aim of 175GW of renewable energy in general by 2022. This latest 100GW tender would be for a 2030 or 2035 target.

The existing goal is ambitious, so a stretch goal further into the future is even more so. The country's current total solar capacity is just 24.4GW, (for context, as of this month the US has about 55.9GW of installed solar capacity total) but it's growing quickly. Utility-scale solar capacity grew by 72 percent in the previous year.

155 comments

  1. Re:What a priority by avandesande · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are lots of places in India with no power at all. If you have trouble raising the capitol to build a full scale power plant a solar installation might be more appropriate especially without a nationwide grid. This might be practical -vs- environmental.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  2. Re:What a priority by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, more energy will help with infrastructure problems and should be a priority.

  3. Good for you India by fredrated · · Score: 2

    Thanks for showing us what can be done.

    1. Re:Good for you India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      News: A very ambitious project is being considered by India for a pre-plan assessment of feasibility which might lead to the beginning of a plan within the next 5 years.

      Slashdot: What a wonderful success! Thank you India for being a leader and "showing us what can be done."

      Are we really so detached from reality that praise is given in the present for accomplishing a possible and unlikely future event? Remember when India claimed they were making a tablet for $20 or when they said they would be on the moon by a few years ago without any external help?

    2. Re:Good for you India by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are we really so detached from reality that praise is given in the present for accomplishing a possible and unlikely future event? Remember when India claimed they were making a tablet for $20 or when they said they would be on the moon by a few years ago without any external help?

      Have you looked at the American government recently? Even just having a plan to do something reasonably achievable that's not inherently evil does seem like a vast improvement over the current American government...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    3. Re:Good for you India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the US government doing that is so evil in your mind?

    4. Re:Good for you India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we really so detached from reality that praise is given in the present for accomplishing a possible and unlikely future event? Remember when India claimed they were making a tablet for $20 or when they said they would be on the moon by a few years ago without any external help?

      Have you looked at the American government recently? Even just having a plan to do something reasonably achievable that's not inherently evil does seem like a vast improvement over the current American government...

      Even having a plan is meaningless if no steps are taken to execute it. Save the praise for when the plan starts being implemented.

    5. Re:Good for you India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want progress it's on us to show support at the early stages. These things live and die very quickly in their infancy, and popular support can help usher them in to reality.

    6. Re:Good for you India by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Really? They have four times our population, and half our solar capacity.

      So, 1/8 as much as we have, on a per capita basis.

      Even if they complete this new goal, they'll still have no more solar capacity per capita in 20 years than we have today.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Good for you India by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Are we really so detached from reality that praise is given in the present for accomplishing a possible and unlikely future event?

      Mexico paying for a wall is what wins elections these days so yes, yes we are.

    8. Re:Good for you India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Concentration Camps. Don't play stupid. You know what I'm talking about.

    9. Re:Good for you India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India could have harvested their #1 product to fuel them into eternity, their own shit.

      security word, no joke: refuel. ROFL

  4. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what an idiot. the country has pollution levels through the roof, inefficient coal plants built in the 60s and is at least attempting to move in a positive direction to reduce pollution; and our resident genius gets to talk about their trains and corruption. I assume they should put everything on hold till they fix trains and corruption? what do you say about Trumpism then...

  5. 175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy use by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Translating a few numbers from here, that means India would be getting about 23% of total energy consumption from solar (it's currently 2.89%). And is attempting to roughly double nuclear power generation within 25 years...

    With even India onboard for a rapid ramp-up in low CO2 energy production, the CO2 reduction targets the world desires will be beat quite handily and without any additional effort. It was always the nations like India and China that were the big sources of CO2 so they are the main ones to watch in dealing with this issue.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. Capacity? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    What matters is actual output, and in India that is around 15-19%. So installing 100 GW of "capacity" really means installing around 15-19 GW of actual generation, or about 2% of their actual electrical need.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: Capacity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      But Elon Musk is going to Hyperloop solar into Tesla batteries using minerals from space X to make power really boring an you better pay pal.

    2. Re:Capacity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many "experts" on Slashdot... if you would just leave your parents basement and get out into the world and solve all the problems!

      (you're a dipshit)

  7. Re:What a priority by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Power grid? This is a country plagued with Lucas electrics from their time dominated by the UK. The only people who have it worse are the Lebanese who not only have that fabulous British wiring but also benefit from French plumbing!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the US. What are they focusing on? Space Marines...

  9. That was from 2013... by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What matters is actual output, and in India that is around 15-19%. So installing 100 GW of "capacity" really means installing around 15-19 GW of actual generation

    That's an interesting point, but that data seems to be from 2013 so it seems like upcoming generation would be quite a bit better.

