Leaked Indian Gov't document sets mind-blowing solar energy targets

According to India's National Newspaper, The Hindu, the Indian government has finalized a draft for their "National Solar Mission" that will aim to see an installed solar generation capacity of 20,000 Megawatts (MW) by 2020, of 1,00,000 MW by 2030 and of 2,00,000 MW by 2050."

Anna da Costa at the Worldwatch Institute writes that the leaked draft document has "the potential to revolutionize India's energy sector and the draft plan will include measures for rapidly expanding the use of small-scale photovoltaic panels, solar lighting systems, and commercial-scale solar plants, in order to drive down costs and encourage domestic solar manufacturing"

India currently has a installed solar capacity of only 3 (MW), so a stated increase of such a significant amount as that being proposed by the Indian government is profound to say the least. Public funding for this massive increase increase will be substantial with the Solar Mission document stating that the Indian Government will invest somewhere around Rs. 85,000 crore to Rs. 105,000 crore.crore over the next 30 years.

India’s solar resources are among the most abundant in the world, with more than 1 million square miles (3 million square kilometers) of land spread beneath an average 250–300 clear sunny days a year.

http://energyboom.com/leaked-solar-power-plan-india-touted-revolutionary

(or is that supposed to be 100 gigawatts?)

Sounds like a good solar plan to me.

2,000,000,000 kw / 1,000,000,000 people

Anyone know what Rs. 85,000 crore to Rs. 105,000 crore is in USD? For the life of me I couldn't figure it out. I got something like $18 billion...

The commas are in odd places. You'll definitely want to check my calculator work on this. I didn't use their calculator because my dial up line is kicking off a lot today.

"To convert a Rupee amount (given in Crores), into its corresponding Dollar amount in Millions, divide the rupee Amount by "Spot Rate", the Current Dollar Rupee rate multiplied by 10.

Thus, Rs 4 Cr = Rs 4,00,00,000/- = 4,00,00,000 / 40 = USD 1 million (assuming the Dollar Rupee Spot rate to be Rs. 40/$
Similarly, Rs 16 Cr = USD 4 million"

Todays rate $1 = Rs47.55

Rs85,000 crore = $40,417,500,000,000

http://www.kshitij.com/utilities/LnCtoMnB.shtml

Edited to fix header #

Good article here, found it by following the links in the OP:

That what I got in my original calculation, I just thought the amount was so huge that I must have been off!

Did you check it with the currency calculator at the link?

as we use the term in the US, capacity means reliable 24/7. I'd like to hear the deatils of the backup plan (night time, cloudy days). I suppose they could use storage batteries, but part of the "capacity" would have to be dedicated to battery charging and would reduce the net amount. In any case, it's a very ambitious goal. I'd also like to know the details their projected $/kw installed. Does anyone have anything on that?

"Installed capacity" is the way generating sources are rated. It is a measure of, as you said, theoretical production if the generating unit were producing at maximum 8760 hours per year. The "capacity factor" is a percentage of that number. Since the capacity factor varies widely across the different technologies and platforms, it is normal to just refer to installed capacity. For example, a home in an area of average sunlight in the US is usually pretty comfortably equipped if it has a 5kw (installed capacity) solar system. Unless you have a full site survey and the technical data on the specific solar technology it seems to be a consensus that it's the best way to conduct casual conversation on the topic. Always open for improvements though.

I was looking at it from the grid operators standpoint. To qualify as capacity on the grid, it would need to be reliable and dispatchable. Solar power is neither. If you had a 1,000 MW of solar panels installed, you would need a 1,000 MW of some backup supply (e.g. combustion turbines)in order to insure system reliability. The solar energy still has great value and would substantially reduce the need to run the turbines.

at least, not as we restructure the grid from the ground up - which we are currently doing. The usage you've applied is derived from a grid oriented around the highly inefficient concept of thermal generation. Shifting to a renewable "smart" grid infrastructure requires a basic realignment of way power is managed. Since this is almost certainly about India looking forward and building a distributed energy infrastructure I'd argue that your view is obsolete.

But the way I described is the way the grid is currently managed in this country, at least in PJM or ISO-NE with which I am familiar. Renewables, like wind and solar, are paid for energy and they get Renewable Energy Credits (REC's). They do not get paid for capacity. We may get to the smart-grid you are talking about but we still have a long way to go. You are correct about India heading in that direction, they will need a distributed smart grid to manage that much solar. They will also need a way to either store solar energy or provide reliable backup power to deal with the times when the sun is not shining brightly.

