life is ..............dont scare,i am not a philosopher who will tell you believe in positive attitude or will say u that it is a rough pitch.i waana tell u that take the life as it comes,expect some unexpected thing in life and march on.
A new report by the Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) highlights that major challenges lie ahead if India is to realize its vast renewable energy potential. Despite the Indian Government being the only nation in the world that has a dedicated ministry to develop renewable and clean technologies, the report highlights a catalogue of ills in an industry dogged by poor R&D and ineffective government data that pose huge technical difficulties for investors.
India is blessed with 300 days of natural sunlight a year, high velocity winds from the strong south-west summer monsoon, massive hydro electricity potential in the north east mountainous region and even larger potential to develop electricity from municipal waste due to the ever expanding population which has already reached over a billion. There are 35 towns alone which each have a population over a million.
The report highlights that the wind sector suffers from huge grid interface problems which don’t generate efficient wattage from the rotating turbines. The drive for solar power is hampered by the lack of available land as solar plants are often competing with other infrastructure projects. The biomass market is completely unstructured so there is no formal way of meeting demands or checking the quality of the product. The electricity from waste sector is hampered by regional governments having poor local data on the characteristics of their waste making it difficult for companies to know how to design their power plants. The report also makes clear that there is a need for better technology and manufacturing across all sectors to efficiently convert the natural resource into energy.
The CBC report, written in conjunction with The Indian Institute of Management (IIM), is aimed at global investors looking at the Indian renewable energy market and particularly the state of Gujarat which has significant potential. It provides a frank assessment of what is currently lacking and therefore where their investment and expertise is likely to have most success.
In launching the report, The CBC has also set a new incubation hub with the Indian Government, the IIM, The UK Carbon Trust, and BP Alternate Energy Group to develop cutting edge technologies tailor made for Indian city and rural living as well as transport. By involving academics as well as industry, the idea to get ideas commercialized quickly.
Director General of the CBC Dr Mohan Kaul, said:
“This report gives global investors a clear roadmap for their expertise. It shows where their skills are most needed to help India deliver on its enormous renewable energy promise. “It is clear that there are still R & D, grid interface and manufacturing issues which need to be put right. The central and regional Governments can also do better. They need to provide more user friendly data, procedures and incentives if investors are going to take a risk on relatively new technologies which are already difficult enough to get off the ground.
“Our new incubation hub will get ideas from everywhere, including the Indian entrepreneurs. Hopefully, this hub can get these ideas backed and commercialized quickly. I look forward to seeing the first solar powered rickshaw.”
The report’s findings include:
Wind
Indian Challenge
A nationwide wind resource assessment has hardly got off the ground. Of the total of 553 wind monitoring stations installed, currently only 53 are in operation. In Gujarat, of the58 wind monitoring stations installed, only 2 are in operation.
Current wind electricity generators in India have poor conversions rates of wind to power. There is also poor grid-interfacing further hampering the evacuation of power during high wind regimes.
Can still be very beauracratic for a private investor seeking a wind site, getting clearances from various agencies and sourcing equipment
Huge R and D required to develop small scale wind generators generators and new light weight materials for large wind turbines
There is a growing view amongst various stakeholders that the existing system of tax subsidies for wind power in India which are just linked to capital outlay needs to be stopped. Instead, a new system that encourages power generation must be put in its place.
Opportunity for investor
Global companies are currently encouraged to invest through intermediaries as this involves little administrative responsibilities before the project is completed
R and D opportunities linked to efficient electronics for protecting, controlling, optimizing performance, power management & conversion. Also R and D opportunities linked to establishing strong connectivity to the grid.
Solar:
Indian Challenge
The amount of land required for utility-scale solar power plants competes with other necessities such as new infrastructure and crops.
Solar power plants are not connected to the grid as large upfront investment cost coupled with low conversion efficiencies makes mass utility scale deployments unattractive. Solar power in India is currently used in a decentralized manner for home lighting, lanterns, street lighting systems, stand-alone SPV power plants and water pumping systems.
Inefficient manufacturing processes makes the production of silicon based solar cells expensive. Japan, Europe, China, and the US are ranked far ahead in the production of solar cells.
The recent shortage of Polysilicon, a key component of solar cells that is expected to continue in 2009 affects the solar cell production and sends the prices of the end products soaring.
Opportunity for investor:
An immediate opportunity to manufacture and distribute solar water heaters and cookers
Opportunity to develop Photovoltaic Devices that have applications in areas that are unviable to connect to grids or as backup power sources. These include solar power packs for rural households and duel pump stations. Solar signaling systems: for traffic lights or railways signaling systems. Solar Road Studs to mark multi-lane highways and Solar Street Light:
R and D to develop PV systems that reduce the ratio of capital cost to conversion efficiency.
India is the least cost producer and assembler of solar cells so there is an excellent opportunity to set up efficient manufacturing plants of solar cells and PV systems which can used internally and exported to the ever expanding European or American photovoltaic market
Biomass: energy from unused agricultural and forestry residues
Indian Challenge
Currently, agricultural and forest residue is traded informally as there is no such structured market. As well as this meaning that there is no efficient way of meeting the demand - there is also no certainty on biomass quality
The limited availability of raw material including fuel sources limits the size of the biomass energy systems to below what is commercially optimal.
Opportunity for investor:
R and D to improve biomass conversion on the large MW biomass gasifiers
Due to the lack of uncertainty in the biomass quality, an opportunity lies in efficiently collecting the biomass, segregating it into different qualities and providing it to power generation units.
Biofuels – for cars
Indian Challenge:
Constraints in the supply of molasses have impacted the bio-ethanol production. Reaching a target of 5% blending in some states is still a challenge.
