The Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) of the Planning Commission has estimated that India needs as much as 7,80,000 MW of power plants by 2030. This is five to six times the existing generating capacity. By maintaining the best demand management practices, like improving the efficiency of pumping in agriculture sector, using greater efficiency devices in the industrial sector, greater use of CFLs, greater use of solar energy for water heaters, etc we can reduce this electricity demand.

However, even with the most optimal demand and supply management, we need additional power generation capacity in Karnataka. During the last few years, we have been thinking of the need to increase generating capacity only during the summer when load shedding becomes inevitable.

If each location agitates against the construction of the power plant by adapting NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude, how can we meet our increasing power consumption needs? However, when we look at Nandikur, Chamalapur, Tadadi and the surrounding greenbelt and also the fuel for the proposed thermal power plants, agitators cannot be blamed for having the NIMBY attitude.

The government and investors give all kinds of assurances to overcome the problems of fly ash, SO2, Particulate Materials (PMs) not to exceed maximum limits, etc. Many of their convincing responses may remain only on paper. We have seen hundreds of companies blatantly violating the environmental norms despite having sophisticated environmental equipment to reduce emissions and the concerned authorities often looks the other way.

Economics and coal
In terms of cost of generation using coal as fuel, economics is very compelling. Other alternatives such as oil and gas may cost twice as much. There is a high probability that crude oil prices can indeed go above $100 per barrel. It is this argument which supports choice of coal.

However, when a project of this magnitude affecting vast land holdings is assessed by the government and the civil society, we need to consider several other strategic factors. Unfortunately, it is our own government which should be faulted for ignoring them.

Cost calculations using the reports by MIT in the US and the European Union indicate that the cost of generating power using coal is actually the most expensive in comparison to other alternatives of gas, nuclear and wind.
While considering the base cost calculated with only the economic factors, coal may appear inexpensive, but if external factors like environmental pollution — fly ash, higher emission of PMs, SO2, NOX, etc are included, the cost proves to be higher.

In and around Chamalapur, located just 30 miles from Mysore, the land with lush green plants and trees are precious for the local environment. It is difficult to put any price on these resources. Estimating its value on simple market price is suicidal, even criminal. Why should the government choose a place like Chamalapur blessed with lush green vegetation? If we prefer coal itself at any cost, why not go to another location where damage to external environment is minimum? Water can always be transported through a pipeline and that cost is insignificant compared to other costs.

Other alternatives
There are three pipeline alternatives to supply gas to Bangalore and Mysore area. One is using extensive gas discovered in the Krishna Godavari basin. The other two alternatives are based on importing LNG. LNG can be imported into Kochi or Mangalore in the south and Dhabol in the north. There are proposals being considered to supply gas to Bangalore from the south and the north. Besides supplying power plants, gas can also be used for residential and commercial purpose opening up all kinds of economic activities. Thus we should seriously consider gas, which besides solving the power problem, can also help in national security by diversifying energy sources.
There are strong scientific arguments to convince decision makers to find a suitable place for the power plant, if coal remains their choice of fuel. On the other hand, if Chamalapur is the preferred site, gas can be used as fuel causing less damage even if it is more expensive.