Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3defendus2 Epw
3defendus2 Epw
Development-Focused
Electricity Scenario for Karnataka
Amulya Kumar N Reddy
Gladys D Sumithra
P Balachandra
Antonette DWSa
The recent efforts at electricity planning in Karnataka, in particular the May 1987 report of the Committee
for preparing a 'Long Range Plan for Power Projects in Karnataka 1987-2000 AD' (LRPPP), are clear-cut ex-
amples of the failure of the conventional consumption-obsessed supply-biased approach to energy planning. This
paper presents an alternative scenario for Karnataka's electricity sector on the basis of the development-focused
end-use-oriented (DEFENDUS) paradigm.
The DEFENDUS scenario for energy demand and supply focuses on people-based development through the
promotion of energy services, identifying technological opportunities for better utilisation of energy through a
scrutiny of the end-uses of energy and adhering to a least-cost approach to the mix of energy supplies. Even though
the DEFENDUS scenario involves the illumination of all homes in Karnataka, an emphasis on employment-
generating industry, the energisation of all irrigation pumpsets up to the limit imposed by the groundwater poten-
tial and the establishment of decentralised rural energy centres in villages, it comes out with energy and power
requiremiients in the year 2000 which are only about 38 per cent and 42 per cent respectively,of the LRPPP demand.
[This paper has been published in two parts. The first part appeared last week.]
985
Economic and Political Weekly April 13, 1991
(1) estimation of the environmental case' until the demand for energy is the centralised, large-scalesupply projects
impact6W that technologies of saving or reached. of the LRPPP plan are 194 times (roughly
generating electricity have as a side- Alternatively, environmental impact- two ordersof magnitude)moreenvironmen-
effect apart from their electricaloutput, supply curvescan be plotted for the supply- tally harmful (from CO2 emissions, and
(2) ranking of all the energy technologies mixes of the DEFENDUS scenario and the thereforeglobal atmosphere,point of view)
relevant to the region (including the conventional plans. Figure 31 shows that than the components of the DEFENDUS
technologies of efficiency improvement what has been describedas the 'maximum! scenario.
and electricitysubstitution,decentralised cost plan require;the deployment of coal- Another conclusion is that whereas the
generation and centralised generation) based thermal power plants-this would low-energyrequirementDEFENDUS scena-
according to increasing environmental result in 2.401730 million tonnes of CO2 rio permits the environmentally risky
impact per unit electrical output, and emissions per year which is 152 times the technologiesto be avoided,the high-require-
(3) definition of the mix of technologiesby 0.015796 million tonnes of CO2 emissions ment LRPPP plan cannot do without these
starting with the technology with the per year of the DEFENDUS scenario. The harshtechnologies.Thus, as the energyand
least impact per unit of electrical out- greater environmental impact of conven- power requirementsdecrease,the necessity
put, moving to the technology with the tional plans also comes out from a com- of invokingthe environmentallymaligncen-
next higher impact when the energy parisonof the DEFENDUSscenarioand the tralisedtechnologies also decreases.On the
potential of the previous technology is LRPPP plan (Figure 32)-they would lead other hand, as the energy and power re-
exhausted,and continuingwith this pro- to d.015796and 3.057010million tonnes of quirements increase, the freedom with
cess of 'climbingthe impact-supplystair- CO2emissions per year, respectively.Thus, respectto the choice of energytechnologies
diminishes, and it becomes imperative to
FlOURt 16: DEVELOPMENTFocuS AND END-USE ORIENTATION choose the harshertechnologiessuchas coal-
(CONTRIBUTIONSTO DEMANDREDUCTIONvs 9%GROWTH) based thermal and nuclear power plants
(Figure 32).
25000 -- --
lPS 9 ? _ f \ X 2l~~~~~PS
/< __ r _ 3% # M NONAEH
~7N _ 5 ; 32% = =E C)OTHER
_ SWH CLT
LPG
WB -32%-
CL~2
3%
1%
I ra % _ _z _IT F lT
iiiiiH
Note: Contributions of various efficiency improvements and carrier Note: Contributions of various consumer categories to the reduction
substitutions to the reduction of 7,044 GWh/year in (consump- of 7,044 GWh/year. in (consumption) energy demand estimated
tion) energy demand estimated for the year 1999 achieved by the for the year 1999achieved by the centralisedDEFENDUS scenario
centralised DEFENDUS scenario (14,646 GWh/year) with respect (14,646 GWh/year) with respect to the Frozen Efficiency scenario
to the Frozen Efficiency scenario (21,690 GWh/year). (21,690 GWh/year).