Opportunity for investor:
Jatropha cultivation, which grows in semi-arid wastelands with minimum care, is an ideal feedstock for large scale bio-diesel programme
To develop technology and techniques for producing ethanol from alternate feedstock such as sorghum ligno-cellulosic materials like, rice straw,
Joint ventures can be formalized with automobiles companies like Tata Motor, Daimler Chrysler etc. to develop engines that run on different feedstock based biofuels, efficiently. Particularly as India move towards the target of 20% blending of petrol and diesel by 2017
Municipal solid waste to Electricity
Indian Challenge
Lack of reliable data with the urban local bodies on the waste characteristic of their particular region makes it difficult o design the
appropriate units
Lack of efficient systems for collection and distribution of solid wastes
leads to irregular supply of raw material
Current technology to convert MSW to energy in an efficient and environment friendly manner still remains a challenge. Critics have raised questions regarding the toxic emissions from these projects which defeat the basic purpose of being environment friendly.
Opportunity for investor:
R and D to develop technology which transfers the waste efficiently to electricity.
Even though the report highlights such challenges - it still predicts that in the long run there is every likelihood that India will fulfill its renewable energy potential. It highlights that currently 44% of the 200 million Indian households do not use electricity and so there is huge scope to still invest as India continues to develop. It secondly points out that India imports more than 70% of its oil requirement from the Middle East which it desperately wants to reduce with the Government increasingly stressing renewables as the answer. For example, India is the only country in the world to have a dedicated ministry to develop the renewable and clean technologies - Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). Thirdly, the report highlights that India is hugely blessed with an abundance of renewable energy sources, specifically the solar, wind and hydro
We very often do hear about grid indiscipline, over drawl and under drawl, grid collapse in power sector. Power can not be stored and can not be blocked as it flows across the grid. This is the reason distribution utilities do resort to overdrawl of power when in need but the pressure it exerts to the grid system is enormous and sometimes there is a danger of grid collapse. Electrical equipments malfunction at times due to non synchronization of frequency and sometimes failed in operation.
In my perceptions, the distribution utilities drawing more than their scheduled plan are direct theft under the sun. They keep on complaining theft of power by the consumers and non payment by them. There are stringent laws for power theft but why we do not have similar kind of penalties and laws for the utilities which indulge in overdrawl and under drawl.
The UI (Unscheduled Interchange) mechanism is a fantastic concept to induce some kind of discipline to the system but the big question is that whether the way it functions is right or not. There is opposition from the utilities when UI rates are too high. Definitely, it should be high or else it will not serve any purpose. When the UI rate is similar to the power purchase cost, it is quite evident that the utilities will overdraw and will be ready to pay the penalty. Similarly a small variation at the upper side will not make any significant change.
There is one problem in trading of power in the exchanges. The demand supply mismatch at times take the trading of power at a very high rate, a considerable high price than the UI rates so utilities find it easier to overdraw power from the grid. Similarly, very so often, the utilities are not paying the UI charges at regular intervals as they themselves are bankrupt.
We Indians are very smart and can never be self disciplined so laws and rules are made to make us discipline But then we find enormous ways how to nullify all rules in favour of us.
CERC in its effort to induce a strict discipline has notified new regulations on UI for electricity grid operations and also amended the IEGC (Indian Electricity Grid Code).It is operational from April 1, 2009.It rationalizes the UI rates for the entities who abide by the specified grid operation parameters. It also narrowed down the operational frequency range to improve the quality of supply.
The permissible operating range for the grid has been narrowed down by 0.4 Hz. Now the operating range is in between 49.2Hz to 50.3Hz (Earlier it was 49 – 50.5 Hz).The rates are also structured. Differential rates are proposed for drawl of power at normal permissible limits and for excessive overdrawl. So now there is a clear identification of normal operator and habitual defaulter.
The clear signal is that UI mechanism is not for trading of power; rather it is a method to make grid secure and supply quality power to one and all. But utilities tend to take it otherwise and use it for their own benefit.
The other features of the new regulation are:
Overdrawl below 49.2Hz will pay additional UI charge at a higher rate
Overdrawl beyond the permissible range would make the entities and the officer in charge such as CEO or MD liable for penal action under sections 142 and 149 of the electricity act,2003.
The UI rates for generation made symmetrical for over generation and under generation. This step is a welcome move as it will not provide any scope for gaming by the generation companies.
Review of UI charge every 6 months subjected to fuel price and grid discipline
Surplus amount in UI pool to be used for strengthening the grid in strategic important area.
In my view, these regulations if implemented in proper manner will go a long way in inducing the much desired grid discipline. Further, the band width should be narrowed down so as to make the grid function in an optimal way and there should not be any scope of overdrawing beyond what is planned. They may resort to load shedding if they wish. Any deviation should be dealt with stringent punishment. Its high time to think beyond the limits so as to make Indian power sector an example for the rest of the world.
Infraline has organized a Round Table Conference on “Captive coal block development: issues and the way forwards” on 1st April at India International Centre in New Delhi. Among others Mr R V Sahi was the moderator of discussion and the eminent panelists were Shri B.M. Verma, Ex Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ex CMD, Uttarakhand Power Corporation, Shri Sanjeev Agararwal, Managing Director, AES Chhatisgarh, Chhitiz kumar ,VP,GE finance.
I had an opportunity to present my views to the august gathering and I was the first speaker at the round table discussion.
My Views:
Till date, 198 coal blocks with reserves of 42 billion tones were allocated, but production commenced from only 23 blocks which is around 24million tones this year. It is projected to grow at CAGR of 24% to achieve 55MT by the end of 11th plan, but the govt have projected a production of 104MTs in the terminal year of 11th plan which seems quite unreachable looking at the slow pace of captive coal production.
Issues are plenty, starting with all governmental procedures, clearances from different ministry, land acquisition, R&R problems, mafias and naxalites menace coupled with lack of expertise and technological constraints.
