Pakistan Leads South Asia in Clean Energy

[RiazHaq]

As the Copenhagen climate change summit gets underway, India is facing the reality of being a major polluter in the world mainly because of extensive use of coal as source of energy for its economy. Pakistan, on other hand, relies more heavily on natural gas for energy and uses very little coal, in spite of having large deposits of it in Sind province. South Asia is among the regions that will be most heavily affected by climate change.

At 8 feet below sea level, Pakistan's financial capital Karachi shows up on the list of world's mega-cities threatened by global warming. Other South Asian cities likely to come under rising sea water in the next 100 years include Mumbai, Kolkata and Dhaka.

However, it's not just the big cities in South Asia that will feel the brunt of the climate change. The rural folks in India are already seeing rising crop failures, increasing poverty and frequent farmer suicides.

Haq's Musings: Pakistan Leads South Asia in Use of Clean Energy

Haq's Musings: Climate Change Worsens Poverty in India

 

[Red Dwarf]

This post is misleading. You are blaming India for the climate change by ignoring the main culprits such as China, US and EU. China is the country which uses bulk of the coal in the world. Majority of their power plants are coal based and they are no 1 miners too.

 

[Dawkins]

Clean Energy? Sort of, around a third of the emissions lesser than coal. Its nowhere as clean as wind/solar, and India is promising on both. Looking at the nuclear pacts India has signed, it is certainly investing in nuclear energy which is carbon free. Further, India's main source in the future (some decades from now) will be thorium.

Both US & China heavily rely on coal & both contribute around a fourth of the total CO2 emissions worldwide (i.e. each 5 times of India). The major disputes in Copenhagen involve either or both of them.

 

[k7x]

ahh here again; why are you guys comaring with Inida again....

Inida is billion Plus. and has less Natural Gas than pakistan.

it is as simple as that. you have it you are using it.

And for your kind info using CNG is not a green energy or renewable energy ...

Wind water and sun are renewable energy. even nuke energy is also clean energy as it doent produce co2.

buring natrul gas prduce co2 but not corbon particals, co and other ashes.

By 2030 india wants to have 6000 mg wt from nuke energy .. and now itself we have around 15000 or so mgw of wind enegy and in future we will have a lot.

google Tamil nadu wind farms. it is second largest wind enegy producing state in the world

 

[PAFAce]

Interesting topic. Pakistan relies mostly on Hydro and Natural Gas, which are far cleaner than Coal or Oil for producing energy. Pakistan also uses nuclear (two plants). This makes Pakistan's energy production quite clean, but it is not by choice, but by chance. For all practical purposes, these are the only real solutions to the clean energy problem, because as any engineer will tell you, people who talk about using wind and solar to replace Coal and Oil don't know what they are talking about.

Wind energy is naturally limited to ~70% efficiency, that is, if the wind turbine itself functions at 100% efficiency (impossible), the most you will get out of it is just over two thirds the energy it takes to turn the blades. Wind energy is also very unreliable, and depends highly on the location and wind conditions. Wind power plants cannot be situated near densely populated areas because there isn't much wind there. Ideally, you would want your wind plants to be situated on high ground or out in the sea. However, this will add to the transmission costs, not to mention that wind power plants require a lot more infrastructure and provide irregular energy.

Solar has even more problems. It is the most expensive type of energy producing method today, and it is damn near impossible to produce enough energy to power a small town using solar alone. It also has the irregularity problems of wind power.

Nuclear and Natural Gas still have polluting issues. The extraction of nuclear material to be used in plants, and then the disposal of nuclear waste, are some of the dirtiest businesses around. Environmentalists do not like the idea of nuke power at all, but for me and many other engineers, it is the only short-term solution to the problem of increasing pollution due to energy production.