Proposed El and ES Measure IB CF Other IB- CF -SWH -LPG Other FFV+ Conservation
H.DPE
Consumption subject to
conservation x 106 kWh 335 242 179 371 230 499
1986-87 connections x 106 * 2.39 2.39 .50 .50 .50 .50 .54 .18 1746 .42
1986-87 households (HH) x 106 $ 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13 7.13
Total no. of feasible wells x 106 1.54
1981-82 to 1986-87 growth rate per cent 8.26 8.26 17.16 17.16 17.16 17.16 10.00 10.35 5.05 13.50
1981-82 to 1986-87 growth
rate (HH) per cent 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Projected 1990-91 connections x 106 * 3.29 3.29 .94 .94 .94 .94 .78 .27 2126 .70
Projected 1990-91 households x 106 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71 7.71
Consumption norm (old) kWh/conn/yr 140 101 360 745 462 1002 2366 4974 3546342 533
Projected 1990-91 consumption x 106 kWh 460 332 337 699 434 940 1854 1324 7541 372 14293
1990-1991 share of consumption 3.22 2.33 2.36 4.89 3.04 6.58 12.97 9.26 52.76 2.60
Years for efficiency
improvement 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Saving per connection kWh/conn/yr 96 25 214 577 404 250 710 746 886585 80
Consumption norm (improved) kWh/conn/yr 44 76 146 168 58 751 1656 42282659756 453
1991-92
Old connections x lI06(ex.ht)* 2.63 2.63 .75 .75 .75 .75 .63 .21 1701 .56
No. of households x 10 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87 7.87
Consumption of old
connections x 106 kWh 368 266 270 559 347 752 1483 1059 6033 297
Replaced connections x106(ex.ht)* .66 .66 .19 .19 .19 .19 .16 .05 425 .14
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 29 50 27 32 11 141 259 225 1131 63
Growth rate in connections per cent 20 20 10 10 10 10 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * .66 .66 .09 .09 .09 .09 .06 .01 53 .09
Consumption of new
connections x 10" kWh 29 50 14 16 5 71 104 23 141 43
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 426 366 311 607 364 964 1846 1307 7305 403 13898
1992-93
Old connectibns x 106* 1.97 1.97 .56 .56 .56 .56 .47 .16 1276 .42
No. of households x 106 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03 8.03
Consumption of old
connections x 106 kWh 276 199 202 419 260 564 1112 794 4524 223
Replaced connections x 106* 1.31 1.31 .38 .38 .38 .38 .31 .11 851 .28
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 58 100 55 63 22 282 519 450 2262 126
Growth rate in connections per cent 20 20 10 10 10 10 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 1.45 1.45 .20 .20 .20 .20 .13 .01 108 .20
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 64 110 29 33 , 148 216 45 286 91
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 398 409 286 516 294 994 1847 1290 7073 441 13546
1993-94
Old connections x 106 * 1.31 1.31 .38 .38 .38 .38 .31 .11 851 .28
No. of households x 106 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19
Consumption of old
connections x 106 kWh 184 133 135 280 174 376 741 530 3016 149
Replacedconnections x 106 * 1.97 1.97 .56 .56 .56 .56 .47 .16 1276 .42
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 87 I50 82 95 33 423 778 675 3393 190
Growth rate in connections per cent 20 20 10 10 10 10 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 2.39 2.39 .31 .31 .31 .31 .20 .02 163 .32
(Contd)
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 105 181 45 52 18 233 337 69 435 146
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 376 464 262 426 225 1032 1857 1274 6844 484 13245
1994-95
Old connections x 106 * .66 .66 .19 .19 .19 .19 .16 .05 425 .14
No. of house holds x 106 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35
Consumption of old
connections x 106 kWh 92 66 67 140 87 188 371 265 1508 74
Replaced connections x 106 * 2.63 2.63 .75 .75 .75 .75 .63 .21 1701 .56
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 116 199 109 126 44 564 1038 900 4524 253
Growth rate in connections per cent 20 20 10 10 10 10 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 3.53 3.53 .44 .44 .44 .44 .28 .02 221 .46
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 155 268 63 73 25 327 468 93 587 208
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 363 534 240 339 156 1079 1876 1258 6620 536 13001
1995-96
Old connections x 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
No. of households x 106 8.52 8.52 8.52 8.52 8.52 8.52 .8.52 8.52 8.52 8.52
Consumption of old
connections x!O6kWh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Replaced connections x 106 * 3.29 3.29 .94 .94 .94 .94 .78 .27 2126 .70
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 145 249 137 158 55 705 1297 1125 5655 316
Growth rate in connections per cent 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 3.80 3.80 .49 .49 .49 .49 .37 .03 279 .62