For an unexplored block, the time line as suggested by the MoC is almost 72 months or 6 years.
Problem starts with allocation of coal blocks which is done under some recommendations from the ministry, no clear rules and guidelines. Then, time taken for grant of prospecting license, preparation of geological report with the help of CMPDIL, all clearance related issues and at last the land acquisition problems.
I suggested to form a/ many separate autonomous body for all geological surveys and report preparation without any interferencefrom CMPDIL
A shell company like in case of UMPPs be made to facilitate all clearance from the ministry and if possible help in land acquisition and at the time of allocation of the coal block , the shell company be transferred to allocate which could save precious time for coal block development.
Coal blocks retained by CIL which it plans to explore after 5 years must be freed from its clutches and be allocated to private/govt parties for development.
Strict monitoring is utmost necessary so as to keep a regular check on the progress of coal blocks. A stick and carrot approach from the govt will help streamline the process.
In case of joint allocation time line must be fixed for the consortium partners so as to make a consensus decision as to which options they do agree to. If they fail to get into a consensus, coal blocks must be de-allocated and they should not be given any chance for further allocation of coal blocks.
Besides I have also raised question about coal block allocation to
Sasan UMPP and its diversion of coal to other plants
In case of Sasan UMPP, MoC allowed for diversification of surplus coal to the same end use but to a different plan ( in case of Sasan UMPP, it is chitangi power plant developed by RPL in state of MP)
The govt has approved the mine plan of RPL for a coal production of 20MTPA while the requirement of the UMPP comes around 15MTPA.The surplus coal thus generated will be used in Chitarngi power plant
As such, RPL do not have an requirement of Chhatrasal coal block which was allotted for Sasan UMPP and the coal production from this block can not be treated as surplus coal and can not be diverted to chitrangi power plant as suggested
The development of this coal block would be easier for RPL in an economic point of view as it is adjacent to the coal blocks developed by it. But the question lies…can it be considered as surplus coal of sasan UMPP. If not, then should MoC allow the coal to be used at other power plants of RPL or the coal block be de allocated from RPL?
The second issue I had raised was about the allocation of 2 coal blocks for CTL projects recently.
What is the necessity to allocate 2 CTL blocks when Govt could have allocated 1 block for trial basis so as to find out the viability of the project
Is it not that by allocating two coal blocks, the Govt had unnecessarily blocks a huge resource of coal quantity?
What is the economic sense of coal block allocation at this time when recession is gripping the world economy and the oil is well below the $50 mark?
Experts View:
In their presentation, besides MoEF clearance, other major issues that surfaced are
Infrastructure development/sharing in case of coal block development
Trust between private agencies which prepare GR with CMPDIL
Commercial terms of agreement with CIL and subsidiaries for their infrastructure and expertise sharing
Independent autonomous status to CMPDIL in line with CEA in power sector.
Formation of coal regulator at the earliest
Mining lease transfer to lenders in case of defaulting in the part of the developer
Commercial sale of coal so as to attract foreign players to the coal mining
Allocation through competitive bidding
Govt should facilitate or help in land acquisition problems as it helps the govt undertaking through an act.
Right choice of model of contract ( MDO, JV etc)
After individual presentations, Mr Shahi opened the forum for discussions and invited comments specifically any suggestion to CIL, Ministry fo Power, Ministry of Coal for captive coal block development.
After an intense questions answer session, it was concluded that Government should act as a facilitator in obtaining all the clearances, even it should transfer the PL at the time of coal block allocation.
All agree to suggest for an independent autonomous CMPDIL , it should come out of the clutch of CIL and act independently as technical expertise provider. There may be some kind of commercial agreement with CIL to share the already available infrastructure with them or else the coal block allocattees should form a forum to take up this issue and must contribute to tackle this issue in a larger way.
Though the discussions ended in a high note but some questions remained unanswered. The coal scenario is detoriating day by day and India resorts to high volume of import to mitigate the deficit part of coal demand, is it not the right tome for the Govt to look forward and take some drastic decisions so as to kick start the captive mining in a big way?
On February 27, 2009 Ministry of Coal has awarded 2 coal blocks in Orissa for CTL projects to SETCL and JSPL. The IMG (Inter Ministerial Group) has however selected these two bidders taking all the criteria but has never given any clear order of preference.
Of late, Govt wanted to award these coal blocks on the basis of profit sharing and has sought legal advice from the law ministry. The law ministry clearly said that these criteria can not be a part of the contract document as this is proposed after the last date of application. Though the govt asked for profit sharing clause later at a stage of making presentation before the IMG, the law ministry advised the Ministry of coal to call for fresh proposals if it wants to introduce profit sharing as one of the clause for coal block allocation.
But, calling for fresh proposal would have definitely taken some time and fresh controversies would have been surfaced .Looking at these issues, Govt did not prefer to have fresh bidding on CTL.
Before awarding CTL blocks, Govt did have some options.
a.One of the options was to hold back on CTL allocation as the economics do not favour a CTL coal block allocation at this juncture. The world economy is passing through a phrase of slow down and the oil is well below the price of economic production of oil from CTL projects ( around $80 as predicted by the experts).The other concern is that if the project is delayed and the amendments to MMDR act is passed in favour of competitive bidding of the coal blocks , then the whole exercise will have been repeated .
b.The second option was that one party can be allocated coal block for development. As IMG has not set any preference, it is argued that the other party might raise some concerns about the allocation. Single allocation in favour of a party could have been made after a consensus from the competent authority.
c.The third option was to allocate two blocks to two short listed parties as their first choice differs from each other. . SETSL have indicated their first preference for the North of Arkhapal-Srirampur block, whereas JSPL have indicated their first preference for the Ramchandi Promotional block.
d.The last option was to return the proposal to IMG for a further fine tuning of parties so as to make a final decision on allocation of one coal block to one party. It would have taken some more time but could have been the right solution .
But the government took the third option to allocate two coal blocks to two parties.
It raises serious concerns on the part of the government. The timing of the decision (when the elections are only 2 months far away) and the basis of allocation. As everyone knows that CTL project is at a very nascent stage of development and the technology is not well established besides few successful demonstrations in South Africa. The quality of Indian coal and its accessibility to the technology proposed is still under development phase. What could be the reason behind to allocate 2 coal blocks. By doing this government unnecessarily blocked 2 huge coal resources for a project whose veracity is not well established till yet.
Though government has made strict provisions that coal from the project will be used strictly for CTL and can not be diverted, but then the decision to allocate the coal blocks certainly comes under scrutiny.
No doubt, the project developers have to bear all risks involved but when it is explicitly mentioned that one coal block will be allocated to one project developer, to award 2 coal blocks is not a wise decision. As the resources are limited, the country needs to take right decision at the right time but the decision to allocate these coal blocks in a hurry significantly points towards some under the carpet theory which could not be ignored.
What is your opinion on this issue? Please contribute
According to Gadgil formula, for any central power project, the home state gets 10% as preferential allocation, 15% is kept unallocated at the disposal of the Centre and the balance 75% is allocated to beneficiary states, including the home state, on the basis of their energy consumption and central plan allocation during the previous five years.
Thus, for any power project NTPC could offer upto 30% of power for any hosting state, where as ultra mega power projects being developed by Reliance Power (Sasan) and Tata Power (Mundra) have made higher allocation of 37.5% and 47.5%, respectively, to the home states.
NTPC has proposed a revision in the existing method so as to allocate more power to create a level playing field with private generators. It would help NTPC getting green field power projects from states. If the proposal is approved, NTPC can offer 45% of the power generated to the host state.
The states are demanding more power allocation in lieu of fuel linkage, land acquisition and water linkage etc. But, the big question is, should NTPC be allowed to offer more allocation to the host state of the power plants?
States are demanding more power quota so as to trade and earn huge revenue out of it. It is not that states want this power to mitigate any deficit situation of power. Trading of power could earn them above Rs 10 in peak demand seasons. Even when the host state needs power for its peak shortages, it resorts to load shedding and in the same time it sells power to other states at a higher rate so as to fill its revenue kitty. This happens in case of hilly states and states where hydel projects are situated. The allocated quota for the states is used for trading.
In my opinion, NTPC being a central government company should not do this so as to beg projects. It will definitely create an imbalance situation for different regions in India. Even state governments are accusing the central government for partiality in case of distribution of unallocated quotas of power from the central generating stations. Central govt. is being accused of providing more power to the state where its party is in power and neglects the other states.
If UMPP is taken into consideration or otherwise any such coal pit head projects, it is known that coal fields are basically situated in eastern states ( Jharkhand, Orissa,WB,Chhatisgarh etc) where the demand for power is comparatively low. If projects have to come up at the eastern states because of its proximity to coal fields, then the states having coal fields will have surplus power and the northern region will be power deficit as most of the demand comes from these states. It will create a situation where in the spot prices of power would move up in peaking time and it is bound to create regional imbalances .
At best NTPC should find options to enter into JVs with state generating companies so as to develop power plants in the state with equity participation from state and central utilities.
Power ministry is currently mulling over the idea to allow NTPC to offer more power to the host state. But, rather doing any good to the country, it would bring more harm to the central government. It is a fact that NTPC is well behind the private developers when it comes to UMPP projects, but NTPC should look inside and try to rectify the system which holds it back to offer good prices when it is having all advantages of expertise, experience and the backing of central governments at large.
What is your opinion on this issue, please contribute.
Captive is a bad word but a good option at least in the coal production. Though 198 coal blocks of reserves over 40 billion tones were allocated till now, production could only commence from 25 blocks. The share of coal production is still below 10% of the total coal produced in the country. Problems are aplenty for coal production through captive blocks and solutions few but the road ahead is slowly and steadily emerging.
Even a 100 percent FDI in captive coal failed to provide the right incentives for players to ramp up the production. It clearly shows a lack of seriousness and inability in case of captive miners. What could be the way forward to resolve all the challenges faced by captive coal miners? Is there any scope of changing the policies? How could be the captive mining be incentivised so as to attract serious players in the field.
The government should be flexible enough to change rules and regulations so as to allot explored blocks to captive developers. Government takes first initiative allowing power companies to use surplus coal available to similar end use project of same company as in case of Sasan UMPP. The earlier norms was to transfer the excess coal to CIL.
Even the identified explored blocks which are retained by CIL to be mined in 12th plan and onwards must be awarded to private developers for captive development as the gap between demand and supply is growing at an alarming scale. India should take aggressive steps to address this issue and it might probably one of alternative solution to address coal issues in India.
The option of competitive bidding for coal blocks should be explored and be made project specific like in case for UMPP in power. All the power projects which will be awarded on the basis of competitive bidding must be allocated coal blocks in advance so as to make the project more viable by taking away the fuel risk component. The method of allocating coal quota should be discarded and some portion of coal produced from the captive coal should be set aside for merchant sell through e auctioning. It will attract serious private developers towards developing the coal blocks which otherwise would have taken more tome to develop.
Monitoring process should be made stringent and huge penalty may be levied on non serious developers. Most importantly government should first identify, explore the coal blocks and facilitate in acquiring all approvals in place before awarding any coal block for captive development. This will definitely reduce the time line of coal block development for at least 24 to 30 months.