The story is about India committing to an amount of solar that is a complete distributed energy generation infrastructure. Yes they will need to store energy; but energy storage technologies are up to the job. Look at another story at the top of the forum about Mitsubishi being set to sell a car with 20kwh of battery storage for less than $17K. That's the entire car for $17K; and we are just starting to ramp up hicap battery manufacturing technology. Combine this capacity for distributed storage with distributed generation and Vehicle 2 Grid (V2G) technology in cars and what you have is a vastly reduced need centralized generation.

As for the idea that we "may" get a smart grid; you may want to look at the way money is being spent in the stimulus, energy and budget bills. The number 1 priority is upgrading transmission capability to address the potential of large scale renewable development.

All of the technologies are here and ready to deploy, the economics of energy make the transition a financially winning proposition for enough people that the financial losers (current thermal system owners) are no longer calling the shots and the climate crisis isn't waiting for us to dither about.

and centralized generation isn't going away any time soon. You made the statement that it's obsolete, which is untrue. On a hot summer day, PJM (which only covers the mid-Atlantic region west to about Illinois) needs about 100,000 MW to satisfy the peak load. We're not going to add that much renewable generation in a few years; it's going to take decades and it is not going to be easy.

I'm not against renewables; I think they have a bright future and for me, they can't happen soon enough. At the same time, I've worked most of my career (26 years) in the electric power business and I know from experience what it takes to develop projects. You mentioned transmission projects and you are correct; they are our most pressing need. They also the most difficult type project to develop, by far. People in the country would be infuriated if they knew how antiquated our transmission system really is. The problem isn't that there's no money or thermal generation owners are opposing them; it's that no one wants them anywhere near their property and you can't get the Rights of Way to build them. How do you solve that problem? You'll have similar issues with any large scale renewable project. Sorry for being cynical, but I've been there. I'll stop using the word "may" when I start seeing shovels in the ground.

By the way, I don't see the link to the battery story.

Pretty sure I haven't made any statements related to a timeline. Again referring to the OP, you get a sense of the expectations that are involved in planning the transition. Like the OP I'm thinking in terms of 20-30 years, or, if the climate change predictions and evidence continue to shape up as they have over the past five years there is a feasible scenario where a complete transition from fossil fuels can be accomplished in as little as 10 years.
It is my experience in this area that some of the least informed people about what is possible are the people manning the current industries. Let's take 2 examples, the transmission problem and the transportation sector.
You cite nimbyism as the primary obstacle to development of infrastructure for transmission. I agree. However you don't seem to be aware of existing and proposed legislation that transfers control over such project development from the local to the federal level. The legislation is modeled on that used to develop the interstate highway system and it is doubtful that it can be challenged successfully in court. In spite of this legislation proposed development of some transmission infrastructure is being delayed by grid operators. Take PJM and the hicap lines to connect Virgina to NJ across the Chesapeake Bay. The justification for the lines is to relieve congestion in the transmission along the coastal area, but it will also play a role in the concurrent development of one of the nation's largest wind resources off (in the ocean off the MidAtlantic coast). Perhaps you could give me a hand and share PJM's latest stance on the need for this line that has fast track approval.

Then we have the obvious case of the American auto industry. Their pursuit of short term profits and support for existing supply industries has motivated them to shun investment in battery technologies in spite of repeated warnings of the needs that are inevitably driving the transition from fossil fuels to electric vehicles. The GM Volt ($40K) is their hurried answer to what is now a crisis situation. This *crisis* and their response wasn't because the writing wasn't on the wall about what kind of investment was needed to take us into the future, it was because 1) people who have been developing projects for 30 years were so vested emotionally and intellectually in the current system that they were unable to step outside that system and deliver an objective assessment and 2) the financial rewards within the corporate environment weren't structured to motivate management to look outside their own 'expert' advisory groups.

In no way do I mean to denigrate your knowledge or expertise. I'm sure that it is extremely relevant and that you possess a vast wealth of knowledge that I would love to tap into. However, I'd urge you to also be aware of the limits imposed on your perspective by that same knowledge and experience. A concept I heard of a couple of years ago seems related. It was from an article called "The Genius Trap" that discussed why very intelligent people often do extremely stupid things. The idea is that a genius becomes accustomed to being correct much more often than not and is used to seeing their ideas be initially rejected by others only to find vindication later. This leads to a dedication to failed ideas beyond a time that most people who are more accustomed to making mistakes would have reevaluated. Take that for what it's worth.