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 167 288 71 82 29 369 609 117 743 279
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 312 538 208 240 83 1074 1906 1242 6399 595 12598
1996-1997
Replaced connections x 106 * 3.29 3.29 .94 .94 .94 .94 .78 .27 2126 .70
No. of house holds x 106 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69 8.69
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 145 249 137 158 55 705 1297 1125 5655 316
Growth rate in connections per cent 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 3.94 3.94 .52 .52 .52 .52 .46 .03 340 .79
Cbnsumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 174 299 76 87 30 390 761 142 903 360
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 318 548 212 245 85 1095 2059 1267 6559 676 13064
1997-1998
Replaced connections x 106 * 3.29 3.29 .94 .94 .94 .94 .78 .27 2126 .70
No. of house holds x 106 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 &Wh 145 249 137 158 55 705 1297 1125 5655 316
Growth rate in connections per cent 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 4.09 4.09 .55 .55 .55 .55 .56 .04 401 .99
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 180 310 80 92 32 412 926 167 1067 451
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 325 559 217 250 87 1117 2224 1293 6723 767 13560
1998-1999
Replaced connections x 106 * 3.29 3.29 .94 .94 .94 .94 .78 .27 2126 .70
No. of house holds x 106 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04 9.04
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 145 249 137 158 55 705 1297 1125 5655 316
Growth rate in connections per cent 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 4.24 4.24 .58 .58 .58 .58 .67 .05 464 1.22
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 186 321 84 97 34 434 1104 193 1235 554
Total consumption of all
connections x 106 kWh 331 571 221 255 89 1139 2402 1319 6891 870 14086
1999-2000
Replaced connections x 106 * 3.29 3.29 .94 .94 .94 .94 .78 .27 2126 .70
No. of house holds x 106 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22 9.22
Consumption of replaced
connections x 106 kWh 145 249 137 158 55 705 1297 1125 5655 316
Growth rate in connections per cent 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 2.5 13.5
New connections x 106 * 4.39 4.39 .61 .61 .61 .61 .78 .05 529 1.48
Consumption of new
connections x 106 kWh 193 333 89 102 36 457 1296 220 1407 672
Total con1sumlption1
of all
connection.s x 106 kWh 338 582 225 260 90 1162 2594 1345 7053 988 14646
Share of consumption per cent 2.31 3.97 1.54 1.77 .62 7.93 17.71 9.18 48.22 6.74 100.00
(Contd)
New connections X 106 *2.01 1.79 .37 Comparison with the LRPPP projection
Consumption of new MW requiredby LRPPP on
connections x16kWh 242 0 0 generation side MW 9397 9397
Total consumption of all MW generation saving vs LRPPP MW 5421 6102
connections x 106 kWh 451 0 o Saving vs LRPPP (in 470 MW
1996-1997 Kaiga Nuclear Plants) 11.53 12.98
wr n vaiant of it)thould be chosen if to back them. scenariosmay be difficultto impumt.but
rationalitypmled. But, energy decision- But, now the suppy lobby does not have the conventional plans are imod06ssble.
mpakntis not done on the basis of rationa- the capital to carrythrough its exorbitantly
lity alone;thereare powerfulvestedinterests expensiveschemes;Fuirther, the fundershave (Concluded)
that have grown along with the electrical an alternativescenarTib on the table which
will be workedout in ever-increasingdetail. Notes
supply irodustry. Hitherto, these vested
interests have ensured that only supply- Will these funding institutions be able to
rrhis paper is a revised and expanded version
biased strategiesare implemented.And, the resist the more cost-effective solutions that of Chapter 5 written by the authors in Octob<r
financial and aid institutions have gone are also moreenvironmentallysound and in 1988 for the Expert Group set up (under the
along with supply-biasedapproachespartly the interests of the people? The deciding chairmanship of L C Jain) by the governmeXt
Oecausethe opposing argumentshave been factor may well turn out to be the fact that of Karnatakato prepare a report that was en-
Dfthe hand-wavingvarietywithoutnumbers development-focused end-use-oriented titled Karnataka: Perspective Plan 20(1. That
FIGURE 31a: ENVIRONMENTAL NMIAcT-ENERGY CURVE Chapter 5 suffered from two major defects:
(1) demographic and other constraints were
ignored in constructing the demand scenano
and (2) the supply aspect of the problem was
| MAXIMUM LOST not addressed except for the mention of pro-
I ''5TX |
jects already in the pipelinc Both these defects
lw~~~~~~~~~~~~~' are sought to be removed in the prusent paper.