Though India looks for massive coal import option to mitigate the coal crisis in future, it would be better if it reforms the coal sector and mend certain acts so as to open up the coal sector for a better market discovery. Some amount of captive coal should be allowed for merchant sale so as to attract serious and big players to chip in and discover the huge opportunities lying untapped beneath the ground.
It is indeed very sad and unfortunate that the IPL will be shifted outside India.What is more troublesome is that the signal it sends to overseas..( India is not safe ). It is clear that IPL organisers can do anything for money at the stake of India's own pride. It is a fact that BCCI is a money vending machine.Had India out of Cricket world, the dooms day would be very near for the other cricketing nations.
It is definitely not a political issue but surely a national one.What could congress do at the time of election. The IPL match schedule clash with the elections. It is the top most priority of the government to provide security to the citizens first and definitely not for an entairtainment private business ( T20 cricket). The states refused to take an extra lliability to arrange for security for IPL matches.India is not having enough security personnels to take guard of these so called VIPs ( cricket players). Government is very right when it expressed its inability to provide security.
But then, BJP is striking the right cord when it says that IPL shifting is not in favour of the nation as it sends a wrong signal to the international community while very shortly we are going to organise the common wealth games. It would be bad for the tourism sector too. But, before pointing figure at the congress to take some mileage on the political front, BJP should point the finger at BCCI and try to pursuade them not to shift base for IPL. IPL can wait for some time but the pride of nation does not.
Now, its high time for we Indians to take a decision. It is we whom the organisers take as granted as they know that cricket is an alternate religion to all of us.So, they play with our emotions.All these hue and cry will not affect the organisers as lots of money is at stake for them and anyhow they will stick to their schedule. Even if the world is not safe, they would better find a option to organise at the moon..ha ha..
So, friends..arise and awake and stop not till the IPL shifting ends. IPL is truly an international domestic event and in no way, it should shift its base from India.
In spite of being such a colourful festival, there are various aspects of Holi which makes it so significant for our lives. Though they might not be so apparent but a closer look and a little thought will reveal the significance of Holi in more ways than meets the eyes. Ranging from socio-cultural, religious to biological there is every reason why we must heartily enjoy the festival and cherish the reasons for its celebrations. So when, its time for Holi, please don't hold yourself back and enjoy the festival to the hilt by participating with full enthusiasm in every small tradition related to the festival.
Mythological Significance Holi gets us close to our religion and our mythology as it is essentially the celebration of various legends associated with the festival. Foremost is the legend ofPrahlad and Hiranyakshyap. The legend says there once lived a devil and powerful king, Hiranyakshyap who considered himself a god and wanted everybody to worship him. To his great ire, his son, Prahlad began to worship, Lord Vishnu. To get rid of his son, Hiranyakshyap asked his sister, Holika to enter a blazing fire with Prahlad in her lap, as she had a boon to enter fire unscathed. Legend has it that Prahlad was saved for his extreme devotion for the lord while Holika paid a price for her sinister desire. The tradition of burning Holika or the 'Holika dahan' comes mainly from this legend.
Holi also celebrates the legend of Radha and Krishna which describes the extreme delight, Krishna took in applying colour on Radha and other gopis. This prank of Krishna later, became a trend and a part of the Holi festivities. Mythology also states that Holi is the celebration of death ofOgress Pootana who tried to kill infant, Krishna by feeding poisonous milk to it. Another legend of Holi which is extremely popular in Southern India is that of Lord Shiva and Kaamadeva. According to the legend, people in south celebrate the sacrifice of Lord of Passion Kaamadeva who risked his life to revoke Lord Shiva from meditation and save the world.
Also, popular is the legend of Ogress Dhundhi who used to trouble children in the kingdom of Raghu and was ultimately chased away by the pranks of the children on the day of Holi. Showing their belief in the legend, children till date play pranks and hurl abuses at the time of Holika Dahan.
Cultural Significance Celebration of the various legends associated with Holi reassure the people of the power of the truth as the moral of all these legends is the ultimate victory of good over evil. The legend of Hiranyakashyap and Prahlad also points to the fact that extreme devotion to god pays as god always takes his true devotee in his shelter.
All these legends help the people to follow a good conduct in their lives and believe in the virtue of being truthful. This is extremely important in the modern day society when so many people resort to evil practices for small gains and torture one who is honest. Holi helps the people to believe in the virtue of being truthful and honest and also to fight away the evil.
Besides, holi is celebrated at a time of the year when the fields are in full bloom and people are expecting a good harvest. This gives a people a good reason to rejoice, make merry and submerge themselves in the spirit of Holi.
Social Significance Holi helps to bring the society together and strengthen the secular fabric of our country. For, the festival is celebrated by non-Hindus also as everybody like to be a part of such a colouful and joyous festival. Also, the tradition of the Holi is that even the enemies turn friends on Holi and forget any feeling of hardship that may be present. Besides, on this day people do not differentiate between the rich and poor and everybody celebrate the festival together with a spirit of bonhomie and brotherhood. In the evening people visit friends and relatives and exchange gifts, sweets and greetings. This helps in revatalising relationships and strengthening emotional bonds between people.
Biological Significance It is interesting to note that the festival of Holi is significant for our lives and body in many other ways than providing joy and fun. We also need to thank our forefathers who started the trend of celebrating Holi at such a scientifically accurate time. And, also for incorporating so much fun in the festival.
As Holi comes at a time of the year when people have a tendency to feel sleepy and lazy. This is natural for the body to experiences some tardiness due to the change from the cold to the heat in the atmosphere. To counteract this tardiness of the body, people sing loudly or even speak loudly. Their movements are brisk and their music is loud. All of this helps to rejuvenate the system of the human body.
Besides, the colours when sprayed on the body have a great impact on it. Biologists believe the liquid dye or Abeer penetrates the body and enters into the pores. It has the effect of strengthening the ions in the body and adds health and beauty to it.
