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.
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.
Up close, very soon, for a very long time.
The country has trains from hell, inadequate road capacity, and rampant corruption what do they focus on ? Solar Power
/ facepalm
Imagine if all the money that went down that drain was invested in renewables - they'd have 100GW already. Alas, big fantasy projects are always popular with the socialists.
Thanks for showing us what can be done.
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
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!
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
Ken Doll spends her days shilling denialist FUD on slashdot but needs to be taken very seriously despite having less than zero input on carbon info or policy, lol. Sad! What an New Orleans INCEL leader.
Now we can all see the genius of President Trump's tarrifs on cheap foreign solar and steel. India and China subsidize those industries like we do with Goldman Sacs and other not-really-too-big-to-fail banksters. Heil Hitlary!
He did basically admit being an INCEL that one time, that's true. I don't know why he pretends to be any kind of authority on carbon when we all can see his posting history of bullshit and lies being refuted. He's a special snowflake.
Nice, but how about getting some toilets?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Cue Mr. Elon Musk.
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?
It must be frustrating for Kendall to watch his denialist bullshit get flushed down the prison crapper as Musk does something real in the world. His shilling is never going to matter in the real world. It's sad.
From your own link it says "Total primary energy use of 775 Mtoe in 2013"
775 Mtoe = 9013250 Gw
100 * 100 / 9013250 = 0.001%
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%....
When the sun is up.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Sequester all the curry farts and use that instead!
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!
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.
175 gigowatts.
Great Scott!
What the hell is a gigowatt?
How could I have been so careless?
175 gigowatts!
aaaaaaa
Confusing GW and GWh
Using the wrong case for an unit.
Yeah.
aaaaaaa
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
> 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.
Do those water-bottles installed in slum-house roofs to let light in count as part of the total solar energy?
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
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%
It's about per capita carbon footprint, you gluttonous racist white nerd dumbass.
The western countries have 10 to 20 times higher per capita consumption than Asian countries.
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
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.
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
And when the sun is up, you pump water up into hydropower lakes, and at night you let it flow back.
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.
Stinky Hindus don't deserve life
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.
Are they also planning to buy 82 DeLorean cars?
#DeleteFacebook
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.
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"
Thats great if the dam exists and was designed that way :)
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
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
(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
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
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.
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.
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...
And have nukes.
What a beautiful culture.
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.
Don't shit on progress just because it's not 100% perfect.
With all this power, they will not need to bring their own flashlights now.
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
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
...pump your moms CUNT instead?
Q: How do I impoverish my country as successfully as India has?
A: Solar panels
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!
"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.
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.
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/...