Why Indian government not encouraging the Wind and Solar Energy for power producing??

Why Indian Government not encouraging the Wind and Solar Energy, for power producing???

Concerning wind energy. I think there are not too many places in India suitable to harvest this energy.

For both wind & solar energy,, the initial cost setup is huge.
And also, the output is not that great compared to the cost; considering the huge & ever-growing energy demand in our country.

Just my 2 cents

Originally Posted by powerdoc

Concerning wind energy. I think there are not too many places in India suitable to harvest this energy.

For both wind & solar energy,, the initial cost setup is huge.
And also, the output is not that great compared to the cost; considering the huge & ever-growing energy demand in our country.

Just my 2 cents

I second that !

infact, hydroelectricity can be promoted at this stage

Originally Posted by jagadish321

Why Indian Government not encouraging the Wind and Solar Energy, for power producing???

Hi jagadish321, This is not a way to start a thread.Give a small introduction about your topic, then followed by your views on that.For more information how to start a thread, look @ Tips on writing a good article

I think hydel power is the 2nd largest contributor to our total energy needs right now.
What needs to be really promoted is Nuclear energy.
Indo-US deal will surely help...

Originally Posted by siddharth

infact, hydroelectricity can be promoted at this stage

Hydro electricity is not feasible everywhere. Such a power station can be built only where there are huge dams and steep valleys that will make the water flow down at huge velocity.

there r many places in north india where dams can be contructed.......

don't know mch abt South india

Dams are ecologically destructive. They not only disturb the ecosytem but displace flora/fauna as well. Plus they are extremely expensive.

We are already facing tremendous protests over the Narmada dam.

Guys, all the government needs to do is REDUCE tax on solar products and electric cars.
Lower price will encourage ppl to go for these products. We are not asking them to set-up solar power plants.

IMO, if we all make it a point to go green, we can do a lot, provided ur ready to spend little cash.
A cheaper alternative is to stop eating non veg food. That contributes to almost 40% of global warming. PM me if u wanna know more and i shall strt a new thread on that.

Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming.

Originally Posted by rajan1311

Guys, all the government needs to do is REDUCE tax on solar products and electric cars.
Lower price will encourage ppl to go for these products. We are not asking them to set-up solar power plants.

A cheaper alternative is to stop eating non veg food. That contributes to almost 40% of global warming.

Tax reduction isn't the main worry..the technology is also expensive.
To get adequate power supply, you will need to build large plants.Small Domestic products won't help much.

And how is Global Warming related to energy production...its a different topic altogether.Besides its just not practical.

Originally Posted by rajan1311

Guys, all the government needs to do is REDUCE tax on solar products and electric cars.
Lower price will encourage ppl to go for these products. We are not asking them to set-up solar power plants.

IMO, if we all make it a point to go green, we can do a lot, provided ur ready to spend little cash.
A cheaper alternative is to stop eating non veg food. That contributes to almost 40% of global warming. PM me if u wanna know more and i shall strt a new thread on that.

Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming.

completely a new fact you have introduced me.
just give more info and source of that info.

Originally Posted by powerdoc

Tax reduction isn't the main worry..the technology is also expensive.
To get adequate power supply, you will need to build large plants.Small Domestic products won't help much.

And how is Global Warming related to energy production...its a different topic altogether.Besides its just not practical.

The technology is here. The reva is a strt. They have newer cars coming. Bit pricey though.
Wind and solar energy are required not just to meet power requirements, but the main reason is our environment. We are killing it as we speak. We need to replace our coal and oil power plants. Hence we are preventing Global warming. Hence, not off topic u see, just a broad vision. Now imagine, if solar power is cheaper, but not dirt cheap, if most of the offices could go solar, we could save a HUGE amount of power. This reduces our power needs and the need for oil/coal etc. It is these small things done in a large magnitude that can make a difference, it is better than just sitting at home and talking abt our sad government not ready to do anything.

Whats not practical ?? i mean, anything done BIG, at first seems impractical. If we say, that i will be the richest man in the world at the end of 09, seems impractical, but u cant be sure till u try huh ??

In Australia, they are investing Billions of $$, both government and private players, in solar. In our country we could atleast reduce tax for starters.


Now the energy source of the future is NONE of the above we have discussed.
No, it is not nuclear fission plants.
ITS NUCLEAR FUSION.
There is one experimental Nuclear FUSION(not fission) plant in the US. They say that it is very safe and clean as there are no toxic by products.
Its very very efficient. 1 Bucket of water can power ur house for 30 years.

So the main reason we look at wind/solar energy is that we dont have to use more and more coal/oil for our energy needs.

Originally Posted by prasannaganesh

completely a new fact you have introduced me.
just give more info and source of that info.

Buddy i would love to tell in detail but i have to sleep i have exam tomorrow. Will post when i come back from college. Its a pretty simple relation.

i quote myself again(plz dont ban) :
"Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming."


Methane: The billions of farmed animals crammed into factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere. Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.

Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.

hope u get the idea.

tht was some good info......! thnks for sharing didnt kno much about it....

Originally Posted by just4kix

Dams are ecologically destructive. They not only disturb the ecosytem but displace flora/fauna as well. Plus they are extremely expensive.