There is yet another scientific reason for celebrating the Holi, this however pertains to the tradition of Holika Dahan. The mutation period of winter and spring, induces the growth of bacteria in the atmosphere as well as in the body. When Holika is burnt, temperature rises to about 145 degrees Fahrenhiet. Following the tradition when people perform Parikrima (circumambulation or going around) around the fire, the heat from the fire kills the bacteria in the body thus, cleansing it.
The way Holi is celebrated in south, the festival also promotes good health. For, the day after the burning of Holika people put ash (Vibhuti) on their forehead and they would mix Chandan (sandalpaste) with the young leaves and flowers of the Mango tree and consume it to promote good health.
Some also believe that play with colours help to promote good healthas colours are said to have great impact on our body and our health. Western-Physicians and doctors believe that for a healthy body, colours too have an important place besides the other vital elements. Deficiency of a particular colour in our body causes ailment, which can be cured only after supplementing the body with that particular colour.
People also clean-up their houses on Holi which helps in clearing up the dust and mess in the house and get rid of mosquitoes and others pests. A clean house generally makes the residents feel good and generate positive energies.
As part of the overall $789 billion, approximately $50 billion will be set aside for programs focusing on promoting efficient and renewable energy. This follows Obama's announcement on Jan. 26 that his energy plan would invest a total of $150 billion over the next 10 years on a variety of projects, including vehicle efficiency, electrical efficiency, clean-coal power plants, biofuels and domestic oil and gas production.
His 10-year plan makes it clear that his administration will work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, and he will start on that path by reviewing a Bush administration decision to deny California its own climate change-focused law. Obama also announced that he would ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review California's stringent emission standards, which were struck down by then-EPA chief Stephen Johnson in December 2007.
The first stated goal of Obama's energy plan is to fuel job growth through the "green" sector to the tune of at least 460,000 new jobs over the next three years. The stimulus package, which includes a short-term $50 billion (roughly) in energy projects, currently provides about $14 billion in loans for renewable energy projects, $4.5 billion for "smart grid" electricity updates, $6.4 billion for cleaning up nuclear weapon production sites, $6.3 billion in state-level energy efficiency grants, $5 billion for home weatherization projects and $4.5 billion for making federal buildings more energy efficient.The stimulus also allows for $18.9 billion in "green transportation," essentially improving public transit and building high-speed rail. These expenses represent only the first step in the $150 billion investment over 10 years to secure energy efficiency and energy independence.
The idea behind these projects is to try and push America's construction industry away from traditional home-building and remodeling (in 2008, residential construction fell a record 27.2 percent from the year before) toward a more green approach, which would include installing solar panels and efficient insulation in homes, schools and government buildings. This effort is similar to that undertaken in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when the government employed out-of-work tradesmen, artists and other workers to build public parks, paint murals in post offices and engage in other public works that were intended mainly to keep people busy. The Obama plan is intended to have the added benefit of creating a fundamentally new business sector — a green building industry — while decreasing the country's energy bill and putting people back to work. The government would be providing a stimulus for private business by creating incentives and a consumer demand for energy-efficient features that otherwise would not exist.
The second stated goal of Obama's long-term energy plan is to eliminate the U.S. dependency on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil imports by 2019.The United States imported roughly 10 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil in 2007; of this, imports from Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Kuwait and Venezuela combined to a total of 3.3 million bpd. Removing the need for Middle East and Venezuelan oil would give the United States much greater room for maneuver in both regions.
The 10-year energy plan also contains a climate-change portion. Obama's target (an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050) is softer than Europe's (80 percent from 1990 levels by 2020), but his 25 percent renewable energy goal surpasses Europe's 20-20-20 plan. The European plan seeks to increase the EU's use of renewable fuels to 20 percent of total energy demand and reduce total EU energy demand by 20 percent, all by 2020. It is by decreasing reliance on non-renewable energy that Obama hopes to wean the United States off of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil.
Cap and Trade Program
One of the most ambitious proposals of the Obama energy plan is a national cap and trade program. Under such a program, the government would set emissions standard for various industries, allowing companies that emit less carbon dioxide than their allotment to trade their excess "credits" to those who are emitting above the cap. The initial allotments of carbon credits will incite one of the more contentious domestic debates in the coming years, as will the steepness of the emissions reduction curve. In addition to a national goal of 80 percent by 2050, there are questions about what the goal will be in 2020 or 2035.
Lobbying efforts are already under way regarding cap and trade. American businesses do not want to see states in charge of setting greenhouse gas emissions standards since that would increase the accounting and legal fees companies would have to incur to deal with the system on a state-by-state basis. Instead, they want to see a single national standard.
Establishing a national standard for a cap and trade system would allow utility companies to factor in future costs of emitting greenhouse gases, which currently is an unknown. Utility companies do not know whether it makes sense to build regular coal plants, clean coal plants, solar or wind installations or natural gas production facilities because the rules of the game are not set. Until that happens, energy expansion in the United States will be at a standstill.
However, the U.S. domestic climate-change policy must be negotiated at the global level, particularly with China. Obama, or any subsequent U.S. president, will be hard-pressed to adopt carbon emission rules without first getting some sort of a deal with China that would guarantee that Beijing would also address its own greenhouse emissions. Otherwise, U.S. greenhouse gas-emitting industries (chemicals, petrochemical, paper and pulp, steel, cement, etc.) could bolt for China and the developing world. Therefore, a conversation with Beijing about climate change is high on Obama's list of priorities; his energy envoy, Todd Stern, is accompanying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her current trip to East Asia, primarily to discuss some of Obama's energy ideas with the Chinese.