Considering this, at least in the short term, Pakistan should pursue an energy program based primarily on Hydro, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Geothermal and Coal (all of which we have in abundance, by the Grace of Allah). Yes, we should increase the use of Coal because it makes no sense to not use the great Coal resources of Sindh. Using Coal plants to generate, say, less than a quarter of the energy required, and exporting the rest, will be extremely beneficial to our economy and society. Even if Coal were to power 50% of homes in Pakistan, we still would not be contributing to the pollution to the region significantly, mainly because India and China, out neighbors, are the leading polluters in the world today. China has shown willingness to control its accelerated pollution (which is being hailed by environmentalists all over the world), but India is yet to show such an initiative.

Here is my rough guess of the direction our energy program should be heading focusing on:

Hydro: This is already being used quite a bit. Punjab has been gifted with 5 rivers, we can make the most use of these resources by settling our issues with India and using their power producing potential to the max. Hydro plants are probably the cleanest practical way of producing energy, if you can design them well enough, that is.

Geothermal: We have a pretty long coastline. Geothermal is still an experimental way of producing energy, but I personally see huge gains to be made. It utilizes the heat stored deep within the Earth to boil water, which in turn rotates turbines, which in turn produce AC current. It required quite a bit of investment, but once you have dug deep enough, it's pretty much running-cost only. The heat is provided by the Earth, all you have to do is ensure your plants are functioning properly. This would be a viable option for producing energy for lower Sindh and Karachi, and even Gawadar. I think it's an idea worth exploring.

Coal and Natural Gas: Like I said, we have an abundance of these resources. For all internal areas of Pakistan, including Sarhad, Northern Balochistan, Northern Sindh, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. this will be a viable option.

Nuclear: This is very important for more than one reasons. Increased use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is not only great for our image and trade, but will make us a responsible nuclear power. We should be able to produce nuclear plants on our own, without external help, if we want to maximize this potential. These plants can be used to power relatively less dense areas (for security reasons) all over Pakistan, including Western Punjab, Western Sindh, Eastern Sarhad and Eastern Balochistan. We shouldn't build any of these close to the border regions, for obvious reasons.

Edit
Some people here are delusional. India will never rely on wind or solar to produce most of its energy, stop trying to use that to claim that you are "green". Like I've said above, nobody in their right minds would recommend large-scale production of energy using wind and solar. Also, nuclear energy is not clean. If you consider the life-cycle of nuclear fuel you will realize that, everything considered, nuclear is pretty damn dirty itself. But like I said, it's our only reasonable short-term (next 50 years) solution. Natural Gas is also a viable option for the short term.

 

[AstanoshKhan]

This post is misleading. You are blaming India for the climate change by ignoring the main culprits such as China, US and EU. China is the country which uses bulk of the coal in the world. Majority of their power plants are coal based and they are no 1 miners too.

The post is about South Asian countries and since when China, US and EU became part of South Asia.

Pakistan will definitely win the clean climate award every year unless and until they fixed the load-shedding problem all over the country and Pakistan is far away from producing energy by other means? Coal, Solar, Wind turbines etc so no chance of climate damage. Just clean and pure environment. and this is why we are different...

 

[EjazR]

If only we could discover controlled Nuclear Fusion technology, that would be the end of energy problems for ever

 

[Dawkins]

Edit
Some people here are delusional. India will never rely on wind or solar to produce most of its energy, stop trying to use that to claim that you are "green". Like I've said above, nobody in their right minds would recommend large-scale production of energy using wind and solar. Also, nuclear energy is not clean. If you consider the life-cycle of nuclear fuel you will realize that, everything considered, nuclear is pretty damn dirty itself. But like I said, it's our only reasonable short-term (next 50 years) solution. Natural Gas is also a viable option for the short term.

Wind and Solar can power a good amount of our energy requirements. Look up on Desertec for instance:

 

[jeypore]

If only Organic Food was really Organic also!!! Isn't that important, since it is not!!!!

 

[New Shivaji]

. China has shown willingness to control its accelerated pollution (which is being hailed by environmentalists all over the world), but India is yet to show such an initiative.