Finally, to add validity to the claims about our ability to transition I'd point you to two things: our manufacturing efforts in WW2 and the experiences within your lifetime of the appliance and personal electronics industries. Wind turbine manufacturing parallels the building of major weapons systems during WW2 and the electronics industry demonstrates the way the relationship between investment in manufacturing infrastructure development, price, and market penetration are set to play out in the solar and advanced battery industries.

That said, I look forward to being able to pick your brain. What is your specialty?


Here is the link to the thread on the Mitsubishi EV.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x197434

You might also enjoy:
http://www.solyndra.com/Products/Optimized-PV

Welcome to DU/EE.

and I'm a bit short on time right now. My interpretation of your comment about central station generation being obsolete was that large scale distributed generation will be here in the short term. I agree with your 20 - 30 years assessment, but that's a long time and it's hard to say how things will actually develop that far into the future. There could be technological breakthroughs in the interim that change everything.

I'm not rejecting the idea of change in the industry at all - I've seen too much of it my career already. I started in independent power in 1983 and at the time, virtually all electric companies were vertically integrated and fought IPP's and QF's vigorously. Today a lot of electric companies don't even own generation and the line between utility owned generation and independent power is gone. It's only in the last 12 - 15 years that competitive markets, such as PJM, have developed, but today, most of the power generated in the country is sold that way (at the wholesale level). I'm certain that renewables and distributed photovoltaics will be a big part of the future, but we are just starting and there is along way to go. Most of my career was spent in project development. I've helped develop two cogeneration projects, 65 MW in New Jersey and 80 MW in New York. a 750 MW combined cycle (in Colombia) and a 660 MW combustion turbine peaking plant in Maryland. I've been involved in numerous development projects that didn't make it for one reason or another. My expertise is in the area of combustion turbines. Development is exciting work and I'd enjoy being involved in buiding the system of tomorrow. I'm 59 and I've been in Operations for the last 5 years (not nearly as interesting), so my involvement will likely be minimal before I retire.

Thanks for the welcome and the links. I have a question for you about electric cars: Where do you think the juice will come from to recharge them? I can see solar and wind power carrying a substantial part of the daytime load, but if electric cars become common, what is currently considered off-peak load (i.e. night time) may well become the peak. People who own electric cars will drive them during the day and charge them at night when solar and wind resources will be at minimums. Thermal generation may well be needed to meet that load. We might see a situation where the highest system loads occur at night.

I think the transmission project you are talking about is called the Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway. It had been scheduled for an in-service date of 2013, but that was recently pushed back by a year because system loads have dropped significantly due to the economy. Here's a link:

http://tdworld.com/overhead_transmission/pjm-mapp-schedulel-0509/ (sorry, I haven't figured out how to make the link hot)

Enjoy the rest of the weekend

Right, and that is at the request of PJM and motivated by profit, not because nimbyism; which was my point.

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the unbundling of the vertically integrated services. My perspective is that that isn't as important to the issue we are discussing as you are rating it. The purpose of the policy changes wasn't to enable a transition to a new infrastructure, but to make the current infrastructure perform in a more economically efficient manner (a goal the jury is still out on IMO). There is a huge discussion to be had on that topic alone.
I can summarize my perspective on the transition best by pointing again to the auto industry. It isn't vertically integrated but it does have a symbiotic (some people would say incestuous) relationship within the various elements of the industry (fuel, parts, assembly etc). I'd say that is close to the condition of the power industry. IMO, the restructuring that the auto industry is now going through is a glimpse of the type of winner/loser scenario that will occur in the power sector as renewables take over. There will be some who jump on the train but there are a lot who will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new energy landscape.

It is one thing for a company to recognize that within a certain framework, there is change that has occurred; and as a result of that recognition to jump into the resultant market to capitalize as much as possible on the opportunities. IT is altogether a different corporate decision to select between trying to encourage or block the policy changes that will affect their assets.

I just witness first hand the conflict I'm talking about in the bidding between Bluewater Wind and Delmarva Power for the awarding of a power contract in Delaware. The conflict went far beyond the normal competition between suppliers such as gas or coal because either of those options would have ultimately benefited essentially the same group of stakeholders. The wind proposal, on the other hand, had a substantially larger group of winners, but they were a different group than the coal/gas bidders. The political opposition that the entrenched industry was able to marshal was only barely defeated by a 95% public support rating for the offshore wind project.