Improving Automobile Mileage
To reduce consumption of imported oil by approximately a third, Obama plans to force implementation of a congressional decision in 2007 to raise federal fuel economy requirements to 35 miles per gallon for cars by 2020, from their current level of 27.5 miles per gallon. (Today, about 60 percent of U.S. oil demand is used to power the American vehicle fleet.) The 2007 congressional decision was never put on a path for implementation by the Bush administration, which Obama will try to reverse by asking the Department of Transportation to come up with a plan by March to implement the mileage standard.
The problem with increasing the mileage of the current fleet (which has essentially averaged, on a fleet-wide basis, slightly above 20 miles per gallon since the early 1980s) is that it would necessitate replacing a substantial number of America's current fleet of over 250 million cars, small trucks and SUVs. In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Congress allocated $25 billion to "reequipping, expanding, or establishing manufacturing facilities in the United States to produce qualifying advanced technology vehicles or qualifying components." However, all of the $25 billion was subsequently relocated to provide bridge loans to the auto industry as part of their bailout announced on Nov. 20, 2008.
Therefore, it will be up to consumers to replace their old automobiles with hybrid vehicles, and Obama hopes to encourage them to do so by offering $7,000 in tax credits per vehicle for the purchase of an "advanced vehicle" (presumably these would include various types of hybrids) and putting 1 million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. This tax-credit program would have the U.S. government essentially spending a huge amount of money to buy new cars for people. Currently (figures are from December 2008), U.S. purchases of hybrids average 17,600 per month (down from about 30,000 during the first half of 2008), or approximately 3 percent of total purchases. At that rate, if Obama's $7,000-per-car system were adopted, the U.S. government would have to spend approximately $123 million in tax credits per month, or nearly $1.5 billion a year, just to sustain the current level of hybrid purchases.
Encouraging 'Plug-in' Hybrid Technology
The "plug-in" component of Obama's hybrid-vehicle plan is a direct plug for the domestic manufacturer General Motors Corporation (GM), which has essentially put all of its eggs in one basket with its flagship to-be Chevrolet Volt electric plug-in car. The Volt, which can go 40 miles purely on stored electricity before switching to its onboard gasoline engine, will have a price tag of more than $40,000, which means that even with the $7,000 tax credit for advanced vehicles (which presumably would also go for the cheaper Japanese hybrids), the Volt would cost essentially twice as much as its foreign competition. GM flatly stated in recent congressional hearings that the Volt would not be profitable in its first production run, that total costs of production would be around $750 million and that return on the investment could be expected only after 2016 — a risky strategy for a troubled manufacturer, to say the least.
At the moment, however, there is very little certainty that U.S. consumers would choose a U.S. made plug-in hybrid like the Volt over the (mostly Japanese) competition. Complicating calculations relating to the energy efficiency of the plug-in electric hybrid is the fact that the economics and ecological benefits of these vehicles depend on local electricity costs and the relative "greenness" of the consumer's power source. A traditional gasoline-electric hybrid contributes to less net greenhouse gas emissions than a plug-in hybrid in states that rely on coal for electricity generation. This calculation would change, of course, with changes in the electrical grid (see below).
Investing in Coal
Obama's plan is to "develop and deploy clean coal technology" as part of relying more on domestic energy resources. If there is one non-renewable source of energy that the United States has plenty of it is coal. In 2006, U.S. proven reserves totaled 27.1 percent of total global coal reserves, the highest number in the world. Coal already accounts for roughly 51 percent of U.S. electricity generation (in 2007) and for 22.8 percent of total energy use in the United States.
At the center of the debate over coal in the United States is the question of "clean coal" technology, especially carbon capture and sequestration. As the term implies, this combination of techniques allows for a coal-fired power plant to produce power without spewing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Instead, the carbon is captured and sent to deep underground repositories where it is sequestered. The technology could prove to be a panacea (should it ever become cost-effective): The United States has over a quarter of the world's coal; it wants to increase its domestic energy sources; and it needs to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The only problem is, while the technology exists, no one has figured out a way to employ it economically.
To retrofit an existing coal plant would cost approximately $1 billion to $2 billion (a 300 megawatt coal plant by itself costs about $1 billion and a 630 megawatt costs around $2.4 billion) and would require a doubling of the actual acreage on which the plant was built. An additional problem is that capture and sequestration would consume 30 percent of the plant output, substantially limiting the total energy output of the plant.
The elephant in the room is the potential cost of a complete overhaul of many of the current coal-burning plants, which would likely be necessary to make them economically viable under a future cap-and-trade system. The price tag for such an overhaul would be monstrous and definitely higher than the $150 billion currently earmarked for the next 10 years for all energy projects. The United States has 1,470 coal-burning plants, and if the cost of retrofitting for subterranean sequestration is factored in, the numbers would be astronomical and could measure in the trillions.
The final problem facing the coal industry is that the authority to regulate the building of new power plants in the United States rests with state governments, not the federal government. Some state governments have come under pressure from environmental groups to delay or cancel the building of coal power plants to avoid exacerbating climate change. In other states, environmental organizations have used lawsuits to tie up proposed coal plants for years. These lawsuits have added to the uncertainty surrounding the economics of building new coal plants. The economic uncertainty, legal uncertainty and litigation have resulted in a situation in which of the 151 coal plants proposed for construction in 2007, 109 were essentially scrapped or tied up in court, with only 28 actually under construction in 2008.
Promoting Ethanol
Encouraging a greater use of ethanol was one of Obama's primary electoral campaign messages, particularly to the corn-producing region in the Midwest where he picked up Iowa — the undisputed corn producing king — by a wide margin (Iowa voted Republican in 2004 and Democratic only by a slim margin in 2000). Derived mainly from corn, ethanol could be produced and mixed with refined petroleum to create enough gasoline to fulfill America's transportation energy needs (which account for 30 percent of total energy usage and over half of oil use in the U.S.). To fulfill Obama's pledge to wean the United States from Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, U.S. refineries would probably have to use six times as much ethanol in gasoline than they currently do.
