an exchange with Dr S

Dr S: Your suggestion of privatization of distribution is a sound one provided it is done in the right spirit and to the honest and competent company. There are any number of companies which would be happy to take over. They will strip all the assets and bankrupt the company and walk a way. That is a worst case scenario. Unfortunately we just do not have many good companies. Still I am all for privatization.

MR: I am surprised at your observations, Sir! Tata’s certainly cannot be termed as fly-by-night operators. They have been in the field from long and doing a good job, particularly in Mumbai, and lately in Delhi. So, have the RPG group in Kolkata and Greater Noida, and Reliance in Mumbai, and now in Delhi. Then you have the Ahmedabad Electricity Supply Co Ltd (possibly belonging to the Torrent group), Surat Electricity Supply Co Ltd, etc, etc, all of whom have been doing a far better job than the Electricity Boards, or their new incarnations - the ESCOMS.

Dr S: But you did not suggest an alternative to nimby excepting to produce power at the mines. Is this a good strategy to have all your eggs in one basket? Should not we have power in different places.

MR: Even London depends on a nuclear power plant across the channel in Graveline in France for a large share of its power requirements. So, what are we talking about? Besides, the chance of disruption of power supply across the grid is far lower than disruption of coal supplies across oceans or across the entire stretch of the sub-continent (all the way from the coal belts in Orissa, Jharkhand, etc). Ideally, the entire Karnataka base load could be on the imported NTPC/ PGCIL power, as well as on locally generated (Raichur & Bellary) thermal power, and the peaking load can be on the local hydel (Sharavati & Kali) power. We have enough capacity for that. All future requirements can be met through imports from NTPC/ PGCIL. Alternatively, KPCL can set up generation capacity in Orissa/ Jharkhand on a power sharing arrangement, and transmit the state’s share through PGCIL’s lines.

Dr S: I have not taken a stand against Chamalapur for that reason. I am against coal. But I am for gas. Gas will not have most of the problems of coal. We are importing coal and we might as well import gas. Of course gas costs far more than coal. But we pay more for externalities in the case of coal. This is some thing we as a society should decide. Do we want "cheap" power over environment or are we prepared to pay for environmental protection.

MR: You have raised valid questions, as also answered a few of them yourselves. I have focused largely on the merits of generating power at pit-head stations and transmitting it to user points, even if far flung, as compared to transporting coal there and burning it. Coal, whether burnt in Talcher or in Chamalapura, will contribute equally to global warming. And, if it has not gone through the benefication process, which invariably is the case in India, half the quantity you are transporting is anyway just muck. In Talcher, you atleast have the possibility of pumping the fly-ash into the used pits and attempting re-afforestation on the surface, neutralizing the harmful effects, even if partially. As compared to that, in Chamalapura, you will land up dispersing the fly-ash over the local land-scape, in the process degrading the air and soil quality considerably, for miles on end.

Even with all the attempts at conservation, when the economy is growing at close to10%, we still need sizable fresh generation capacity addition. Given the overall scenario, India doesn’t appear to have too many options other than exploiting its enormous coal reserves, at least in the immediate future. Yes, it will mean adding to global warming, and gas is perhaps a better option from that perception. But, its prohibitive costs have led to the Bidadi and Dhabol projects, which were supposedly based on it, not even taking off.

There are no easy answers. But there are definitely simpler answers compared to what the government is considering.