M.R. Srinivasan
There are many initiatives the country can take to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing its priority of economic development.
More than a decade ago, the United States walked out of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions. Ever since, the official U.S. representatives maintained at various fora that the science of climate change was unclear and that CO2 build-up in the atmosphere could not be linked to human activities. The Americans argued that in any case the U.S. economy, the richest in the world, could not bear the cost of CO2 reduction arrived at in the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. also maintained that unless China and India committed to a CO2 reduction programme, there would be no significant reduction in overall emissions.
For the sake of perspective, we may note that world CO2 emissions in 2004 totalled 27 billion tonnes. Of this, the U.S. accounted for 5.9 billion tonnes, China 4.7, Russia 1.7, Japan 1.3, and India 1.1 billion tonnes. All other countries were below the one billion level. If we calculate per capita annual emissions, they work out roughly to 23.6 tonnes for U.S., 13 for Japan, 10 for Russia, 4.7 for China, and one for India. At the series of meetings of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held earlier this year, a consensus emerged that manmade additions to the global atmospheric CO2 were indeed responsible for warming and that all countries should adopt measures to reduce carbon emissions. Some scientists have warned that there is indeed only a short period of time, of just a decade, to take drastic action to prevent serious and irreversible consequences. The evidence of warming is based on the occurrence of a number of very hot years in succession, increased intensity of cyclonic storms and hurricanes, abnormal rainfall patterns, glaciers feeding the great rivers of the world receding, extensive melting of Arctic ice, appearance of flora and fauna of the warmer areas in the Arctic, and so on.
At the recently concluded G8 summit in Germany, U.S. President George W. Bush departed from his earlier stand and conceded that global warming was occurring. He got the G8 to agree to a vague emission reduction programme by 2050. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reiterated the importance of accelerated economic growth to eliminate poverty and deprivation and said India could not take on binding commitments when its per capita emissions were low. The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission has stated that the first and over riding concern was economic and social development and poverty eradication. So the developing countries including India, China, and Brazil are opposed to mandatory capping of emissions as that would hinder their development. While this debate will continue at various international fora, there are many initiatives India could take as a responsible member of the international community to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing its priority of economic development.
Coal accounts for nearly half of India’s total energy use, a large part of it for electricity production. Most of the present day generators use 200 MW to 500 MW sub-critical boilers with a thermal efficiency of 35 per cent or less. Older units of 60 MW and 110/120 MW have lower efficiency. All new coal generators should use super-critical boilers in the size range of about 800 MW, which can achieve an efficiency of about 40 per cent. While most of the coal now used is domestic, imports will be needed in the decades ahead for power stations located in the south and west of India, for which port infrastructure should be built. A further gain in efficiency is possible when the integrated coal gasification technology is available. While some collaborative work with the U.S. and other countries is planned, a prototype development in India jointly between NTPC and BHEL is warranted. Removal of carbon dioxide (carbon sequestration as it is called) from the flue gases of coal power stations is being studied in the U.S. and elsewhere. But as of now, the associated economic penalties are unclear. However, India should collaborate with other countries in these studies.
India must give maximum emphasis to developing the still fairly large untapped hydel potential in the North West, North, and North East. But this requires an enlightened policy of rehabilitation of project-affected people. There are also cultural factors such as submerging lands regarded as holy because ancestors of present inhabitants are buried there or for other reasons of tribal customs. People living in areas where large hydel potential exists need to be provided incentives as they may perceive that their energy wealth is going to enrich people living in other parts of the country. A similar approach is required to access the large hydel potential available in Bhutan and Nepal, beyond the needs of the populations of these countries.
A very important non-carbon energy source is nuclear power. India’s quest to rapidly develop this source has been hampered by a very limited resource base of uranium, that too of low grade, and technological isolation imposed by U.S. non-proliferation policies. The on-going negotiations between India and the U.S. may result in an opening of the door for import of nuclear fuel and civilian nuclear technology. This will then provide for an immediate acceleration of the nuclear energy programme. However India is pinning its hopes on the eventual use of thorium as a source of energy, as it has abundant reserves of this substance. We shall have to build a series of fast breeder reactors before significant amounts of thorium could be used to generate electricity, a process that may take some three decades. In parallel, India is participating in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which is expected to pave the way for controlled fusion energy, which may become viable in some five decades. Thereafter the heavy hydrogen, available in very small quantities in water, would be a source of energy.
Another energy option of great interest is solar energy. While it is possible to harvest solar energy using photovoltaic cells, the economics at present are unfavourable. Considering its abundance in India, the country must embark on a mission mode programme, comparable to atomic energy and space, to develop economically viable solar power systems. The Department of New Energy Sources needs to be headed by a competent scientist or technologist and sponsor new R&D in solar energy, fuel cells, bio-fuel, hydrogen production and storage, and so on. Wind energy has made good progress through the dynamism of the private sector and also needs to be underpinned with advanced R&D. Solar water heaters and solar cookers need to be promoted through better designs and incentives.
Oil and gas are the fastest growing segments of our energy basket and we should maximise their availability to run our economy. If the railway system were fully electrified and the Railways offer satisfactory services for goods movement, a big reduction in oil use would take place. Similarly all large cities must have metro railways and small cities should use electric trolley buses. An assumption that is being made is that our electric supply system will become reliable with good quality power and without interruptions. Magnetic levitation would greatly increase the efficiency in electric traction. In due course of time, motor vehicles and buses using hydrogen fuel cells would be a way of transport with no carbon emissions. But hydrogen will have to be produced using solar energy or nuclear energy.
Energy efficiency will have to be achieved in industry, transport, domestic appliances and agriculture. Agricultural pumping is notoriously inefficient due to electricity being supplied free. Similarly, power losses in transmission and distribution can be reduced drastically though investment in T&D systems and better transformers.
There is the more general question of lifestyle options, which determine the energy intensity of a society. India must adopt, as a matter of deliberate choice, decentralised and regional development, which would minimise long distance transport of food articles, consumer goods, minerals, and industrial items. Dwellings must be located close to the work place, minimising daily commuting. Residences must be designed to be energy efficient, needing minimum or no energy for cooling or heating. Both inter-city and intra-city transport should to a large extent be in well-designed mass transport systems. More importantly, manufactured articles should have long life, not requiring frequent replacement due to planned obsolescence. The challenge before India is whether it can evolve a lifestyle paradigm different from that in the rich countries of Europe and America. India with its civilisational heritage can hopefully rise to this challenge and lead the way to save the Earth.
(The writer is a former Chairman and presently member of the Atomic Energy Commission.)