The key problem with such a surge in ethanol use is that it would appreciate food prices. According to calculations by the University of Illinois economics department, with oil prices at $50 per barrel it is profitable to convert corn into ethanol if corn prices are lower than $4 per bushel. Corn prices currently stand at approximately $3.67 per bushel. If oil were to climb above $50 per barrel, it would be more profitable for farmers to sell corn to ethanol refineries than to sell it for food. As oil prices climb, the threshold for corn prices rises as well, giving farmers more incentive to convert corn into fuel and thus raise food prices.
One way to avoid raising food prices would be to produce ethanol from cellulosic material (essentially any sort of non-edible plant material, from grass to corn stalks). The problem with cellulosic material is that it requires expensive enzymes to break down the plant material before it can be refined — a recent study found that this process is competitive only with oil prices above $90 a barrel. The process would also require gathering massive amounts of low-value raw materials — itself a very energy-intensive process because these materials have to be transported from the farm to the refinery. Currently, cellulosic materials like chaff are simply ploughed into the soil as fertilizer, burned or used for animal feed. In order to use it as a main source of ethanol production, the material would have to be shipped to refineries from the farm.
The current collection-transportation networks in the Midwest are calibrated for food distribution, not gasoline delivery. Therefore the first problem is how to get the cellulosic material to the refineries. Chaff and agricultural by-products are usually less dense than corn, so it would take more trips to the local refinery to make it worthwhile, increasing transportation costs. Farms would either have to ship their agricultural waste for refinement to a centralized collection point (most likely right next to the grain elevator) or run rudimentary refineries right on their farms.
Either way, once the refining process is complete, the ethanol would have to be shipped to consumers around the country (most of who are on the coasts, far from the Midwest). There is no pipeline network ready to take the fuel-ready ethanol from refineries to the coasts, and such a network (one akin to the natural gas pipeline network in Europe may have to be developed) would be an extremely expensive project. Therefore, a switch to ethanol could work for the Midwest, leading to a bifurcated system where the coasts still use petroleum for transportation while the agricultural producing regions rely on ethanol.
The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
To boost domestic production of energy, Obama's plan would "prioritize the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline," which would tap natural gas deposits in Prudhoe Bay on the banks of the Arctic Ocean. To get the pipeline to reach the U.S. lower 48 it would have to cross more than 1,500 miles, including the imposing Alaskan Brooks Mountain Range. The project is not new. It was proposed in the late 1960s, when the deposits were discovered, and became a popular idea during the oil shocks of the early 1970s. Today there are three competing pipeline projects being considered: ExxonMobil's MackenzieValley ($16.3 billion), the TransCanada project ($26 billion) and BP-ConocoPhillips' Denali project (somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion). All three projects are financially daunting, comparable to the Soviet-style infrastructural development that aims to connect Russian natural gas fields on the YamalPeninsula with consumers in Europe. As a point of comparison, the Yamal-Europe pipeline that ships natural gas from Russia to Germany via Poland and Belarus traverses over 4,000 miles of flat terrain and cost roughly $45 billion. As such, it is actually cheaper per mile of pipeline than either the TransCanada project or BP-ConocoPhillips's Denali project.
'Use it or Lose it' Lease Strategy
A U.S. congressional report, supported by Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee, has highlighted 68 million acres "of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters" that could produce "an additional 4.8 million bpd of oil." Intrinsically, this production would decrease U.S. imports by 75 percent and eliminate the need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan imports. The Obama energy plan would seek to boost domestic oil production by tapping this supposed wealth of untapped domestic wells that energy firms hold leases on but choose not to produce from.
The problem with this plan is that U.S. energy firms hold leases on potential wells and deposits that often require a long period of time to survey. Some underwater deposits are unable to be exploited, at least until technology is improved (which generally takes years and sometimes decades). By forcing energy companies to "use it or lose it," the government will discourage careful surveying and most likely run off the energy firms from the deposits by attempting to force them to develop currently uneconomical fields. Unless the U.S. government develops a state-owned energy company willing to tap and produce from fields for a loss, there is no point in taking leases away from energy firms.
The 'Smart Grid'
Ultimately the most significant change to America's energy usage and efficiency may be the retooling of the entire electricity grid and transforming it into a so-called "smart grid." This is essentially an amalgamation of modern technologies in the distribution and supply of electricity. It uses digital technology (such as digital electricity readers, which would replace manual readers) to coordinate supply and demand of electricity across the nation. It combines more efficient distribution of electricity to consumers with advanced long-distance transmission lines that would be able to take alternative energy sources (such as wind power) to electricity markets far away.
As such, a smart grid would introduce two-way communication between energy suppliers and consumers, allowing utilities to direct power more efficiently away from low-energy users to high-energy users depending on the time of day or need. It would also give consumers more room to create their own usage preferences by actually programming how (and when) their appliances use energy. The smart grid would also regulate electricity use of homes and businesses by being able to turn off appliances that are not being used during peak times.
The concept is simple enough and would update America's electricity infrastructure (currently running on technology not much different from its nascent stages in the 19th century) to a modern digital consumer/provider system. However, such a national grid would necessitate replacing all of America's electricity meters, as well as all transmission lines and all transformer stations, a project with a likely price tag of somewhere near $200 billion. The current stimulus package, however, commits only $4.5 billion to a smart-grid upgrading of some 3,000 miles of transmission lines and equipping about 40 million homes with "smart meters." This funding will not be enough to begin a serious overhaul of America's electricity transmission network. It is more an attempt to kick-start industry and private businesses and move them toward an eventual retooling.
Posts