I think you have a misunderstanding about what PJM really is and how it operates. It's not an organization that is controlled by generation owners who control the electricity market to maximize their own profit. PJM is a Regional Transmission Organization that is regulated by the FERC. It is managed by a Board of Governors that is elected by the stakeholders which include power generators, transmission owners, electricity distributors, power marketers and large consumers. All of those stakeholders have different priorities and there can be different priorities even within one group of stakeholders. No one group controls PJM and it is managed to insure neutrality. There is an independent market monitor that reports directly to FERC to insure PJM's markets are fair and competitive. Here is a link to get you started:

http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/who-we-are/company-overview.aspx

As far as MAPP goes, not all generators benefited from postponing it a year. In the most recent RPM auction, capacity prices for the 2012/2013 Delivery Year cleared at prices from $139 to $222 per MW-day in eastern PJM, but only $16 per MW-day in western PJM. The reason for the disparity is transmission constraints; (The decision to postpone MAPP was made before the auction started). Don't you think generators in western PJM would like to be able to move their power east? Postponing MAPP sure didn't maximize their profit. Another consideration is the cost of the line. It's a backbone line, so the cost gets spread across the entire PJM system and ultimately rate payers in all of PJM will pay for it. Building it too early exposes ratepayers to higher costs before they are really justified.

As for unbundling, it was only an illustration of how much change has already taken place and BTW, it was very good to me - it made my career possible. I expect change will continue and yes, corporations will certainly act in their own interest. They are supposed to do that - they have shareholders who expect to make money. I don't expect anyone will be dragged kicking and screaming because the change will occur over decades and adaptation will insure survival.

Blue Water is interesting, but it is neither unusual or new in how the process worked. Public Service Commissions have been directing electric utilities to formulate Integrated Resource Plans for at least 20 years and those plans have required the utility to identify a least cost option through an RFP. The process frequently included a self-build option and the utility had to justify its decision to the PSC. In this case, the PSC told DPL it wanted the wind project, but Conectiv, DPL's affiliate and NRG (an independent power company) had also submitted bids and did everything they could to win the RFP. Why wouldn't they? They probably spent a million or two dollars putting their bids together. Would you go down without a fight after spending that kind of money? It wouldn't have mattered whether wind was proposed or not; RFP's like that are always hotly contested - it's the way this business operates.

BTW, Blue Water seems to be in trouble, Babcock & Brown, it's sponsor is close to bankruptcy and they have a lot of permitting work (costs $) to do. Do you know if they've ordered turbines? Last time I checked, production was sold out for the next few years, but that was probably a year ago.

You seem to have pretty strong opinions about the business. I'd be interested to know a little about your background.

PJM isn't a stranger to me, and neither is FERC. As I wrote, I consider the unbundled industry to have the same type of interdependent relationship that the auto industry has. Not associated with "the thermal generation agrees on everything and I'm guilty of painting a monolithic picture of something that is more of a loose federation of common interests. However, the point of this discussion is whether or not the current structure is obstructing the change to a renewable infrastructure or not.
Would you send me an email address where I can contact you? You can't receive private messages yet. I'll explain more then.

AS for the turbine backlog, I think it has declined some, but it still exists. I doubt seriously if the Bluewater Project is threatened since the amount of permitting that is already accomplished is a very valuable commodity. If B&B goes belly up, it will get sold to another entity and eventually get built.

The most significant obstacle has been the development of a permitting process for federally controlled waters. This was a totally new use of the oceans and it required a great deal of study and input; all going on within the context of territorial infighting among the bureaucracies trying to make their case for why they should be the lead agency. Add in the political opposition that flowed out of the Cape Wind dispute and you have a picture of a nightmare for project developers that is finally coming to an end.

The nightmare you described is typical for development projects - you just have to hang in there. Good luck with it.

I'm academic, not industry.

The offshore issue has been much different than most project development issues. In most of the cases you've dealt with, the guidelines are established and the task you face is adhering to the rules and convincing the entities involved that it is either in their interest to approve the project or it is your legal right to proceed with the project. The offshore industry has had to double down on suasion and at the same time deal with the total lack a firm legal/regulatory framework that they can use as a basis for claims to a right to develop.