This is factually wrong

India to reduce carbon intensity by 24% by 2020
Chine to reduce carbon intensity by 40% by 2020

Source : India to reduce carbon intensity by 24% by 2020 | Environment | guardian.co.uk

 

[RobbieS]

As the Copenhagen climate change summit gets underway, India is facing the reality of being a major polluter in the world mainly because of extensive use of coal as source of energy for its economy. Pakistan, on other hand, relies more heavily on natural gas for energy and uses very little coal, in spite of having large deposits of it in Sind province. South Asia is among the regions that will be most heavily affected by climate change.

At 8 feet below sea level, Pakistan's financial capital Karachi shows up on the list of world's mega-cities threatened by global warming. Other South Asian cities likely to come under rising sea water in the next 100 years include Mumbai, Kolkata and Dhaka.

However, it's not just the big cities in South Asia that will feel the brunt of the climate change. The rural folks in India are already seeing rising crop failures, increasing poverty and frequent farmer suicides.

Haq's Musings: Pakistan Leads South Asia in Use of Clean Energy

Haq's Musings: Climate Change Worsens Poverty in India

Your statements against India lack context. India is much bigger country than Pakistan and hence its energy needs are bigger too.

Besides India doesn't have reliable deposits of natural gas or petroleum to support its domestic energy needs. But India does have huge deposits of coal in eastern India. India has been using these reserves since ages. Its only now that the question of climate change has occurred. It would be foolish to suddenly stop using all the coal and concentrate on cleaner fuels without thinking about the consequences to our economy.

 

[PAFAce]

This is factually wrong

India to reduce carbon intensity by 24% by 2020
Chine to reduce carbon intensity by 40% by 2020

Source : India to reduce carbon intensity by 24% by 2020 | Environment | guardian.co.uk

No it is factually correct, even if you don't like it. China had promised to slow the acceleration of its green-house gas emissions by more than 50% in the next decade, and this was before the Copenhagen summit. A similar initiative was not shown by India. China also said that it will impose emission restrictions on industries and businesses operating in high density areas, and will adopt a stricter national environmental policy. This is also something not seen in India. China has shown far more initiative when it comes to curbing greenhouse gas emissions than India has, in fact, my buddy in environmental sciences says that China has been cooperating for a while now. It's the other countries, like India, Brazil, Canada etc. that are reluctant.

Wind and Solar can power a good amount of our energy requirements. Look up on Desertec for instance:

FKmUALFRhhs[/media] - Made in Germany | Desertec - Electricity from the Desert for Europe

If you watch the video, you'll realize that all it discusses is whether it is possible to produce energy from the sun or not. It doesn't look at it from an engineering or an economic point of view, only through the point of view of Physics. Of course it can be done, just like man could go to Pluto if we wanted to today, but the question is do we need or want to.

This project doesn't discuss practicality or alternatives. The area he highlighted on the map may look small, but it is in fact vast. The estimated capital required to just build this thing is estimated to be 400 Billion (Dollars or Euros, I forget which). The Andasol Power Plant in Spain produces just 11 Megawatts, by comparison, the nuclear plant I worked on, ACR-1000, produces 1000 Megawatt Electric, and it also doesn't require to be put in some massive desert with huge transmission infrastructure, it fits into the current ones. And of course, like I said, solar power is irregular and is very maintenance intensive. Geothermal is a far more practical solution than solar, in my opinion.

So, I ask you, which would you rather spend your money on?

 

[New Shivaji]

No it is factually correct, even if you don't like it. China had promised to slow the acceleration of its green-house gas emissions by more than 50% in the next decade, and this was before the Copenhagen summit. A similar initiative was not shown by India. China also said that it will impose emission restrictions on industries and businesses operating in high density areas, and will adopt a stricter national environmental policy. This is also something not seen in India. China has shown far more initiative when it comes to curbing greenhouse gas emissions than India has, in fact, my buddy in environmental sciences says that China has been cooperating for a while now. It's the other countries, like India, Brazil, Canada etc. that are reluctant.