    This article on Wikipedia indicates that even currently solar generation exceeds the 2% figure you gave, it's at 2.9% now - so essentially an order of magnitude expansion should be a pretty decent amount of actual output.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That was from 2013... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well, this new capacity is 2% more - that's what I meant and tried to write - this new generation is actually about 2% of their needs.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:That was from 2013... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kendall how bad at actual math are you? 2% is nothing.

    3. Re:That was from 2013... by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

      From GP's link, solar generation in '16-'17 was 12.08 GWh of solar power, which was 0.98% of their utility generation that year. This was from 12.3 GW of installed capacity, of which 45% was added in that time period, so contributed partially. That suggests 100 GW should produce somewhere between 98 and 178 GWh, or 7.9 - 14.4% of 2017's total.

      And since the 100 GW described in TFA is on top of the existing target of 100 GW by 2022, you can probably double that (though of course total demand is also likely to increase as well).

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  10. Nice, but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Nice, but how about getting some toilets?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shit into the compost pile, smartypants.

    2. Re:Nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicer would be toilet paper.

    3. Re:Nice, but... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's not how you spell "street".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Re:Trump eyeing the inside of a prison cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yawn. Yep. Annnny day now. Just like the past 520 days. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

  12. Re: What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Letâ(TM)s just for arguments sake say that the US doesnâ(TM)t have those problems. What do they focus on? Separating children from their parents... way to make the world a better place.

  13. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue Mr. Elon Musk.

  14. Let's do the numbers by ishmaelflood · · Score: 2

    100 GW sounds a lot. By the time this is installed the population of India will be roughly 1 billion. So this gives each Indian roughly 100W of installed capacity. This will generate 400 Wh of electricity per day (pV generates about 4 hours of nameplate power output per day), so it'll run a lightbulb, and maybe half of a small fridge.

    Wow, that's transformational.

    Now, fair enough, if you don't have a lightbulb and a fridge that sounds jolly nice, but it isn't exactly energy nirvana is it?

    1. Re:Let's do the numbers by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      If you read even the first paragraph of TFA you'd see that this 100 GW is on top of the already-existing 100 GW target by 2022. And of course they're adding wind, hydro, and nuclear as well.

      More important than the fridge would be energy to power a cooker instead - which could save 1.3 million lives a year.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:Let's do the numbers by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Let's do the numbers

      India's total installed capacity is 340GW. Even with solar's lower capacity factor than most other things, this is still a very substantial amunt extra available.

      Now, fair enough, if you don't have a lightbulb and a fridge that sounds jolly nice, but it isn't exactly energy nirvana is it?

      The poverty line in India is about 50 cents per day. You decide if that would be trasformational.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going fully cynical: Why would you want to save 1.3 million lives a year if you already have a population of 1 billion?

    4. Re:Let's do the numbers by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      The poverty line in India is about 50 cents per day.

      Do you really believe that? Do you think you can get 3 good meals and a roof over your head anywhere for 50 cents?

    5. Re:Let's do the numbers by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      If you want to be that cynical: the statistical value of a human life (in terms of health costs, lost productivity etc) in India was US$94,721, according to the WHO for 2004. For 1.3 million lives that's $123 billion every year - a pretty sizable chunk of their GDP.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    6. Re:Let's do the numbers by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > Do you think you can get 3 good meals and a roof over your head anywhere for 50 cents?

      No, that's why it's called "poverty".

      Duh.

    7. Re:Let's do the numbers by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      He's saying north of 50 cents a day is out in poverty, jackass. That's not how it works. Food costs the same in India as everywhere else. 50 cents buys about a pound of uncooked rice in a market in India or a grocery store in California.

    8. Re:Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food costs the same everywhere.

      Never walked into Whole Foods, I see.

    9. Re:Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food costs the same in India as everywhere else

      That is so absurdly and obviously wrong it's not even funny, and shows a fundamental misperception of the world.

      1 pound of rice in India would be approx 20R, or 29 cents.
      1 pound of rice in the US would be approx 71 cents.

    10. Re:Let's do the numbers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, a cooker could be powered directly with focused sunlight.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Let's do the numbers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      3 good meals, yes.
      Most of the time of the year you don't need a roof ...

      Anyway, I guess the parent meant: if there is more power available, likely more people gets power, it does not necessarily mean that those who already have power can spent more.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Let's do the numbers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      50 cents buys about a pound of uncooked rice in a market in India
      That is nonsense. I obviously don't know the price in India, but it is likely a tenth or even less than in Germany. E.g. in Thailand you pay for a sack of rice about $10, to heavy to carry for an ordinary person.

      Food prices, especially unprepared, vary easily by a factor between 10 and 100 from country to country.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re: Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India actually has invested in solar cooking and such as well

    14. Re:Let's do the numbers by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Not unless they're subsidized. Food staples are a commodity like oil and metals. They cost the same everywhere.

    15. Re:Let's do the numbers by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Rice is more than 30 bhat / kg in Thailand Even higher than a CA supermarket. Sad but true.