The authors wish to thank the Swedish inter-
national Development Authority for having
sponsored a pojecLon energy planning diur-
ing thecolurse of which this work was carried
w I
out.
z ~-
z < Eairter presentations of this work-in April
1989 at the Student Projects Programme
Seminar at the Siddaganga Institute ,of
Tlchnology, lbmkur, May 1989 at the Energy
e~ 12S ~~ 15. CQAL
CQAL20.0Q2MLL 25ONT275 and Resources Group, University of California
at Berkeley, in June 1989 at the World Bank,
/ YR LEAST
LOST September 1989 at the Green Energy Con-
10 ference,Montreal, and at the Centre for Enetgy
tO.~~~~~(0016
MILILION and Environmental Studies, Princeton Univer-
TPY)I sity, October 1989 at the Energy Research and
a3 Tiaining Centre,ChulalongkornUniversity,and
at the International Institute of Energy Con-
o I - L- I- servation at Bangkok, March 1990 at the
12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22. 5 27.5 Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian
25.0
Institute of Science, Bangalore, and the Institu-
TWH/YEAR tion of Engineers (India), Mysore Centre, April
Note. Comparisonof the envir8nmental impacts of the least-cost and 'maximum'-costapproaches 1990 at the Royal Swedish Academy of Scien-
to the planning of energy supplies to meet the Froen Efricincy energy goal of 26,613 ces, Stockholm, and the KarnatakaPower Cor-
GWh/year. poration, Bangalore; and June 1990, at the
World Bank, Washington, DC-have each
FIGURE 31b: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT-CAPACITY CURVES
helped in sharpening the arguments- and
7- -' therefore it is a pleasure to thank the organisers
of these presentations.
Finally, special thanks are due to many col-
leagues, in particular and in alphabetical order
V Balasubramanian, Hal Feiveson, John
lIoldren, K S Jagadish, Thomas B Johansson,
*EricLarson, H S Mukunda, B.G Raghavendra,
S G Ramachandra, Jayant Sathaye, T R Satish
TPY Chandran, D P Sen Gupta, Robert S Socolow,
u 3:-2.669MILLION J Srinivasan and Robert H Williams, who have
been generous with their encouragement.]
~ nd Political Weekly
aaomic April 13, 1991
Background Paper presented to the FIGURE32: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT-SANt) ENERGY COAI S
Economic and P)anning Council, govern-
ment of Karnataka, March 1983.
5 Reportof the Committee (popularly known
as the Three-Man Committee) constituted
by the Economic and Planning Council for
the 'Forecast of Energy Requirement and U') COAL
Availability to 1989- 90', Public Worksand ~ ~ ~ I
Electricity Department, government of
Karnataka, September 1983. --
6 Twelfth Electric Power Survey of India, ~l.0 30- 50
Central Electricity Authoritv. New Delhi,
March, 1985.
C)1
7 Energy Requirement up to 2001 AD, w w
z LI
Central Power Research Institute, 1987.
8 A Report on Long Range Plan for Power
Projects in Karnataka 1987-2000 AD
prepared by the Committee constituted by
the government of Karnataka headed by
S G Ramachandra, May 1987. I ~~~~w 3.057 MILLION
9 ThirteenthElectric Power Survey of India, GW/er an th RP la 4,2)Ghya)
Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi,
December, 1987.
10 Report of the Working Group on Energy
for the Eighth Five Year Plan-1990-95,
Planning Department, government of tO 20 30 40 50
Karnataka,' presented at the seminar on TWH /YEAR
'Karnataka'sEighth Five-YearPlan Perspec-
tive', Institute for Social and Economic Note: Comparisonof the environmental of the energy
impAgtslikelyfromthe implementation
Change, Bangalore 560 072, November requirementscorrespondingto the DEFENDUS Frozen Efficiencyscenario (26,613
16-17 1989. GWh/y~aY)and the LRPPP plan (47,520GWh/year).
