This article in Hindu Business Line says that Renewable Energy is a Land Guzzler, with good reasons.
The article talks about wind mills taking up a lot of land-space. Now, who's stopping anyone from planting crops all around the wind turbines or even having a small scale industry under it? Power for these activities can directly be supplied by the wind mill and all transmission losses can be avoided. Even otherwise, there are off-shore wind turbines that can be installed in the oceans. These wind turbines are more efficient than the land-based ones, because the amount of wind received in the oceans is higher and so is their capacity. Why can't the Govt. promote this useful technology?
It is true that we have set ambitious renewable energy targets, both nationally and in many states. There is a good chance that renewable energy developers are utilizing land that could be otherwise used for agriculture or some other industry. The article even says forests are destroyed for small hydro projects. It is indeed important to ensure that development doesn't come at a long-term cost and people should be sensitive to the natural resources used/destroyed. But there are a lot of positive points about renewable energy technologies that the article did not mention. I will mention a few of them, here.
First of all, it makes poor economic sense for farmers/industrialists to sell their useful land to set-up renewable energy projects. Only if they feel that the land cannot be utilized for its intended purpose (setting up of industry or farm), will they even consider selling it. Besides, renewable energy project developers will not buy land at a high price, which is what the price of the land will be, if it can be put for some other use. So, there is not much concern of diverting 'useful' land for RE projects. When there is insufficient power, where is the question of industry, anyway?
The article says that forests are destroyed for laying power lines to small hydro projects. First of all, many small hydro projects are off-grid and they don't even stop the course of the river. The power produced by them is mostly consumed locally and it doesn't make much sense to transport it across the grid as the amount of power produced is quite less (and power line losses are high). If grid can reach these areas, why would they set up a mini hydro power plant at all??
But in a few cases where mini hydro power projects are developed for selling power to the grid, it is possible that power lines are brought via forests. But if the cost of bringing long power lines through forests are going to be high (they will), why will the project be sanctioned in the first place? If the electricity department and mini hydro power developers share the cost of setting up transmission infrastructure, economically, it may not make much sense to 'destroy' forests and bring the lines in.
The article says that over the last three decades, 6000 hectares of forest lands have been destroyed for setting up renewable energy projects. I am not sure what their source is, but the question that we need to ask is: How much more forests are we destroying for supplying power everywhere else??
The article says that over the last three decades, 6000 hectares of forest lands have been destroyed for setting up renewable energy projects. I am not sure what their source is, but the question that we need to ask is: How much more forests are we destroying for supplying power everywhere else??
The article talks about wind mills taking up a lot of land-space. Now, who's stopping anyone from planting crops all around the wind turbines or even having a small scale industry under it? Power for these activities can directly be supplied by the wind mill and all transmission losses can be avoided. Even otherwise, there are off-shore wind turbines that can be installed in the oceans. These wind turbines are more efficient than the land-based ones, because the amount of wind received in the oceans is higher and so is their capacity. Why can't the Govt. promote this useful technology?
Instead of taking the grid to every location, if locally generated renewable energy is used, imagine how much forest land can be saved? That is one important reason why decentralized renewable energy generation and distribution is very important. Many renewable energy projects are off-grid. MNRE gives a capital subsidy (and not generation based subsidies) and hence off-grid RE projects can benefit as much as on-grid projects.
The best way to go forward is perhaps to set up micro-grids which can take up power generated locally (from RE sources) and distribute it throughout the area. The huge transmission losses can be avoided and when a couple of RE sources are linked together (like wind/solar, solar/biomass), intermittent generation issues can also be avoided.
The best way to go forward is perhaps to set up micro-grids which can take up power generated locally (from RE sources) and distribute it throughout the area. The huge transmission losses can be avoided and when a couple of RE sources are linked together (like wind/solar, solar/biomass), intermittent generation issues can also be avoided.
The article says that agricultural land is diverted for solar/biofuel projects. The economic factor that might hinder such an option has already been discussed, but the more important point to note is: Solar Energy projects don't require land at all! One can set up solar panels anywhere there is direct exposure to sun. For example, solar panels can be set up on the roofs, on rooftops of colleges, malls, theaters, industries etc., on the walls of large buildings (BIPV - Building Integrated Photo Voltaics), etc.
It is a normal practice abroad to rent (unused) rooftops on large buildings or individual homes, to set up solar panels. Solar panels and the power may still belong to the developers and they just pay for the space. Alternately, they can even sell power to the occupants (at market value) and export only the excess power. Why can't we look at implementing such innovative schemes which benefit everyone?
The article itself says that dual-use of land is possible and people should be more enterprising and utilize them that way. For example, farmers can install solar panels all along the border of their farms and use tracking technologies to increase the yield of every solar panel.
The article itself says that dual-use of land is possible and people should be more enterprising and utilize them that way. For example, farmers can install solar panels all along the border of their farms and use tracking technologies to increase the yield of every solar panel.
Instead of thinking out of the box (or at least getting to know measures adopted by other countries to tackle such issues) to solve these problems, proposing another land tax (as suggested by the article) is not a prudent idea. Taxes will only discourage land occupation, it will not prevent it. But guiding developers in the right direction (which will benefit them, as well as save space) should be the aim of policy makers.
