Section - XV - The Energy Self Sufficiency

This section is still incomplete with still lot of inconsistencies but still should be able to give the reader a fair idea of what is being proposed even though the numbers arent tallying.

Please revisit this section once again later.

BUILDING THE BIO RESOURC BASE

The results of an optimization exercise for water efficient and highly productive and diversified bio-energy system using limited irrigation are presented below. The benefits with regard to sustainable energy production in terms of coal replacement value of the biomass are evident. The mono cropping of oil seeds (e.g. jatropha) for bio-diesel production currently being promoted comes out in poor light as compared to the diversified system. An added benefit is matching of availability of biomass and needs of bio-energy to provide for various end uses of the community.

This diversified system can very well be developed and managed by the group of 20 resource poor households. Obviously they can be motivated to build the bio-resource base and achieve high levels of sustainable productivity if their livelihood security is created by working on the 10 ha area to achieve food security and balanced nutrition. A required incentive would be entitlement to the bio-energy produce on 1ha of biogas area and 3ha of non-timber forestry area. In addition they need to be paid a fair amount for maintenance and protection of the plantations. In addition long-term pricing agreement would be needed for the wood bamboo fibers to ensure stability of supply at fair prices of inputs for the process industry which may also be managed by members of 20 resource poor households.

Legend:

For Sweet Sorghum it is 60000 Kg. Evidently diversification is much more productive

* For producing 1KWh = 0.4 Kg of diesel is required & 1 Kg. of coal.

**If value addition by processing is considered 1 Kg wood can replace 2/3rd Kg of steel & bamboo can replace 1 Kg steel. 3 Kg of Coal is consumed to produce 1 Kg. of steel. Therefore value addition for bamboo is 96000 Kg & for steel is 20000 Kg. Total value additions would be 116000 Kg

@ Total coal replacement after value added processing 214000 Kg.

Above assessments are conservative. For local needs of stationary engines only technology development need is containers is for transporting biogas. Much of the processing of bamboo/Wood can be done locally. Contribution of biogas slurry & for upgrading compost quality resulting fertilizer saving & CO2 mitigation are not considered in the energy value assessment. Local liquid fuel demands in excess of production can be met from income generation realised by sale of wood /bamboo which are easily transportable

Energy needs and availability

Unless energy pricing ensures that capital costs are recovered, funds required for accelerating growth of the energy sector cannot be mobilized. Affordability of energy to the user is another important consideration. Specifically this is a critical factor with regard to pumping energy required to provide water for food security and achieving desired productivity level of diversified agriculture.

For renewable energy system recovery of capital costs is a major factor influencing the tariff. The issue of affordability can not be addressed without compromising capital cost recovery criteria through differential pricing of renewable energy. There are several process energy applications where solar process heat can very well be priced at rates comparable to the current price of heat from low-grade fuel such as coal. In some cases it can even be charged at rates comparable to process heat from gas without loosing the cost advantage for the products using solar process heat for their manufacture.

With the proposed system of financing of artisanal enterprises i.e. equated installment of 5% of the capital cost per year, the capital recovery charge for solar process heat works out to only Rs 0.4 /Mcal (i.e. 1000 Kcal). As against this present break-even price for heat from low-grade coal is about Re 1.2 /Mcal. This can generate sufficient surplus to meet the capital cost recovery liability for biogas plant including preprocessing equipment, digester and energy required for preprocessing of the inputs and even a part of transportation cost.

With this approach the pumping energy charge per cubic meter can be established at a flat affordable rate comparable to the grid electricity charge for an average lift of say 18 meter.

For the food security module of 10 ha the water allocation is 3,600 m3 /ha

The pumping energy required is 360 Kwh. This can be rounded off to 400 Kwh

The pumping energy charge at the grid tariff of Rs 3 /Kwh/ha works out to Rs 1200 for the food security agro-diversity module.

The Biogas Input needed for generating 1 KW is 0.5 Kg. So for generating 400KW biogas consumption of 200 Kg for a portable genset (at 0.5 Kg /Kwh) is needed and the biogas price will have to be limited to Rs 6 /Kg if it has to be matched to the Grid Tariff

It is proposed that the lease rent for biogas equipment and land and capital recovery for irrigation investment charges should be established at a level that the break-even price of biogas is Rs 6 /Kg methane equivalent energy. This implies that in addition the labour cost of cultivation is fully met from EGA. The break up of capital cost recovery (mainly lease rent) for the various cost components mentioned above would be as under.

Irrigation investment Rs 40,000 @ 5% Rs 2,000
Biogas plant and preprocessing equipment Rs 120,000 @ 5% Rs 6,000
Capital recovery for portable genset Rs 20,000 @ 10% Rs 2,000

So a total of Rs. 10000
-------------------
Total recovery per hectare per year for producing 1600 Kg methane equivalent x Rs 6/Kg, say Rs 10,000

Any excess over the capital cost recovery liabilities mentioned above has to be met by energy and infrastructure enterprise from the surpluses generated in the process industry. This can very well be conditionality for the energy infrastructure enterprise to get entitlement to the credit concession and employment generation. This aspect is dealt with in the section on institutional structure.

With the above approach the off-grid energy users would not suffer any disadvantage as compared to the grid-connected users. However this will be applicable to the collective of farmers having access to irrigation, dry land small farmers and resource poor (landless and marginal farmers) who work in a partnership mode.