Thank you Rachel,
we can’t be sitting on high horse and telling india about the fossil fuel while we are usinig 66 % fossil fuels. It’s about time that we stop preaching and do what we are preaching to the whole world.
Hi, appreciate you for putting the things in the correct perspective. India at the moment is fully ready to join the clean energy bandwagon. The only hindrance is the affordability and the resources to implement the clean technology on a large scale. Once these things are available and this will help in cutting down the time when India becomes a clean energy superpower.
Evironmental clean technologies http://www.ectltd.com.au/ a company from Australia has the technology to clean up indias coal and cut emissions. They are currently working with the Indian government to achieve this goal.
I am interested in understanding if their is an integrated grid. Are there enough transmission lines to deliver the electricity to the populated locations? Would not a complete picture of what steps need to be done assist investors to make clean energy available?
I generally support the idea of carbon (and pollution) taxes, because then the price of energy would reflect what it “really costs”. Who can argue with that? I suppose one potential weakness in this argument (which is pointed out to some extent by this article) is that the “cost” of pollution and CO2 may not be the same for all people. If you are dirt poor, the “cost”, may be similar, as a fraction of your income, but a whole lot smaller in absolute dollars. And access to energy (at all) is clearly much more important.
One thing that irks me is the unwillingness to even consider one potential option. Cheap (vs. expensive) nuclear power. Much of nuclear’s cost is due to excessive requirements, aimed at staving off even a tiny chance of a release of pollution. Indeed, nuclear used to cost ~1/3 of what it does today (in real dollars). The fact is that you could have nuclear power at the same low cost as Indian coal generation, and still have a public health risk and environmental impact that is several orders of magnitude lower than said coal.
But, alas, there is a complete double standard. Whereas people in developing countries are OK with massive coal pollution, they are absolutely intolerant of any chance of nuclear pollution (just like people in rich countries). The person the author interviewed, who is willing to put up with living next to an ultra-dirty coal plant in order to have electricity, is likely to not accept a local nuclear plant. Not one with “relaxed safety standards” anyway. He would be paralyzed with fear, even though the actual risks to his health would be orders of magnitude lower.
Attitudes towards nuclear energy (and radiation, etc..), all over the world, amount to an enormous tragedy. One that is responsible for millions of deaths, as well as much of the global warming problem we now face.
COMMENTS
BY Alex Dholakia
ON August 12, 2016 05:57 PM
Thank you Rachel,
we can’t be sitting on high horse and telling india about the fossil fuel while we are usinig 66 % fossil fuels. It’s about time that we stop preaching and do what we are preaching to the whole world.
BY Alex Dholakia
ON August 12, 2016 06:01 PM
as above
BY Indian
ON August 12, 2016 11:09 PM
Hi, appreciate you for putting the things in the correct perspective. India at the moment is fully ready to join the clean energy bandwagon. The only hindrance is the affordability and the resources to implement the clean technology on a large scale. Once these things are available and this will help in cutting down the time when India becomes a clean energy superpower.
BY Foz
ON August 13, 2016 07:50 AM
Evironmental clean technologies http://www.ectltd.com.au/ a company from Australia has the technology to clean up indias coal and cut emissions. They are currently working with the Indian government to achieve this goal.
BY Sachin Eknath More
ON August 13, 2016 06:53 PM
Developing countries need ample energy.But we need cleaner technologies at the earliest.I appreciate your truth.
BY Rick Maltese
ON August 22, 2016 08:46 AM
I am interested in understanding if their is an integrated grid. Are there enough transmission lines to deliver the electricity to the populated locations? Would not a complete picture of what steps need to be done assist investors to make clean energy available?
BY James Hopf
ON August 22, 2016 11:36 AM
I generally support the idea of carbon (and pollution) taxes, because then the price of energy would reflect what it “really costs”. Who can argue with that? I suppose one potential weakness in this argument (which is pointed out to some extent by this article) is that the “cost” of pollution and CO2 may not be the same for all people. If you are dirt poor, the “cost”, may be similar, as a fraction of your income, but a whole lot smaller in absolute dollars. And access to energy (at all) is clearly much more important.
One thing that irks me is the unwillingness to even consider one potential option. Cheap (vs. expensive) nuclear power. Much of nuclear’s cost is due to excessive requirements, aimed at staving off even a tiny chance of a release of pollution. Indeed, nuclear used to cost ~1/3 of what it does today (in real dollars). The fact is that you could have nuclear power at the same low cost as Indian coal generation, and still have a public health risk and environmental impact that is several orders of magnitude lower than said coal.
But, alas, there is a complete double standard. Whereas people in developing countries are OK with massive coal pollution, they are absolutely intolerant of any chance of nuclear pollution (just like people in rich countries). The person the author interviewed, who is willing to put up with living next to an ultra-dirty coal plant in order to have electricity, is likely to not accept a local nuclear plant. Not one with “relaxed safety standards” anyway. He would be paralyzed with fear, even though the actual risks to his health would be orders of magnitude lower.
Attitudes towards nuclear energy (and radiation, etc..), all over the world, amount to an enormous tragedy. One that is responsible for millions of deaths, as well as much of the global warming problem we now face.