Every country is trying to reduce it carbon emmission based on the targets achievable without affecting the economy.

India's 25% reduction of carbon emmissions by 2020 is a good figure.


India's per captia carbons emmission is very low and the efforct made to reduce by 25% is huge.

Country Total Emissions
(Million metric tons of CO2) per Captia
(Tons/capita)

1. China 6017.69 4.58
2. United States 5902.75 19.78
3. Russia 1704.36 12.00
4. India 1293.17 1.16
5. Japan 1246.76 9.78
6. Germany 857.60 10.40
7. Canada 614.33 18.81
8. United Kingdom 585.71 9.66
9. South Korea 514.53 10.53
10. Iran 471.48 7.25
11. Italy 468.19 8.05
12. South Africa 443.58 10.04
13. Mexico 435.60 4.05
14. Saudi Arabia 424.08 15.70
15. France 417.75 6.60
16. Australia 417.06 20.58
17. Brazil 377.24 2.01
18. Spain 372.61 9.22
19. Ukraine 328.72 7.05
20. Poland 303.42 7.87

 

[Red Dwarf]

What are the ways by which carbon emission can be reduced. In the case of automobiles i think majority of the vehicles producing today is as per some Euro emission standard. I don't know the case about factories and other polluting areas.

Is there any funding available to countries so as to implement it or the government has to find its own money.

What about the economy. How much will the carbon emission reduction process affect the economy.

 

[Dawkins]

No it is factually correct, even if you don't like it. China had promised to slow the acceleration of its green-house gas emissions by more than 50% in the next decade, and this was before the Copenhagen summit. A similar initiative was not shown by India. China also said that it will impose emission restrictions on industries and businesses operating in high density areas, and will adopt a stricter national environmental policy. This is also something not seen in India. China has shown far more initiative when it comes to curbing greenhouse gas emissions than India has, in fact, my buddy in environmental sciences says that China has been cooperating for a while now. It's the other countries, like India, Brazil, Canada etc. that are reluctant.

Ur comparing chalk & cheese, China's CO2 emissions are 5 times that of India. To expect India to cut emissions as much as China would be absurd.

If you watch the video, you'll realize that all it discusses is whether it is possible to produce energy from the sun or not. It doesn't look at it from an engineering or an economic point of view, only through the point of view of Physics. Of course it can be done, just like man could go to Pluto if we wanted to today, but the question is do we need or want to.

This project doesn't discuss practicality or alternatives. The area he highlighted on the map may look small, but it is in fact vast. The estimated capital required to just build this thing is estimated to be 400 Billion (Dollars or Euros, I forget which). The Andasol Power Plant in Spain produces just 11 Megawatts, by comparison, the nuclear plant I worked on, ACR-1000, produces 1000 Megawatt Electric, and it also doesn't require to be put in some massive desert with huge transmission infrastructure, it fits into the current ones. And of course, like I said, solar power is irregular and is very maintenance intensive. Geothermal is a far more practical solution than solar, in my opinion.

So, I ask you, which would you rather spend your money on?

Desertec isnt a physics project, its a real plan. They mention 15% of EU demand initially since they have a practical approach on the project, not the theoretical square on the map that shows the area covered by the plant for EU/World demand.

The precise reason they choose deserts is because of the consistency of sunlight. Infact, most regions in India receive 300+ days of sunshine a year, one of the reasons i said it is a 'promising' source in my post, not the ultimate one.

The challenges you mentioned are there, and they are significant. Its my belief that they can be overcome to a good extent. Two important aspects : solar panel cost & power storage. There is significant research on these and i am hopeful on the significance of solar/wind power in the future. Look at the abundance of sunshine in most countries; the main component of solar panels i.e. silicon is plentiful around the earth.

Nuclear is king for the near future, no doubt about that. My point is, attaining a percentage of your energy by renewable means and working consistently on improving them is not a bad idea.

Geothermal : bloody awesome, if ur Iceland. I am not aware of its availability across the most populated or developed (hence pollutive) countries though.