    16. Re:Let's do the numbers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They cost the same everywhere
      No they don't.
      Why the fuck would they? You never heard about the fact that not every food grows everywhere? That wages are different? That transport actually costs something?

      An Avocado in Germany is about $4. It does not grow here.
      A sack of Avocado in Thailand, about 25 pieces, is $2.

      Same for rice and any other food like Mango, Papaya, Shrimps/Prawns, Octopus or actually any sea food etc. It gets even more interesting if you go eating in a restaurant. In Thailand I pay for a kingly meal for 3 or 4 persons $25. The same meal would cost me in Germany $300 or $400.

      What do you think a box of simple Pasta costs in Thailand? Or olive oil? 10 times as much as in Germany, 20 times as much as in Italy or Spain, 40 times as much as in Greece. Already in Europe the price difference can easy be a factor 4 to 10, from east to west or north to south. Why should a Cheddar cheese from UK cost the same in Paris or Berlin as it does in Manchester? For funk sake, obviously it is more expensive outside of the UK. Why should red wine from Italy or France cost the same in Germany or the UK like in the land of production? Are you really such dumb?

      America seems to be focused around cheap food everywhere, so you can not imagine that at other places it is cheaper. However: at many places (first world nations) it is more expensive than in the US. OTOH if we talk about quality food, it seems to be incredible hard to find "affordable" places in the US.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Let's do the numbers by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      30 Baht is 90 $cents ... which super market did you check? Sounds quite expensive for Thailand.
      OTOH I believe cheap rice in Germany is about 4Euro per kg. Unless you buy a 25kg sack in an Asia Shop :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Let's do the numbers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's 100GW on top of the 175GW of renewable capacity they already have in place, which is a mixture of sources (not just solar). That is on top of all the non-renewable power they already have too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slight population error. They have over 1.3 billion right now.

    20. Re: Let's do the numbers by boa · · Score: 1

      That 94K figure isn't the yearly value. Your math is broken

    21. Re: Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $94k/per human life figure isn't the yearly value, but the 1.3 million lives saved annually is. Namarrgon's math is correct, that's $123B/yr

    22. Re:Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would olive oil cost 40 times as much in the place it's produced while Avocado's cost one 50th where they are produced? Why would a people accustomed to much cheaper food not understand that food is more expensive elsewhere and food might be less expensive elsewhere?

      As usual, you appear to either be intentionally trolling, an angry drunk, or suffering from dementia.

    23. Re: Let's do the numbers by boa · · Score: 1

      Your math is broken too, mate :)

    24. Re:Let's do the numbers by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      but it isn't exactly energy nirvana is it?

      You're right, it's a silly idea. India is too far gone, there's no point in trying to build powerplants there.

    25. Re: Let's do the numbers by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      In one year, 1.3 million lives are cut short by air pollution, preventing each of those people from producing a nominal average of $94k over the rest of their lives. The lost productivity is $123 billion, not for that year, but accumulated over the next few decades.

      The next year, another 1.3 million lives are cut short - resulting in an additional $123 billion productivity loss over those same decades. And more the next year, and the next.

      You're right in that the $123B isn't the loss for a single year, so perhaps comparing it to the annual GDP may be a little misleading - but it's a genuine cost that's incurred yearly, even if the impact is amortised. And when you add up the loss from all the prior years (this isn't new), then the total annual loss is probably pretty close to the $123B mark anyway.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    26. Re:Let's do the numbers by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      And indeed they are - the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy has been promoting solar cookers in India since the 80s. They're fairly widely used, but have a number of disadvantages - can't cook at night, or on cloudy days (though many parts of India typically get 300 sunny days a year), smaller units have to be used outside, cooking rate is hard to control, and they're slow, often taking 2 or 3 hours to cook a meal.

      But more recent developments have added thermal storage in the form of heated steam or other liquids, allowing indoor and after-dark usage along with more control and faster cooking. This usually boosts the price of course, but can be invaluable in larger-scale community kitchens.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    27. Re: Let's do the numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll reading comprehension failure.

  15. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    From your own link it says "Total primary energy use of 775 Mtoe in 2013"

    775 Mtoe = 9013250 Gw

    100 * 100 / 9013250 = 0.001%

  16. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    Also the article states India curently already has 24.4GW of solar, so again (100GW + 24.4GW) / 24.4GW does not equal 23% / 2.89%....

  17. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    When the sun is up.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  18. I have a much better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sequester all the curry farts and use that instead!

    1. Re:I have a much better idea by stooo · · Score: 1

      We'll sequester you, fart, and use that instead!

      --
      aaaaaaa
  19. In Other News: 2030: Mysterious Heat Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Research into the mysterious heat island over India has yielded nothing.
    There are some who try to point at the massive solar infrastructure. But we're sure they're just crackpots and whack jobs...

