Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Even dirty coal is possibly better than dirty diesel and petrol. Yes, its dirty: what kind of remediation can be done in a centralized generator, compared to distributed catalytic converters in exhaust (which fail in service, or are not fitted) and a huge burden in NO and related problems.

Coal is bad, polluting, creates health hazards and we need to get rid of it. Petrol and Diesel are not "better" and there are reasons central generation may overall be net beneficial especially given the efficiency of generation, transmission losses and in-engine effects comparing ICE to EV

View on HN

India has an ambitious goal of generating 175GW from renewable sources by 2022. There are various solar power plants coming up all over the country.

Source: https://www.niti.gov.in/reports [Line item 6]

PS: NITI is the apex advisory body to the Indian Govt.

India also investing smartly in the nuclear technology, while less smart governments ditching it.

a governments smartness is defined by its investment in nuclear energy? why are renewables not a smart investment?

You still need to generate base load, only hydro out of the three renewables is good with base load, and no, batteries are not a replacement for base load generation. Pumped storage is, but it's pretty inefficient and requires the right physical siting to build.

Base load is a misnomer. Nowadays people talk about dispatchable power. base load is an economic forcing function to justify high efficiency "always-on" generation models. Nobody actually wants this, as much as they want power when they need it. Synchronous condensers, PH, and fast response batteries with some topping up from gas turbines could be as good. Base power is just the low engineering effort answer.

There are other answers than "base load"

A good grid, batteries and power-to-gas is a replacement for base load generation.

That's a remarkable commitment. In 2016, NDTV said that India produced 300GW, of which 42GW was renewable. So, the 175GW goal adds 3 times as much. Even 50GW of that going to transportation ... whew!

NITI's report (2015)* says there are still 300M people without electricity, but that "India’s solar potential is greater han 750 GW and its announced wind potential is 302 GW". A fine demonstration of what foresight, will and technical capability can accomplish.

* https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/energy/175-GW-Re...

Dirty coal and the inefficiencies associated with generating electricity, then storing it in lead-acid batteries and then turning an e-rickshaw is definitely less efficient and far more polluting than autorickshaws running on CNG.

OK, I'll bite. Cite please. Include full lifecycle costs on CNG, including fracking and shipping.

Here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti...

Even with all those losses, the electric vehicle road trip is still better for the climate than driving a gasoline-powered car. Burning that much coal would release about 310 kilograms of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, compared with 350 kilograms by the 40 gallons of gasoline. Even though coal tends to emit more pollutants than oil for the amount of energy it generates, the efficiency of the electric vehicle, which recharges its battery with every brake, more than makes up the difference.

But.. the article doesn't say "CNG is better" It just says the worst-case costs in the US, for coal sourced power to charge the batteries.

In India, most of the total power used is generated by coal. And yes, natural gas beats coal-powered electricity.

Only if you disregard how natural gas is made. Fracking, and fugitive gas, and transport costs you don't seem to care about make CNG and LNG highly suspect.

Not to mention while CNG is better than gasoline which is way better than diesel. Small internal combustion engines produce large amounts of air pollution.

And there's no cost to mining coal? It also can't be transported through a pipeline like gas can.

Parent didn’t mention petroleum or diesel, just CNG.

CNG has much less pollution than those two things, but emits the same amount of CO2 (in concern of global warming).

Fugitive gas from CNG is a thing. CNG comes from fracking, which wreaks havoc on the water table. You aren't considering the supply chain costs of CNG, but you implicitly do include them for coal, which comes from equally polluting sources.

NG is a byproduct of oil drilling. You either pipe and distribute to do work or burn it off. The former is much better environmentally than the latter.

Countries with local NG supplies, especially developing ones, really should use them.

You really think all CNG comes from oil? CNG comes from shale rock-oil, and from in-ground burning of coal to encourage methane production. Any developing economy with access to cheap power should use it, but don't pretend it has no downsides. East Timor is struggling to modernise with a huge oil field offshore and revenue, the story is not all rosy.

Is that the case in India? I worked in the Canadian oil industry and most gas wells were dedicated hydrofractured wells - better for the air but way worse for ground water. I'd advise caution about hydrofracturing to any area that doesn't have an excess of water available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com