11 Antonette D'Sa, Gladys D Sumithra and 13 (a) The abnormally high projection of to lighting loads. The AEH category has a
A K N Reddy, 'A Critical Review of Exer- 76,744 GWh/year of the CPRI has been tariff in which there is a flat rate of Rs 3
cises to Forecast Electrical Energy Demand excluded from this grouping. (b) Instead of per month per kilowatt of connected load
for Karnataka' (in preparation). the internationally accepted unit of GWh (subject to a minimum of Rs 12/instal-
12 (a)The 'abnormally' high projection of or gigawatt hours (= 10.9 watt hours = lation/month) in addition to energy charges
76,744 GWh/year has been excluded in this 10.6 kWh), Indian and Karnataka discus- of Rs 0.75 per kWh. It is the mo'1eaffluent
grouping into.three categories. (b) In order sions on electricity use the unit MU as an homes that have AEH connections whereas
to use the same year for comparing all the abbreviation for million units, i e, million the low-income groups have non-AEH
planning exercises, it is necessary to extra- kWh. connections.
polate many of the projections beyond the 14 The all-electric home (AEH) category in- 15 What is being stressed here is the fact that
planning horizon to which they restricted volves a 15 ampere connection that permits the projection depends on assunptions; the
themselves. Whereversuch an extrapolation both lighting and heating loads, in contrast validity of the assumptions is not being
has been made, a clear indication to that to the non-AEH category with an upper questioned.
effect has been provided in Table 1. limit of 5 amperes that.corresponds mainly 16 Throughout this paper, reference to a year
Appendix 2
ELECTRICITY-GDP ELASTICITIES (GROWTH RATE RATIOS) AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT RE?QUIRE1MENTS
If E is the electricity demand (in MW) and G, the gross domestic product (GDP), then
E = A * Ga or log E = log A + a * log G
where, d log E
ewd
log GE= a, the GDP elasticity of Electricity Demand.
If E(t) and E(0) are the installed capacities at times t and 0, G(t) and G(O), the GDPs at times t and 0, g[- and g(., the growtn rates of electricai
capacity and of GDP, and if
E(t) = E(0) * (I + g9)d and G(t) = G(O) * (I +
then E(t) = (I + g9)d = G(t)a = [(1 + g.),]a
E(0) G(0)
If t = 1, then (I + gE) = (1 + gG)a.
But, (I + x)" 1 + nx, and therefore
I + g= + (a * or
E= a g,. or a
* (gr/g) = - ratio of growth rates. The annual investment required for the electricity sector is
I= E(O)* a* g(* UCOP
= E(O)* g* UCOP
where UCOP is the unit cost of power (Rs/kW).
If E(0) = 600 GW, g 0.06 (6 per cent) and the UCOP 52,777/kW, the annual investment required for electricitv sector would be $100
billion/year-this was the number presented by the World Bank at the 14th Congress (September 1989) of the World Energy Coniferenceas the
annual investment requested by the developing countries for capacity expansion in their electricity sectors.
The govetument of India's VIII Plan proposal for Rs 100,000 crore tor an electrical capacity expansion of 38,000 MW corresponds to
E(O) = 58,200 MW, 9E = 0.1057 (10.57 per cent) and a UCOP of Rs 2&,316ik' or S1840/k' in the above expression for the annual investment
required for electricity sector.
AEH-563,981, Commercial-446,643,
Industrial-195,618 and IPsets- 557,162.
lkking 5.8 persons per domestic connection,
i e, the average number of persons in a 2500 -
Karnatakahousehold, 18.17 million people
benefited from electricity supplied to
homes. In addityon, it can be considered
that the 446,643 connections to commercial
establishments benefit all the 1.00 million
people in the commercial sector, the 195,618
industrial connections, the 1.31 million
people in the industrial sector, the 557,162
itrigation pumpsets, an equal number of
farmers plus 80 per cent of the agricultural
workforce (i e, 0.46 million agricultural
labourers). In all, therefore, only 21.5 1000 -L . L L
million people (or 50.7 per cent of the 42.4 o l- 0o (0' ' OD
milliop .1988 population) in Karnataka
benefit directly from its electricity.