You can reach me at kristopheratdu/at/yahoo.com.

Convincing lenders to finance a project is usually the hardest part

I just sent you an email

However it hasn't really impacted offshore development *yet* as far as I know. Gordon of Cape Wind was able to demonstrate the profitability of the project early on and has had investment capital lined up since about 2004/5 - and that was without a power purchase agreement. I haven't looked at that project in a while but I don't think the economic downturn has soured his financing.

Elsewhere offshore nothing has moved to the point where capital has been the bottleneck, although we may see that start to change later this year. MMS is holding a series of stakeholder workshops to brief interested stakeholders "about the newly published regulatory framework for renewable energy activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Attendees will learn about the regulatory framework and the MMS leasing process. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff will participate at some of the locations to discuss FERC's role in the issuance of licenses for wave or ocean current projects on the OCS. Time will be provided for discussion and questions and answers. Leases issued under the new regulatory framework will authorize activities related to renewable energy development, such as commercial development of offshore wind, wave, or ocean current or non-commercial activities related to assessing renewable energy potential in an area."
This one might be in your area.

June 11: Monmouth, NJ
Wilson Auditorium
Monmouth University
400 Cedar Avenue
West Long Branch, NJ 07764
Time: 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Office of Offshore Alternative Energy Programs
Minerals Management Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

No email yet.

According to the draft report it would be 1 terawatt by 2030. That's an astonishing number! And they look like they're going to put their money where there mouth is too.

see post #7.

to dream big.

We were not only willing to "shoot for the moon" but we succeeded in the effort.

The question isn't the courage to dream, it is the large number of people who believe they will be financial losers if we transition. India doesn't have the vast commitment to an existing energy infrastructure that we do. It is often a lot easier to build from scratch.

The good news is that we (IMO) have reached a tipping point where the building a new system will create an aggregation of financial winners that outweighs the aggregation financial losers.

They aren't going down without a fight, but they are going down.

The groups you think are going to be losers will likely be major investors.

You would think that but it isn't the way risk assessment works. Basically a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The ownwers of threatened resources are sitting on a guaranteed product and market. The type of changes that are associated with dealing with climate change require that their current investments be largely written off (ex: coal, coal plants etc). While their expertise is somewhat relevant to the development of a renewable, distributed generation infrastructure, the expertise of other groups with mass production experience is is probably more relevant. Therefore they incur a much larger risk by pursuing a course of transition than by maintaining the status quo. Read Wendy Williams book on the opposition to Cape Wind. While there are nimby issues involved, (coincidentally I'm sure) a large amount of the funding and the major players in the opposition are related to the fossil fuels and minerals mining industries.

I looked at six large owners of thermal generation and only one, Mirant, is not actively involved with renewables. All of the following companies are actively involved with renewables in one way or another. AES Corporation is actively developing wind energy. FPL Corporation is active in both wind and solar, Exelon Corp is the largest marketer of wind power in the eastern US. PSEG is developing a 350 MW wind project off the coast of New Jersey. Calpine operates 725 MW of geothermal power. These are not small companies and they all have huge investments in fossil fueled generation. You can Google any of these and learn more about them. I just took a quick look; if you take the time to do more research, i'm sure you'll find more.

As for funding opposition or actively opposing development of renewables, I am not seeing that. I manage 950 MW of combustion turbine based power located at three power stations. I know a lot of people in the business and I deal with management at a pretty high level. If it were happening as you say, I'd likely be involved or at least be hearing about it. It did happen in the 80's right after PURPA was passed, but that was a long time ago and things are a lot different now.

a government endeavor. The US still has its blinders on when it comes to SERIOUS energy self-sufficiency and conservation.

Aren't we part of "the US"? Aren't the Obama administration, Steven Chu, Steve Schmidt, George Soros, T. Boone Pickens, Al Gore, you and I a significant part of "the US"?

results, I may concede a little. But up until the last several weeks this country had ZERO meaningful energy policy.

And Al Gore, though his efforts are stellar, isn't part of the government. Neither is Soros. Our GOVERNMENT policies have completely sucked, and right now, change is still just talk.

If you were calling the shots, what would you do and how long do you think it would take? How would you finance it? (govt. grants, tax credits, private equity, etc.)

My roof gets no shade and ballpark, it's about 1,100 square feet. I've never taken a serious look at it, but this thread has piqued my interest.