India Plans Another 78.7 Gigawatts Of Capacity In Five Years Ending In 2012, Nearly All From Coal

[hatrack]

EDIT

Coal is seen as the solution to the country's power shortage, a daunting barrier to development where massive rural poverty means people cannot afford costly electricity produced from renewable sources. Last year, the country faced a 16.6 percent shortfall during hours of peak consumption and a 9.9 percent gap for energy generation, World Bank figures show.

The country has 10 percent of the world's coal reserves, the biggest after the United States, Russia and China, but it also imported about 70 million tonnes of high grade coal this fiscal year, mostly for making steel.

The country plans to add 78.7 gigawatts of power generation during the five years ending March 2012, most of it from coal, which now accounts for about 60 percent of India's energy mix.

In comparison, renewables such as wind, solar and bio-mass contribute only 8.8 percent to generation and, though there are plans to scale up solar power generation to 20 gigawatts by 2022, it depends on international finance and technology.

EDIT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091207/india_nm/india445144

[FreakinDJ]

1. Didn't India and China just pledge to Cut Carbon Emissions

Oh I see - we should realise they will cut carbon emissions ONLY if America pays for it
:sarcasm:

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. No, actually, they didn’t

They made the same sort of pledge the Bush administration did. (i.e. a cut in “carbon intensity.”)
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070514-3.html

…

So the President has had an integrated energy policy from the very beginning that, in fact, would have addressed a lot of these things, and he continues to do this. He understands the energy business and so, as a consequence, is trying to come up with ways that give us greater independence and greater capacity and a greater ability to develop in a clean way. One of the other things, if you take a look at this administration's record, we have got -- what the President talked about was reducing the pollution intensity, the hydrocarbon intensity in terms of emissions. We've done a better job of that than anybody else in the world. We've put $12 billion into developing cleaner and cheaper and more reliable energy sources since the President has been in office; $35 billion into studies to take a look not only at the problem, but how to address it.

…

MR. SNOW: Again, the President's position has been pretty clear on this, and what he's really looking at is effective ways of trying to cut emissions. The market-based approach seems to work. Again, if you take a look at what the United States has done in terms of reducing carbon intensity, we've done a better job than anybody else in the world. So the President's position is still the same.

Q So the answer is, no, he's not interested in the approaches such as the allies seem to be interested in --

MR. SNOW: There are going to be conversations I'm sure about a whole variety of approaches. What the President has said all along is, let's figure out ways to engage and also invest in technology, because ultimately what you're really talking about is a change in technology not only in terms of what is affective as an energy source, but also how you utilize it. And that goes everywhere from clean coal to nuclear power to biofuels to hydrogen cells -- the whole bit.

…

[FreakinDJ]

6. Then what is this article in TIME

China's Pledge on Carbon Emissions: Is It Enough?

Just one day after the White House announced that President Barack Obama would attend the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen and pledge to cut carbon emissions, the Chinese government issued a similar decision: that Premier Wen Jiabao would arrive at the upcoming U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen with a target on carbon emissions reductions in hand

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1943912,00.html#ixzz0Z3LIl3PJ

Not that I beleive they will ever do "Jack Shit"

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Did you read the article? (or just the headline?)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1943912,00.html#ixzz0Z3LIl3PJ

…

But it is important to understand what exactly Beijing is promising — and what it's not. China has not pledged to make an absolute cut in its emissions levels, but rather, a 40% to 45% cut in its "carbon intensity" by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. Carbon intensity is basically another term for energy efficiency; it is a measure of how much carbon is required to produce a given amount of economic output. Even if China succeeds in improving carbon intensity, Chinese greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow for some time, as the Chinese economy itself will be growing. It's not clear from the pledge how large China's emissions will be by 2020, but if the country's economy continues to grow at its typical 8% to 12% annual rate, its carbon emissions could nearly double between now and then. Those levels would still be lower than without China's pledge, but it still means Beijing will be the world's top carbon polluter for years ahead.

…

[joshcryer]

10. China may show leadership on climate change and big business may be the answer.

Haven't you been reading E&E? ;)

[pscot]

3. I sppose it would be politically incorrect

to suggest we launch an all-out missile attack to take out all coal fired generation plants, world wide. No nukes, of course. It wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it might give us a little breathing room. And it would certainly help concentrate world attention.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Would we launch the first strikes in the United States?

(Just curious…)

[pscot]

5. Absolutely

Fair is fair.

[joshcryer]

11. Hansen is for direct action against these pollutors.

I say take it a bit further, but I won't outright say what is necessary just in case someone is stupid enough to do it.

[pscot]

15. +1

If I divulged my real secret plan to end global warming, the PC police would tar and feather me.

[glitch]

8. Well isn't that just spiffy.

We are the fruit fly of the mammalian world.

[joshcryer]

12. Makes their 15GW of nuclear in 10 years look pitiful.

This is outrageous. But, of course, China brings online about 52GW of coal a year going by past trends, so it's about right...

[Gregorian]

9. The world is still growing! Doesn't anyone get it?

I don't care how many people abandon their F-350's and start driving Priuses, it isn't going to help.

I'm continuing to ask just who and what it is going to take in order to actually turn things around. The anwswer is very simple. Nothing is going to change. People are making their own environments, building machines to move them around, and an entire myriad of other things that comprise the very modern existence that we are going to continue living. No one is going to start taking cold showers. Few are going to abandon their cars.

Carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for a century. If every human stopped burning fuel right now, we would still be in deep trouble for the next few decades. In other words, we either stop burning, and find a way to decrease co2 concentrations in the atmosphere, or else face the loss of the planet's climate regulation system.

We can't even agree on health care. Or global warming for that matter. My point being that to try and do something massive, in a hurry, just isn't going to happen.

Please let me be wrong.

[glitch]

13. Apparently not.

Evidently homo sapiens sapiens was nothing more than a cruel conceit.

And I am not just talking about India.

[pscot]

16. Homo sapiens demens

The clever but crazy hominid.

[Nihil]

14. You need to ask?

More and more evidence every day that very few people get it.