31 A K N Reddy and Gladys D Sumithra(with
the assistance of P Balachandra, C V Ravi, Note: The year-wisevariationof the connectedload (watts/pumpset)and energyconsumption
Antonette d'Sa and B Sudhakar Reddy), (KWh/pumpset) of irrigation pumpsetS.
Karnataka Regional Sub-model and 1990). H Williams and Michael G Hylton,
Agricultural Sector Sub-model, Final 36 A 9W compact fluorescent lamp has an ac- 'Biomass-fired Steam-injected Gas-turbine
Report, submitted to the Advisory Board tual power consumption of 15W because of Cogeneration for the Sugar Cane Industry,
on Energy, August 1988. the ballast associated with the lamp. presentedat the meeting of the West Indies
32 (a) B Sudhakar Reddy, Ph D. Thesis 37 There are, however, inter-carrier substitu- ugar Technologists, Bridgetown, Barbados,
submitted to the Indian Instituteof Science,tions that undermine national priorities. A April 17-22, 1988; (b) Eric D Larson, Joan
July 1990. (b) B Sudhakar Reddy and classic example of this blinkered approach M Ogden and Robert H Williams, 'Steam-
A K N Reddy (in 'course of publication). is the attempt to save grid electricity by in- injected Gas-turbine Cogeneration for the
33 Of course, a rigorous analysis should also ducing customers to shift to diesel-based Sugar Cane Industry'. PU/CEES Report
take into account the so-called 'downstream'captive generation sets that only aggravate No 217, Center for Energy and Environ-
employment, for example, the employment the national problem with this middle mental Studies, Princeton University,
provided to those who manufacture distillate. Princeton (N J), USA, September 1987.
aluminium conductor cables, apart from 38 It is assumed here that substituting LPG for 42 (a) K V PrabhakaraRao, 'The Potential for
those involved with aluminium smelting. electricityto perform cooking tasks is in the Cogeneration of Electricityin the Sugar In-
34 Report of the Working Group constituted overall interests of the country; but this dustry of Karnataka'.M Tech(Management
for Advance UtViisation of Power in assumption has to be validated by consider- Studies) Dissertation, January 1989.
Karnataka, government of Karnataka, ing the LPG option from the point of view (b) K V PrabhakaraRao'and A K N Reddy,
December 1982. of indigenous availability, etc. 'A Technoeconomic Study of Cogeneration
39 (a) Proceedings of the seminar on Electrical
35 It is not claimed that the specification of with specific reference to the Sugar
this set of measures is a great achievement;Energy Tariffs and Metering organised by Industry', Seminar on 'Power Generation
the department of power, government of
however obvious the set, the fact is that it through Renewable Sources of Energy',
has 'emerged logically from the end-use India, and Swedish International Develop- Karnataka State Council for Science and
analysis of consumption. But, the set ap- ment Authority (SIDA) at the Central Technology, November 27-28, 1989,
pears to be*attractivebecause others have Power Research Institute, Bangalore, Bangalore.
come up with virtually the same set much November 6-7, 1987. (b) Excellent instru- 43 (a) Micro/Mini Hydel Stations in
later without the end-use analysis. For ex-ments of varying sophistication and versa- KarnatakaState, PreliminaryReport, office
aipple, Peter Miller has in a December 1989 tility are being manufactured indigenously of the chief engineer (Investigation),
paper 'The Energy Conservation Alter- (in fact, by a Bangalore firm, Systematics) KarnatakaPower Corporation, Bangalore,
native to the SardarSarovar Dam' come up to facilitate time-of-the-day metering and October 1980. (b) Micro/Mini Hydel
with similar measures. And very recently, even more advanced electricitymanagement Stationsin KarnatakaState, Preliminary
except for efficient motors, all the other techniques. Report, Office of the chief engineer (In-
measures have been recommended (ob- 40 D P Sen Gupta, S Sargunaraj and Sushila vestigation), KarnatakaPowerCorporation,
viously on the basis of a b~ref-by the Devi, 'Rural Electrification: Distribution Bangalore, August 1988.
Member(Technical)of the stateelectricity Systems for Loss Minimisation', Electrical 44 Joan Xi Ogden and Robert H Williams,
board)in a recentaddressby Karnataka's India, March 1984. Solar Hydrogen:Moving beyond Fossil
ministerfor finance(Mvsore.February10, 41 (a) Eric D Larson, Joan M Ogden, Robert Fuels, World Resources Institute,