    In other news, nobody's sure how we're going to afford to replace all these panels in 25 years!

    1. Re:In Other News: 2030: Mysterious Heat Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True, it'll be very expensive to replace them all. But it's quite a sight to behold... the clock turns midnight on their 25th anniversary, and they just crumble into dust and drift away in the wind.

      We should definitely build nuclear power stations instead. They don't have any kind of limited lifespan, or require any kind of maintenance or additional costs to deal with any byproducts like those terrible solar panels.

    2. Re:In Other News: 2030: Mysterious Heat Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonono you incestuous blow-by of a crack whore and a drunken pigshit diver!

      By 2030, most of the panels will be 10-20 years into their expected lifespan.
      And in another 25 or so years, even if they get through their extended lifespan intact, without failure, power production will have nosedived precipitously.

      And, currently, PV panels have a failure rate of about .05%.
      Not a lot, sure. But 100GW is a metric fuckton of panels (250-300 square miles OF JUST PANEL FACE)
      That's about 28-30 MILLION panels.
      So, every year, you're looking at the possibility of 14,000-15,000 panels just flat-out failing for non-damage reasons.

      And then, at the end of their lifespan, what EXACTLY is the plan to recycle those panels?
      Oh, their ISN'T ONE? So at roughly 50 lbs per panel, you're talking 700+ KILOTONS of landfill.

      Oh, and solar panels don't require any maintenance?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  20. Real reason - a stable demand for panels by willy_me · · Score: 5, Insightful

    India does not want to rely on China for solar panels - they want to build them locally. To justify building a local factory there has to be a stable demand to pay for it. You do this with large, long term projects -- like this one. It is important for India to not have their future energy production dependent on a country like China.

    1. Re:Real reason - a stable demand for panels by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > It is important for India to not have their future energy production dependent on a country like China.

      Why? Most of the system comes from other countries. Everything from the copper to the aluminium to the quartz. So why should the panel as a whole be different?

      Canada has lots of power. Most of it is built out using parts from the US. I'm trying to understand what problem this caused because I can't see one.

    2. Re:Real reason - a stable demand for panels by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Canada has lots of power. Most of it is built out using parts from the US.

      Yes, but the production of the energy itself is under our control.

      Think of it as "buying a software license that works forever" vs "paying a monthly fee to be able to use the software you need".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Real reason - a stable demand for panels by johnsie · · Score: 1

      India is a huge country. Way bigger than the US. There's no reason for them to depend on other countries for any resource.

    4. Re:Real reason - a stable demand for panels by johnsie · · Score: 1

      my bad, it's actually smaller. At 3,287,263 sq km it's still huge though.

    5. Re:Real reason - a stable demand for panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't want to be dependent on a former/present/future enemy.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

    6. Re:Real reason - a stable demand for panels by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Take the deserts and Alaska out and count only livable land and its pretty similar in size to the US. CIA fact book India has 58% arable land. USA has 16.8%. When you consider USA is roughly 3 times as bigger (most of it is Alaska) the actual livable land is similar. India still has 3 times the population so its densely populated (not as densely populated as France, Germany or Japan but its dense)

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  21. 175 Gigowatts ? by stooo · · Score: 0

    175 gigowatts.
    Great Scott!
    What the hell is a gigowatt?
    How could I have been so careless?
    175 gigowatts!

    --
    aaaaaaa
  22. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by stooo · · Score: 2

    Confusing GW and GWh
    Using the wrong case for an unit.
    Yeah.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  23. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    There is an economic imperative for them too. Europe, Japan and the US have all made money exporting energy generation technology. Now there is a big shift to safe renewables that don't have any of the old down sides (pollution, CO2, requiring nuclear fuel/disposal/regulation) there is a big opportunity to sell vast amounts of new technology and engineering knowledge.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  24. Ambitious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The existing goal is ambitious, so a stretch goal further into the future is even more so.
    With 72% per year growth and 25GW installed last year, you'd automatically get 200GW in 2022! Now even with 72% growth not all of the 25GW will have been installed last year. But setting a goal of 100GW by 2030 or 2035 is "not very ambitious" in my book.

  25. Slum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do those water-bottles installed in slum-house roofs to let light in count as part of the total solar energy?

  26. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    That's when it is needed, yes. Electrical power consumption at night is quite a bit lower.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  27. Re:What a priority by oobayly · · Score: 1

    What do you mean by "Lucas electrics", the only Lucas I can think of is motor industry based.

  28. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    A comment almost completely devoid of information, probably because you'd rather not get it wrong yourself and look like a dick...

    OK so attempt 2...

    775 Mtoe = 9 013 250 GWh

    according to

    https://www.iea.org/statistics...

    So to get GWh from a 100GW power station...
    100GW x 24 x 365 = 876 000GWh

    100 * 876,000 / 9,013,250 = 9%

    which is still not 23%

  29. Why don't they power their country with kindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am told that kindness is the most powerful element in the universe. Yes they should power their country with kindness, and stop trying to steal all the Sun's photons

  30. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    We are already past the c02 limit for a 1.5 C temperature increase. We blow thru the 2.0 C temperature increase in 2025. To not do so, we would have to lower our carbon output by 90%.

    I just don't see that happening.

    In the mean time, natural gas extraction is leading to very sharp increases in methane.

    Nothing short of directly removing CO2 is going to work. And we are not even close to reduction much less extraction.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  31. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Wrong, 100 GW of solar power at about 20% capacity factor is about 6.3e17 joules of annual output, which is about 2% of 775 Mtoe = ~3.25e19 joules.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  32. Re:What a priority by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    > What do you mean by "Lucas electrics", the only Lucas I can think of is motor industry based.

    http://www.mez.co.uk/lucas.html

    They made all sorts of things, but are worst known for their motoring products, yes.

  33. Re:What a priority by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    There's an old joke: "Why do the British drink warm beer? Because they keep it in Lucas refrigerators."

  34. Re:What a priority by SciCom+Luke · · Score: 1

    As a Lukas.... what?

  35. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by SciCom+Luke · · Score: 1

    And when the sun is up, you pump water up into hydropower lakes, and at night you let it flow back.

  36. Arrogant first worlders by sjbe · · Score: 2

    100 GW sounds a lot. By the time this is installed the population of India will be roughly 1 billion.

    "Will be"? The current population of India is roughly 1.324 billion today. Are you thinking India will lose 300 million citizens in the near future?

    So this gives each Indian roughly 100W of installed capacity.

    Are you trolling or idiotic? They already consume 751W per capita. Using your (incorrect) math that would be an addition of over 11% to their generating capacity so that's far from trivial.

    Wow, that's transformational.

    Yes it is. It would provide stable power to a lot of people who don't already have access to reliable power. That is a LOT of people in India. 58% of India's population reportedly lives on less than $3.10 per day. If you actually knew anything about India you'd know they have some pretty severe infrastructure problems holding the country back, not the least of which is their power grid.

    Now, fair enough, if you don't have a lightbulb and a fridge that sounds jolly nice, but it isn't exactly energy nirvana is it?

    Only to an arrogant rich westerner with no clue how a large portion of the world actually lives.

    1. Re: Arrogant first worlders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We worked hard to build our country.

      No, you really didn't. Your ancestors, on the other hand, oh wait... that's wrong, too.
      I think what you meant to say was "slaves worked really hard to build our country."
      Which kind of indicates where the barbarians in this debate are.

    2. Re: Arrogant first worlders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should care because we are The King Capitalists. Someone gets to make a lot of money building this shit. It should be us. If you disagree with this, you're probably a pinko commie fag.

  37. You must be joking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All the materials you mentioned are raw materials. You cannot make them. You mine them. India wants to be the one to turn raw materials into finished products. Much like Indonesia wants to smelt the copper and stop exporting the ore.

  38. 100 gigawatts?! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

    Are they also planning to buy 82 DeLorean cars?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  39. Well done, India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now start eyeing how to provide running water, electricity and sanitation to the more than 600 million Indian citizens who lack it, and the rest of the world will take you seriously.

    1. Re: Well done, India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out solar energy helps provide running water, in fact, solar energy can even provide clean water.

  40. Re:What a priority by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    I guess an electric train runs well on solar power ...
    (*facepalm*)

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  41. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the US. What are they focusing on? Space Marines...

    What, you don't want your kid joining the Mobile Infantry so they can become a citizen?

  42. Re:What a priority by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Ah, I'd never heard Lucas being synonymous with poor quality.

  43. Re:What a priority by tbannist · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry this is just wrong... Trump was trying to distract people from the child abuse that he ordered in name of border security because no one believed his claims that he had to do it because it was the law, or his next claim that the Democrats made him do it, or his final claim that Obama was so much worse than he was, so he finally had to switch to "look at the shiny space marines!" so his followers could continue ignoring his heartless incompetence.

    I'm only correcting you because It's important to know what specifically Trump is trying to distract people from.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  44. Re: Trump eyeing the inside of a prison cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't care where you die. Just do it soon and stop polluting /. With your ButtHurt

  45. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spotted the Trump cultist.

  46. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    No in nations that have real industrial output. That can have jobs in shifts and work all day and night... Power is needed day and night.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  47. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Thats great if the dam exists and was designed that way :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  48. Re:What a priority by mikael · · Score: 1

    Power grid? This is a country plagued with Lucas electrics from their time dominated by the UK. The only people who have it worse are the Lebanese who not only have that fabulous British wiring but also benefit from French plumbing!

    Electric shower heads - now that's like combining the electric chair with a Swedish sauna room

    http://trialandstyle.com/edito...?