We are already facing tremendous protests over the Narmada dam.

i didnt know about it....!

yep there ve been lot of problems even here in gujarat reg the narmada dam but finally its been really good.....as we get water all arnd the year or else almost every year we faced shortage of water......

sadly Indian govt. always goes for large single dams and costly imported and environment-unfriendly nuclear plants.
It has been proven several times that micro-hydel projects are far more cost effective, takes lesser time to build and has a far lesser impact on the environment.
Given the large number of falls and streams that we have, micro-hydel projects would have created a power surplus for us.

@ panchabhut

Why are nuclear plants environment-unfriendly.If they are constructed according to standard regulations, electricity produced through nuclear power is the cleanest way to produce it.

Originally Posted by powerdoc

@ panchabhut

Why are nuclear plants environment-unfriendly.If they are constructed according to standard regulations, electricity produced through nuclear power is the cleanest way to produce it.

They produce a HUGE amt of nuclear waste.

They use uranium rods in reactors. Once, the % of a few isotopes is below/above some standard minimum/max value, the uranium rods need to be replaced as they are not fit for a chain reaction. These unfit uranium rods are then disposed usually in Mines that are closed, or some other place.

Every source of energy will generate some waste.Think of it this way - 1 gram of uranium will give much much more energy than any other source.

hmmm........
Ur saying that if u convert 1 gm of uranium, u will get a lot of energy.
True. But my point being that in that 1gm of uranium, most of it will be wasted and disposing is a huge head ache.

Now, no matter how many billion of $$ u spend, in the next 10 years, nuclear power will generate only 5%(MAX) of our power NEEDS. Let me remind u that in those 10 years, the power requirements will increase a lot more.

Hence, there is so much stress on SAVING power.

PS: sources like wind energy and solar do not have much waste do they ??(no waste during runnning) .

solar, wind or micro-hydel projects have very little waste and even such waste does not take 50,000 years to become fully neutralised (min. time required for the least radioactive material to loose its damaging abilities)

what do we do with that 1 gm of uranium once it has produced the energy?

India has very high energy needs...
population, just see it...

wind and solar energy cant even run my table lamp....

well first of all, hydro electricity is the second most common energy source in india.
wind energy cannot be produced everywhere.it requires huge empty lands and lots of capital to build windmills.on top of that,there is no guarantee of regular winds.
solar energy is becoming very common.here all traffic lights work on solar power.
i guess the govt does not want to spend such a large amt of capital..

Originally Posted by rajan1311

Now, no matter how many billion of $$ u spend, in the next 10 years, nuclear power will generate only 5%(MAX) of our power NEEDS.

That's not neccessary.We can always expand our capacity.That's the main purpose behind the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Regarding waste, this is bound to happen as nothing is without cons.
What we need is to derive more energy for our expanding needs at affordable costs.

Btw, Solar energy is certainly better than wind energy in most aspects.

even nuclear plants require huge capital outlay.
only thing is nuclear plants are built mainly by pvt. MNCs belonging to the USA and the capital payment goes to their economy and solar/wind/hydel plants can be built by indian Co.s and PSUs and the capital outlay remains within the Indian economy.

the govt definitely has the capital to invest in reneable sources.but these projects take many years before returning profits,and the govt does not have tym to wait..
they want everything to happen in the 5 years,so that the next govy does not get advantage.

Originally Posted by powerdoc

That's not neccessary.We can always expand our capacity.That's the main purpose behind the Indo-US nuclear deal.

Regarding waste, this is bound to happen as nothing is without cons.
What we need is to derive more energy for our expanding needs at affordable costs.

Btw, Solar energy is certainly better than wind energy in most aspects.

It will still be impossible to get more than 5% even if we build 5 times more then number of nuclear generators that are working at present. This can never be the main source of energy.

So buddy start saving as much as u can.

If u have the money and space, install solar panels on ur roof top. Would cost u a few lacs, but then u get free power for ever. Lets just do our own bit instead of blaming the government.

well,buddy you will be surprised to know that over 70% of energy needs in france are fulfilled via nuclear energy.there's a lot of scope in nucler energy

and the nuclear waste gets shipped to third world countries.
Unlike us France does not have adequate sunlight for most of the year. Nor do they have that many rivers and falls.
So they are perforce dependent on nuclear power.
But of course the debate would continue.

I fully agree with Rajan1311.
Rather than asking what the country has done for us, its time we asked what we have done for the country.
If everyone of us followed certain habits like
using CFL instead of bulbs,
switching off the lights when leaving the room,
using solar water heaters,
walking or cycling in the neighbourhood rather than using the car,
go for a car pool
etc.
it would go a long way in reducing the peak demand for energy.

nuclear waste can also be recycled...
and about not having sunlight,that can never be a reason as it receives enough sunlight for solar energy.
i talk about nuclear energy as it can produce qtys of energy that can be realistically used for supply.

The french can do it bcos their requirements are much lower, hence, that 70% looks huge.
What i m really trying to say is that we need to look at an alternative to coal/oil power plants. Nuclear is really good, but seeing the attitude of our government(mainly opposition party), i have my doubts that they even care abt our problems and the environment.