From: krishna@seas.smu.edu (Sanjay Krishna)
Subject: Power/ Energy problems
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Science
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:05:35 GMT


  Dr. Srinivasan writes 

I thought the Nuclear and fossil power stations were installed
in states with poor hydro electric potential. If the production
from such plants were to be shared with those with higher hydro
potential, I suppose the hydro-electric production is also to be
shared.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never heard of such a reason for locating nuclear or fossil
power stations. The lignite power stations in TN are because of the 
presence of lignite ores. Nuclear power is established - well to be 
frank; by the lobbying power of a state. The other requirement is 
plenty of water to run off the waste. The Kaiga river is supposedly
always full. It is one of those hundreds of rivers in coastal Karnataka
which move towards the Arabian sea off the Sahyadris. Hydro-electricity
is Karnataka's main-stay. Infact 70 % of the energy output is from 
hydro-electricity. The Kaiga plant is well on its way to being completed.
For those of you concerned about the environment - there's bad news 
Shivaram Karanth was handed a crushing defeat in his constituency. 

Hydro-electricity is of course shared among states. Power output is shared 
among states from a given power station ONLY IF THE CENTRE INVESTS in the 
power station whatever type the plant is. The best example is the sharing
between Punjab, Haryana and Himachal of the power from the head in the 
Indus river located in HP. Electrical power is an extremely crucial input
to the development of any state. In India, states have complete control
of their energy plans. But when they ask the centre for money - they have 
to share it. Hydro-electricity is usually  environmentally more 
destructive . Thousands of acres are submerged. People have to relocated.
This costs more and the centre usually takes time to OK such a project 
for exactly this reason. The state turns to the centre for funds when 
people have to relocated. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That apart, this discussion would have lot more meaning, if the
figures for the following are presented.
Percapita kwh production for Karnataka:
Percapita kwh production for India:
Percapita kwh production for the TN:
Could Sanjay Krishna find out these figures, if he can please?
--------------------------------------------------------------

I do not have the figures for any period of time. Per- capita kwh production 
is not a "constant" figure. I mean - no one can come up and say that 
Karnataka has a per capita production of so many kwh. It makes sense only 
when the time period is mentioned. For instance, you could say that TN
had a per capita production of 250 kwh in 1989. In India, production of 
electricity fluctuates wildly and it goes up in the monsoon or flush period
since hydro-electricity generation goes up. It therefore varies from time to 
time. The other figure which also does not make sense - is installed capacity 
in the hope that the plants perform well. Together with this you can take in 
the states' average plant load factor ( PLF) and then that might give you 
a reasonable measure of power availibility of one state against another. I 
say that this also makes no sense because installed capacity is more like 
the MIPS or MFLOPS figures that computer manufacturers come up with these 
days. ( Gordon Bell wrote that these are speeds above which the computer can 
never run ! - and very rarely do they reach the stated MIPS ). I think I did
write the installed capacity of different southern states in my previous  
article.            

All in all, it is better to increase investment in power, installed capacity.
The better availibility will accrue only when consumers demand better service 
from boards like KEB etc. The other way to go about doing it in the long run
is to conserve electricity. Some thing which Indians never recognize and 
just blame KEB or their state boards for inefficiency etc. There was a 
proposal once made by a group of environmentalists to ban incandesent lamps
and go in only for flourescent lamps. They had computed ( I know Dr. Reddy 
who headed the committee is an outstanding engineer) that it would be 
equivalent to a 500 MW plant. It met with a cold and an indifferent response
from Bangaloreans. They preferred instead to blast KEB. Inefficiency which is
the hall mark of all our electricity boards can be improved only when the 
city corporations or local councils ( like in the USA) make utilities as a
franchise and demand better services from companies. It is a long way off in 
India - but it must come immediately. KEB, KPC and the state are always going 
to find it profitable to supply power to industries, since they are not exempt
from lower tarrifs. What is more the gap between demand and supply is so 
very high and very few people want to invest in power that there appears no 
way out for the state to increase investment. The only way is to garner more
resources is to supply power to industries and tax them more. Almost all states
have shied away from imposing higher rates on the farm sector. We Indians also 
have this romantic notion that the " poor, suffering farmer" should not be 
taxed and it is blasphemous to even suggest that. In Bangalore in 1985 a unit
costed you 75 paise and in Mandya district it costed 10 paise !

There are people who keep saying that India has no hope - I usually do not 
agree. But when one studies the power or energy scenario -it is indeed scary !
India really does not have much hope in that sector ! and if I admit that-
I know deep down that without energy nothing can be achieved and therefore
India ........



Sanjay 
Newsgroups: alt.culture.karnataka