Category
- Products
-
- Solar Energy
- FAQ
- Solar Photovoltaic
- Contact us
Inverter manufacturer
buy@inverter.co tech@inverter.co
Home » Solar Photovoltaic » Solar PV power
Solar PV power
220GW to 1000 GW addition (i.e the stupid Capacity Addition concept like IAS mind set) must be eliminated first. The argument must be based on Annual kWh / MWh / TWh addition with a clear break up of Energy Sources, because, Solar PV (only 1.6Mkwh / MW/year-INFIRM), Biomass(6.5Mkwh/MW/year), Thermal, Nuclear (7.5Mkwh/MW/year), Hydro, Wind(2Mkwh/Mw/year - INFIRM) etc.....
The T n D Loss is pegged at 30 to 45% of 220GW (need to know the kwh loss per shift to know the base load loss and peak load losses), this, if arrested will automatically add 25% of 220GW equivalent kwh in the system with immediate effect i.e around 50GW equivalent kwh, which is a great addition of revenue (this kwh is already consumed, hence, we can't treat it as kwh available to use), thus, DISCOMs will be positive in next few years, hence, subsidy will go away....
Another Stupidity of 1000 GW demand analogy needs an answer as to how many kwh needed during the hourly pattern of a day, which SMART GRID (SG) can find a quick answer, but, without SG also we can find this estimate. Which kind of Consumer base has been assumed to arrive at this Capacity of 1000GW (but, i insist kwh or Mwh need rather than MW capacity demand)
- Which kind of high energy Industries will be generated and with what time frame,
- What kind of per capita consumption is planned with increased population
- What kind of Energy consumption forecast to reduce the T n D losses
- How the additional Grid Capacity creation is assumed with its road map with investments tied up (??)
- What will be the paying capacity of the Consumers or huge subsidy is assumed and how the Economy is planned.
MW Capacity addition CONCEPT must be avoided, instead, with MW capacity additions, an immediate Mwh addition needs a mention as the INFIRM ENERGY (for peak or part of based load sharing concepts with good hybrid mix without short ckts or Grid failures) and FIRM ENERGY generation and deployment picture with TRANSPARENCY at the PLANNING COMMISSION level (an open document to attract the good comments from the Experts of the World will enable to avoid excess capacity creation or to plan Government Investment plans with Private participation with other associated resource allocations such as Coal (both for power, Steel and other sectors), Water, Creation roads etc..
Simple energy generation can't happen with our track record in pic, as it needs other INCLUSIVE GROWTH in consideration to plan the kwh addition through various energy resources with necessary compensation to the states to avoid the STUPID REC mechanism, which is paying money (ar rs. 21.kwh for solar PV) to PRIVATE PLAYERS who are not paying taxes through Accelerated Depreciation !!
At planning commission level, the states must be encouraged to develop power projects with the local energy resources available and compensate for high cost energy resources with a good percentage mix, which is applicable to all the states (i.e Coal 20%, Hydro 35%, Renewable (minus Nuclear) 35%, Nuclear 1% (no more nuclear), others 9% etc)..... Initially, this can be a different percentage till we really achieve higher Renewable......if a state produces more coal based power, it should pay for Solar PV (after coal trade off adjustment from other states etc), but, through State Budget fund allocation at Planning Commission based on Various energy resource mix based on the kwh consumption, thus, these power exchanges or private players need not LOOT Rs.15/kwh through REC, instead, it can be based on APPC cost with other clear definitions, which will be a pooled and average low cost as it reduces the transportation costs and transmission losses too, due to ONE NATION ONE GRID concept....Thus, the energy bill across all the states can also be thought of uniform with such transparent level playing field.
The T n D Loss is pegged at 30 to 45% of 220GW (need to know the kwh loss per shift to know the base load loss and peak load losses), this, if arrested will automatically add 25% of 220GW equivalent kwh in the system with immediate effect i.e around 50GW equivalent kwh, which is a great addition of revenue (this kwh is already consumed, hence, we can't treat it as kwh available to use), thus, DISCOMs will be positive in next few years, hence, subsidy will go away....
Another Stupidity of 1000 GW demand analogy needs an answer as to how many kwh needed during the hourly pattern of a day, which SMART GRID (SG) can find a quick answer, but, without SG also we can find this estimate. Which kind of Consumer base has been assumed to arrive at this Capacity of 1000GW (but, i insist kwh or Mwh need rather than MW capacity demand)
- Which kind of high energy Industries will be generated and with what time frame,
- What kind of per capita consumption is planned with increased population
- What kind of Energy consumption forecast to reduce the T n D losses
- How the additional Grid Capacity creation is assumed with its road map with investments tied up (??)
- What will be the paying capacity of the Consumers or huge subsidy is assumed and how the Economy is planned.
MW Capacity addition CONCEPT must be avoided, instead, with MW capacity additions, an immediate Mwh addition needs a mention as the INFIRM ENERGY (for peak or part of based load sharing concepts with good hybrid mix without short ckts or Grid failures) and FIRM ENERGY generation and deployment picture with TRANSPARENCY at the PLANNING COMMISSION level (an open document to attract the good comments from the Experts of the World will enable to avoid excess capacity creation or to plan Government Investment plans with Private participation with other associated resource allocations such as Coal (both for power, Steel and other sectors), Water, Creation roads etc..
Simple energy generation can't happen with our track record in pic, as it needs other INCLUSIVE GROWTH in consideration to plan the kwh addition through various energy resources with necessary compensation to the states to avoid the STUPID REC mechanism, which is paying money (ar rs. 21.kwh for solar PV) to PRIVATE PLAYERS who are not paying taxes through Accelerated Depreciation !!
At planning commission level, the states must be encouraged to develop power projects with the local energy resources available and compensate for high cost energy resources with a good percentage mix, which is applicable to all the states (i.e Coal 20%, Hydro 35%, Renewable (minus Nuclear) 35%, Nuclear 1% (no more nuclear), others 9% etc)..... Initially, this can be a different percentage till we really achieve higher Renewable......if a state produces more coal based power, it should pay for Solar PV (after coal trade off adjustment from other states etc), but, through State Budget fund allocation at Planning Commission based on Various energy resource mix based on the kwh consumption, thus, these power exchanges or private players need not LOOT Rs.15/kwh through REC, instead, it can be based on APPC cost with other clear definitions, which will be a pooled and average low cost as it reduces the transportation costs and transmission losses too, due to ONE NATION ONE GRID concept....Thus, the energy bill across all the states can also be thought of uniform with such transparent level playing field.
Post a Comment:
You may also like:
