Shankar Sharma
Karnataka has proposed two Pumped Storage hydroelectric Plants (PSP) within two Protected Areas (PA) that falls in the ecologically fragile Western Ghats.
The State govt is actively considering two PSP proposals –
2000 MW Sharavati & 1500 MW Varahi within two different PA –
Sharavati Valley LTM Wildlife Sanctuary and
Mookambika & Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuaries.
These are ecologically sensitive parts of the Western Ghats & the PSP will be at the cost of enormous damage to the hydrology, ecology & well-being of the people of Karnataka. The PSP are being taken up without satisfactorily addressing any one of many serious environmental, ecological issues raised by the civil society.
Similarly, it is also reported that about 15 such projects, in total, are being considered in the Western Ghats, which will lead to the destruction of thousands of acres of forest lands of very high ecological value to the region, country and the planet as a whole.
In view of the potentially enormous damage to the ecological well-being of our people, there is a critical need for effectively deliberating on the very need for these PSPs, not only for our state, but for the entire country. In fact, the true relevance of such PSP is credibly challenged keeping in view the environmental, social, economic and technical aspects of the same.
A case of such a proposal in the LTM sanctuary in Sharavati river valley of Karnataka state is considered for this purpose.
This 2,000 MW Sharavati PSP may ultimately destroy about 360 acres of pristine, tropical and rain bearing forest of very high ecological value in a legally PA. In this context, people’s genuine concerns about the ecological well-being of the state cannot be ignored, because of about 25 high impact projects are being planned/ implemented in the Western Ghat bound districts of Karnataka.
TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT
Since the project has the single aim of bridging the gap between electricity demand and supply during the peak demand hours in the state, it is critical that all the associated issues of the power sector in the state are diligently analyzed to determine whether the proposed project is essential and whether suitable alternatives exist.
It will be in the long- term interest of our society to ask both the energy department and the KPCL to provide credible clarification to the following issues:
- A PSP is meant to generate additional power required to meet electricity demand for the peak hours of the day only (about 2 hours early in the morning and/or 2 hours in the evening); it is supposed to utilize any surplus electricity in the state during the night off-peak hours to pump water from a lower reservoir to the higher-level reservoir. So, in reality a PSP is meant only to meet the peak hour shortage in the state, and hence will be in operation for only about 20% of the time.
- As compared to a typical hydel power plant which is designed to operate for more than 60% of the time, can we consider such a power plant as worthy of its huge ecological costs to the society?
- Also, it is well known that a PSP will consume about 25% more power in pumping water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir as compared to the electricity it can generate from the same volume of water.
- As per the pre-feasibility report, this 2,000 MW capacity power project is estimated to generate about 12,000 MWH per year of electricity, whereas about 14,833 MWH of energy is estimated to be consumed in the process of pumping water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir.
- In effect, the Sharavati proposed PSP scheme will consume about 24% more energy from the grid than it can generate in a year. Will such a scenario be in the true interest of the state, when it has been known that the state is facing chronic annual energy shortage for many decades?
- As per the official report (24*7 Power for all (Karnataka) by Energy Department) between FY 2010-11 and 2014-15, the recorded annual electrical energy shortage ranged between 4% and 14%. The power shortage during the peak hours during this period was 5% and 19%.
- The maximum demand met by the state has increased from 7,815 MW in FY 2011 to 9,549 MW in FY 2015 showing a growth of 22% during the 4-year period, while energy requirement has increased by 29% during the same period. This statistical information has meant an annual growth in max. demand and annual energy of about 5 to 7%.
- Such a high growth if allowed to be continued can result in doubling of these parameters in about 8 – 10 years. Can Karnataka afford to build many more of pumped storage hydel plants just to meet the peak hour power shortage?
- For the period April to August 2019, the peak power demand in the state was 12,700 MW and the deficit was only 12 MW. As compared to the peak power demand of 7,815 MW in FY2011, the increase in peak power demand is about 62% in 8 years, and about 8% per year on an average.
- The question that needs to be answered in this context is whether the state can afford such vast increase in peak hour power demand, for which many more PSP may have to be constructed at enormous cost to the state.
- A diligent analysis of various associated issues in this regard will reveal the criticality for the state to apply necessary course corrections to limit the increase in its peak hour power demand to a manageable level, and also to find suitable alternatives to meet such an increase.
- The prefeasibility report has wrongly referred to the peak power demand/supply of the entire southern region to substantiate the need for this project. The management of peak power demand of any state should be primarily the responsibility of that state, and hence Karnataka has to concern itself with satisfactorily managing its peak hour demand through its own sources.
- Also, it should not destroy its precious biodiversity to compensate for the inability of other states to manage their power demand.
- Whereas a PSP is planned on the basis that there will be excess electricity during the late-night hours (say between 10.00 PM and 05.00 AM), Karnataka may not have excess electricity in the night during all months of the year. It may certainly not have surplus during the summer months, say between Feb. and June.
The very need for the project can be questioned because of many technical reasons as applicable to the state. The energy department and the project proponent should be asked to justify the very need for the project in the context of the following issues:
- The enormous costs to the society/state of the proposed project should have made it mandatory for the forest department to ensure that all the other options have been diligently studied before considering this present project proposal.
- There are many benign options available to bridge the gap in demand/supply of electricity during the peak demand hours in the state. None of these options, which can be implemented without cutting any tree or without harming any biodiversity, seem to have been considered.
- It must be a prudent economic decision-making process to objectively consider each credible option from the perspective of costs/benefits to the state, and compared the same with this project proposal.
Hence, the very need for the project like the Sharavati PSP inside the Sharavati Valley LTM Sanctuary can be credibly questioned because of many of the simpler options available to the state. It is even more disconcerting that CEA or MoP never seem to be obliged to satisfactorily address the credible concerns raised by civil society groups and concerned individuals; thereby, negating the oft repeated official slogan: Sub ke saath, Sub ka vikaas, Sub ka vishwaas, Sub ka prayas.
(SHANKAR SHARMA IS A POWER & CLIMATE POLICY ANALYST AND BASED IN SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA)