Renewed thrust on alternative energy

Suparna Karmakar

India is in an unenviable position. While it would do well to engage with the rest of the world in carbon-reduction projects to reduce the high-energy intensity of its economy, simultaneously earning global good-citizen brownie points, it would be ill-advised to be pressured into committing to any multilateral agreement on containing carbon emissions.

This dilemma was brought to head during the recent visit to India of the US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton. In response to the US demand that India contribute to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) target for developing countries by cutting emissions by 15-20 per cent below the business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2020, the Minister of State for Environment, Mr Jairam Ramesh, went on record stating that while it would be unfair to India’s poor if the Government agrees to such mandated emission cuts, India remains committed to moving toward a low-carbon economy over time.

Mr Ramesh’s argument highlighted the proactive stance India has taken in countering the challenges of climate change and sustainable development in the face of moral pressure to alleviate the living conditions of more than half its citizens. Endorsing this stance is the emphasis on renewable energy to change its energy demand mix in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan.

Amidst domestic and international criticism, the earlier UPA Government signed the US-India Civil Nuclear Deal. With the help of this agreement and the (investment and technology) partnerships it will help forge, the country hopes to increase the share of nuclear energy in its renewable energy basket (the latter comprising about eight per cent of India’s total electricity generation) from the present 4.2 per cent to nine per cent over the next couple of decades.
Integrated energy policy

Responsible unilateralism appears the most viable policy option at this time. Policy initiatives to provide for global public goods have brought the greatest gains only when undertaken as unilateral initiatives by sovereign nations, rather than as part of negotiated policy tradeoffs.

In the case of emission reduction agreements, this implies adopting a stance whereby, members agree to adopt and implement mitigation policies but are allowed the flexibility to choose policies that meet their specific development concerns. And clearly, agreeing to pre-ordained emission caps is not the best policy option for India, irrespective of its commitment to “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions”. The World Bank says that an integrated energy policy is the best and lowest-cost BAU level for India.

Noted global analysts agree that beyond the size-based argument (viz. India is among the world’s four largest emitters in absolute terms), there is little else on which the US demand can be pegged, especially against India; India’s per capita emissions are at a lowly 137th out of the 192 countries that are members of UNFCCC.

Even if India were to agree to cap its emissions at current levels, let alone cut them further, its growth process will be seriously affected. A National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER) model projecting BAU scenarios says that a carbon tax in India will sharply increase poverty in a 2030 scenario.

On the other hand, an approach of global convergence to a certain level of energy intensity or per capita emissions has the potential to deliver similar outcomes, and this needs to be considered.

Furthermore, as scientists have argued, to do a long-term BAU is meaningless. Technologies evolve, energy efficiencies change, and so do the choices countries make. The solution to the problem, therefore, lies in increasing domestic R&D efforts, as well as boosting R&D co-operation with select technology partners. For example, as a part of the Climate Plan released last year, India is preparing to roll out by September an ambitious National Solar Mission aimed at generating (from near zero today) 20 GW by 2020. The plan proposes both grid and off-grid solar energy generation and distribution.
‘Green’ option

Solar power is the greenest of the renewable energy sources. Research has shown that supplying Germany with biomass/corn-based bio-fuel would require that over half to three-fourth of the landmass is shifted to poplar/maize plantations. By comparison, replacing cars with electric engines would require only 0.2 per cent of the land required for bio-fuels because of their 50-100 times higher efficiency in energy conversion. However, the challenge lies in the currently available technologies, which are cost-ineffective at about eight times the thermal energy costs.

But partnering with other countries may help in refining such technologies. Two small but innovative companies in Israel are reportedly working on modifying photovoltaic technology to make the process commercially viable, by using less silicon in solar cells and a combination of dyes containing ruthenium metal. Also, since solar cells are somewhat similar to computer chips, the technology spin-offs of “green” energy should be huge.
Other innovations

In the interim, other innovations may be put to use in powering off-grid energy users. Chinese designer Chiyi Chen has reportedly developed a regenerative braking system that would not power the hybrid bike but instead store the energy in an ultra-capacitor that then feeds the energy back into the grid when it’s parked at a special bike stand, which could, in turn, be used to charge hybrid electric buses.

In a similar vein, could we imagine fitting the exercise bikes in India’s rapidly proliferating gymnasiums with similar ultra-capacitors which can help to power the gyms? We are only limited by our imagination.