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  49. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    Simply a matter of industrial economic development. Clearly the India government wants to promote the manufacture of solar panels in India for export to the rest of the world in very large volumes. So it is seeking to promote the development of major very high production level solar panel plants. So it is putting out a tender which will promote that development to fill that contract and then go on to export panels as well as fill local need at a low manufacture cost per kWh of energy produced.

    This might seem a major investment but compare it to pouring similar amounts of money into the black hole of military misadventures and espionage corruption and crime promotion. The Billions going into those solar panels to provide a future economic advantage in the production of solar panels is a sound investment into the future.

    So how low can the solar energy limbo bar cost per panel go before it breaks the back of say, coal as a start. This kind of investment is what will drive it and why US fossil fuel corporations fight so hard to block it's development in the US, via lobbyist corruption but will ultimately cripple the US in the future as a result of this quarters greed. Being the cheapest at making solar panels in largely automated factories will be a big thing in the future competition between nations, having the raw resources close to production facilities they will favour by regulation, will be critical.

    If you have the raw resources why would you not force the export of solar panels only and not the raw materials, things will get interesting.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  50. Re:What a priority by tsa · · Score: 2

    Oh please. Just watch the last Star Wars movies.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  51. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    (100GW + 24.4GW)

    Dude, look at the subject of your own post, a copy of my point - the figure in question is 175GW (the 2022 figure), not 100+24.

    Also you are using figures from the Slashdot article and comparing them to a percentage from Wikipedia, both of which are bound to be written against different levels of solar power generation. You can't say directly the 2.89% is related to the 24GW from the article here, you'd have to adjust first for the difference in base.

    I'm not saying my estimate is exact, it was off the cuff. But it's much closer than any of the "corrections" I have seen posted, especially the ones that amusingly claim after India adds a lot of solar generation capacity it will some have produce far less a percentage of total power...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  52. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly what "child abuse" are you talking about here? Removing children from the presence of their parents who broke the Law? Detaining them in a safe place while the status of their parents is being determined?
    And based on a Law signed in 1996. Trump wasn't president in 1996.

    So it is now child abuse to remove children from their parents when those parents break the Law? Then I guess it was wrong for CPS to remove the children from my neighbor's home when she was arrested for assault and possession of heroin. Right?

    Better leave politics somewhere else when you reply. You're doing it wrong.

  53. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    This is pretty easy to disprove
    https://www.agora-energiewende...

    I took a couple of days of the last week as an example and you can see pretty clearly the difference between the power requirements during the day and during the night. As you may or may not know, Germany is a nation that has some real industrial output.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  54. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extraction is actually much easier than reduction because reduction depends heavily on people's personal choices like what they eat. We have many working examples of extraction, what we lack is the will to try them on scale. I wish climate change debate would switch from nanny-ism attempting to shame everyone into living life the "Right Way" tm rather than just getting on with what we already know will work and the only real way to meet the schedule demanded by faltering natural processes...geoengineering. We need industrial strength nature to keep up with industrially produced civilization.

  55. Re:What a priority by Shotgun · · Score: 2

    You've never heard of "Lucas Electrics, The Prince of Darkness"?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  56. Re: What a priority by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Letâ(TM)s just for arguments sake say that the US doesnâ(TM)t have those problems. What do they focus on? Separating children from their sex trafficers... way to make the world a better place.

    FTFY. You do realize that is why the Democrats passed the law, right?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  57. Re:What a priority by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    The saying was that Lucas killed more RAF pilots than the Germans... Bad taste, but - if you've ever worked on a British pre-1975 car, you'd understand...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  58. A Big target by techsparrow · · Score: 1

    Solar power is one of the emerging reliable source of power. It is a good step for future. But at the same time, well project management and planning is required to achieve this target.

  59. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's certainly good news, but saying that
    > It was always the nations like India and China that were the big sources of CO2 so they are the main ones to watch in dealing with this issue.

    Just isn't true. In terms of percentage of emissions, China is indeed the world's largest source of CO2 (29%), although you could argue that much of that is because they are also the world's largest exporter. Number two is the USA (14%), three the EU (10%) and India comes in at number four (7%).

    Reducing India's energy-generation emissions by 25% would be great, but hardly job done in terms of cutting global CO2 emissions.

    In all fairness to India, they're doing a fantastic job for such a large nation. In terms of per-capita emissions, Austrailia (19 t/person/year) and the USA (16) are way out ahead of China (8), the EU (7) and India (2). By prioritising low carbon tech now, India stands an excellent chance of building the cleanest, cheapest infrastructure of any large nation; that knowlege will put them in a very good position to work with other developing nations, which will in turn be a huge boon to India's economy in the long run. Meanwhile, we're still spending money trying to make "clean coal" a thing...

  60. Still shit in their hands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And have nukes.

    What a beautiful culture.

