Are we really avoiding CO2 ?

Let’s keep this discussion limited to CO 2 (and not other greenhouse gases), for the sake of simplicity.

I would like to begin with stating one of the commonly used terms that we take for granted in the
energy sector – greenhouse gas emission reductions. The word ‘reduction’ somehow implies that we
are actually reducing the CO2 whereas the fact is that we are avoiding CO 2, not reducing it. That is, so
to speak, the state of global temperature and global warming would remain the same (not
decrease), if we avoided all future GHG emissions.

As George Carlin, one of my favorite comedians once said:

However, this is not a discussion on the correctness of semantics or language, but isn’t it interesting
that commonly agreed and commonly understood things are more often than not, misunderstood.

Another common phrase/concept/idea that we usually agree on – by increasing the use of

renewable energy we are at least avoiding, if not reducing CO 2 emissions.

But are we?

You might think this is simply a preposterous proposition. But let’s do a simple back of envelope
calculation.

So, let’s do a comparison of three type of power plants and see how much CO 2 are we really
avoiding…

So, all I’ve done here is to copy the first row of a table from a report 1 on ultra super critical2 coal
technology (this is a US based study, but we are not going into the accuracy of data)

Sub-critical Super-critical Ultra super critical

CO2 emissions, 900 851 836
kg/MWH

1
Table 6, Page 59. Retrieved from
https://www.asminternational.org/documents/10192/3298473/05319G_Sample_BuyNow.pdf/99adedbd-
fc0e-4ff7-a650-5e2ad0210103
2
AFAIK, India does have super-critical technology, ultra critical is under development in India
Compare this to emissions from say, solar PV  0 (for the sake of simplicity let’s ignore lifecycle
emissions from Solar PV).

Let’s assume a 100 MW Sub-critical coal plant, 100 MW Ultra Super-critical coal plant and 100 MW
solar plant.

Looking at the above data, we have:

For using ultra super-critical coal: 900-836 = 64 kg/MWH avoided or 64000 kg/MU avoided over sub-
critical thermal.

For solar PV, we have: 900-0 = 900 kg/MWH avoided or 900000 kg/MU avoided over sub-critical
thermal.

Units generated by 100 MW ultra-supercritical over 25 years: 100 MW x 85% x 8760 x 25 = 18615
MU

Units generated by 100 MW solar PV over 25 years: 100 MW x 23% x 8760 x 25 = 5037 MU

CO2 avoided over lifetime:

Ultra supercritical coal: 18615 x 64000 kg = 1191360 tonnes

Solar PV: 5037 x 850000 kg = 4533300 tonnes

Or in other words, a whopping 6.5 times more CO 2 emissions would be avoided if we simply installed
A 100 MW ultra super-critical coal plant in place of a 100 MW solar PV plant. Or in other words, the
Solar PV would have to be of 650 MW in order to avoid CO 2 that would have been avoided by 100
MW of ultra supercritical coal.

On top of it, renewable power is infirm and adds variability to the grid. Despite achieving grid parity,
renewables are given subsidies, benefits in transmission such as ISTS waiver, green corridor and
what-not. Is such differential treatment really justified?

Arun Mehta

VIIIth Batch, NPTI (MBA-PM)

P.S. I may be completely wrong, and I do hope so.

P.P.S: This is a complete work of fiction and has no relation to the author’s profession. The views
presented may be completely treated as non-professional and may even be discarded as a poor
joke.