  61. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not denying that people's choices matter, but technology, legislation and economics have a much larger role to play.

    Being a vegan is great if you are into it, but that one spiritual retreat a year to Nepal or business trip to Paris is going to totally wipe out any CO2 reduction you've achieved by eating fresh local produce, cycling to work, showering every other day, recycling religiously and taking your own bags to the supermarket.

    Until we can firmly pin the real cost of CO2 on the activities that produce it (aviation, power generation, logistics), there's no real incentive to make any reductions.

    The problem with saying "just build extractors" is that it is never more economically viable to build an extractor that can pull XX tonnes/year of CO2 out of the air than it is to build a clean power plant that can replace a fossil-fuel plant putting that XX tonnes/year into the air in the first place. Once we have a very clean grid it might be worth building extractors for the aviation-CO2 that is harder to reduce, but then aviation will (rightly) get a lot more expensive than it is now. Our best bet is to pin the external costs on the polluters now, and let the market sort it out.

  62. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't shit on progress just because it's not 100% perfect.

  63. This is a boon for the rapists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all this power, they will not need to bring their own flashlights now.

  64. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Oh, and India is trying to use this one source of solar power to power their entire country, is that it? Once this is finished they're going to demolish all other power plants? No point in adding capacity during the peak usage times, right?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  65. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Better tell Germany, because they're about to convert a coal mine to do exactly that with a huge pipe running in a 10 mile underground loop for storing that water underground. They're going to add pumps to pump water to the surface during times of generation excess, and then when generation is lower they run the water back down into the mine reservoir and send it through a turbine on the way. So, quick, Slashdot expert, save Germany and tell them that this isn't going to work because the coal mine wasn't designed to hold an underground reservoir and pumping station.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  66. How about I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...pump your moms CUNT instead?

  67. Not the answer you were looking for ? by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

    Q: How do I impoverish my country as successfully as India has?

    A: Solar panels

  68. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, you don't think more cheap energy will help keep public bathrooms clean so people can stop shitting in the streets? Color me surprised!

  69. Re:What a priority by ghoul · · Score: 1

    We are talking about India not Indiana

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
  70. Re:What a priority by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

    No, more like unifying the disparate Air Force, Navy and Army space commands.

    --
    Bring back the old version of slashdot.
  71. Re:What a priority by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Didn't you get the memo?

    If you are opposed to unfettered illegal immigration you're a mouth breathing racist.
    If you support the notion that a nation has the right and obligation to its citizens to maintain a border, you're a mouth breathing racist.

    Let everyone in who wants to come, then tax the vanishing middle class into oblivion to pay for it. Else you're a mouth breathing racist.

  72. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need to build extractors to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, that's a straw-man. Iron-oxide (rust) can be dumped into the oceans to create bacterial/algal blooms, we have abundant supplies of cheap rust, not a perfect solution but absolutely cheap and attainable today. We have many interesting geoengineering ideas but all the public ever thinks when someone on TV talks about climate change is"Oh no their not taking away my car or vacation, eww I'm not eating bugs!" Oh and some of these geoengineering ideas come with awesome side effects like producing carbon neutral jet fuel, biodiesel and livestock feed!

    Taking that retreat to Nepal was a personal choice, there will always be someone who doesn't want to play by the rules and vote so they can get away with it. In fact the majority would find it extremely difficult to give up at least 1 of the things they would be asked to give up so we are all the source of the problem no matter how perfectly vegan we may be. We know who put the CO2 there, it was us human beings and we all bear all of the responsibility. As long as we focus on arguing over who is responsible and assigning blame to individuals we'll never actually reduce those PPM of CO2. Meanwhile we could just fix it so society doesn't need to feel shame unless the thing they're doing is actually inherently destructive. Flying in a plane spewing CO2 isn't a problem if the planet's CO2 levels are affordably within a geoengineering solutions ability to regulate CO2 concentrations in the air and sea.

    Over time we'll come up with better power sources and cleaner food chains etc, but these things take generations of time to achieve. Even these solutions can have unintended consequences that lead to the next climate change like problem. All choices have consequences so let's stop pretending that reducing the sources of CO2 emissions won't too. One key take away from the current pace of climate change legislation is recognizing that even the very idea of the consequences required to reduce emissions has been more than enough fodder to scare the voting public away by merchants of doubt. The IPCC gets it now, have you read their current guidance? We can't reduce our way out of this problem so let's start taking other ideas more seriously please!

  73. Re:What a priority by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You haven't played Sim City have you? Or are you one of those people who don't understand why the buildings aren't being built despite having roads and trains but no power plant?

  74. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our best bet is to pin the external costs on the polluters now, and let the market sort it out."

    We don't have time for that. You're using the common rational for a carbon tax system. I agree we need to create incentives for egregious polluters to change their ways. However first we need to convince the public that action is imminently necessary and the way we do that is baby steps forward which society can take without need of full acceptance of an entirely new burden on the economy, an economy needing to be strong enough to pull us through this mess. And many of the most effective baby steps on a $/return basis look like active geoengineering projects or other alternatives that could be re-purposed to similar effect yet are not considered due to overblown concerns about humans playing god with nature, distractions about pinning blame and the usual playground spats. With each baby step taken comes tacit acceptance that the problem is real and happening now. With each dollar spent the chorus to find egregious polluters will grow louder.

    The OP I replied to was 100% right about "We blow thru the 2.0 C temperature increase in 2025. To not do so, we would have to lower our carbon output by 90%." That's exactly what the IPCC report says, that's exactly what the science is saying and even the IPCC has been forced into the position of accepting the need for active measures, let's all get on the same page and start moving forward.

  75. Re:What a priority by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Oy

    Sim city isn't real life my friend, solar actually works during the night there not so much in this world.

    What I do know is that the countries with the largest percentage of the generating base derived from renewables have the highest retail electric costs in the world. So to borrow your analogy, the data centers and heavy industry powered by electricity rather than coal aren't going to be built because they will be too costly to operate, and the country won't be able to fully exploit developing internal demand because the transport system is crap, and the financial is something that makes snidely whiplash envious.

  76. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Well we don't have the technology yet but wouldn't it be nice if we had something powered by renewable energy that directly produced graphene from the air in amounts sufficient to make a difference?

    For one thing, we could use it to replace the sand we are running out of for concrete (can't use desert sand- it's spherical).

    If we do get a technology that does it, then we will have the problem on the other end as carbon extractors deny co2 levels are getting too low. But that's probably over 100 years away.

    A lot of the nanny-ism flows from overpopulation. If we get the world below replacement levels, we might wean back down to a more sustainable population level which supports a higher standard of living per individual.

    But then we risk an over shoot there too. Rats in the Calhoun rat universe experiments did not resume breeding even with plentiful space, food, and water after they stopped breeding due to overcrowding. They were in a behavioral sink that persisted until they went extinct.

    On the other hand, it's also possible that if all but one population drops below replacement level then the lone population which continues to breed at high levels will eventually come to dominate the population.

    I think the CO2 situation will not be resolved well short of us finding a technological solution.

    The overall situation is extremely complex.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  77. Re:What a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No rogoshit, YOU are a mouth breathing racist. No one ever said unfettered illegal immigration, just you fuckers. If anything we'd like unfettered LEGAL immigration because your ass is too priviledged to be out picking our apples and green beans. Oh wait, nevermind, most farms are hardcore republitards. If they were legal, you'd have to pay them a decent wage and some benefits. Can you tell me why it's always conservative campanies who are busted for hiring illegals? I can't get my head around it since you hate hispanics so much and love law and jesus.

  78. Re:What a priority by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Sim city isn't real life my friend

    No it's not. But since you had no real life experience either I was hoping you at least had some relatable experience as to why your comment was silly.

    What I do know is that the countries with the largest percentage of the generating base derived from renewables have the highest retail electric costs in the world.

    That is what is called observer bias. The countries with the highest percentage of renewables are also countries which had a first mover disadvantage adopting at the time expensive technologies. The countries with the highest percentage of renewables are also countries which have ALWAYS had high electricity costs due to the local peculiarities and infrastructure.

    So to borrow your analogy, the data centers and heavy industry powered by electricity rather than coal aren't going to be built because they will be too costly to operate

    Great analogy given the number of new data centres and industry specifically turning to renewables to cut costs. I actually worked at a gas power plant for a while. One of the cost cutting projects I put in was to install solar panels on the roofs of the switchrooms to run the airconditioning units because it was cheaper than the wholesale cost of electricity from our own turbines.

    Come join us in 2018 when you're ready to discuss power infrastructure and pricing.

  79. Re:What a priority by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    No it's not. But since you had no real life experience either I was hoping you at least had some relatable experience as to why your comment was silly.

    I'm an electrical engineer and you are using a video game as your experience.

    That is what is called observer bias.

    No in your case this is what's called innumeracy. The inability to process numerical information.

    One of the cost cutting projects I put in was to install solar panels on the roofs of the switchrooms to run the airconditioning units because it was cheaper than the wholesale cost of electricity from our own turbines.

    Well bragging you're inefficient is hardly an argument.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Combined cycle natural gas runs $53/mwh vs solar at $73/mwh of course that doesn't cover the fact you have to use something besides solar at night.

  80. Re:175 GW would be roughly 23% of India's energy u by SciCom+Luke · · Score: 1

    Indeed. You can store it in many different ways and potential energy is usually a relatively cheap one. In the US there was even the plan of riding heavily loaded trains uphill during energy excess, and let them decsend again to produce power at night.

    But the power lakes can hold much more energy, and as such it is already being used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...