There are places like Raichur (famous for Rice cultivation down here) that has Super thermal stations that shutdown due to lack of water.
In my home state , we can generate solar power from the rooftops and send it back to the grid and get paid for it. Best part is , I get the panel on a subsidized rate as well. Where i currently stay , solar water heaters are mandatory to get occupancy certificates for individual houses.
Without crediting anyone (and hence labeling myself as pro/con government) , recent norms have forced rethink of dirty fuels. Delhi had a ban on diesel passenger vehicles as well. An example is India's largest car manufacturer Maruti to stop diesel cars by 2020 (https://www.deccanherald.com/business/maruti-to-stop-making-...)
A combination of improved public transport (metros) and these little steps on energy self sufficiency will go a long way in the short to middle term (5-10 years is my guess)
In a hugely negative world , I find these heartening.We have unstable grids , but quite looking forward to stability in electricity.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_coal_mine
An example is India's largest car manufacturer Maruti to stop diesel cars by 2020
Where can I find statistics on how many metro stations are in operation today vs a decade ago?
Smaller ones :
It is very cheap ( about 1 dollar e-rickshaw and metro combined - both ways - basically about 30 dollar your monthly travel is sorted ).
It is cleaner ( Being public mode, there are benefits )
It has become one of the fastest way to travel.
This is a good introduction but the rest of the article seems to side heavily with the latter (vehicle makers and startups like SmartE) while criticising the "homebrew" market for being "disorganised".
I'm going to disagree for two reasons:
1. From a workers rights point of view, I'm not sure that drivers renting their vehicle from a startup is better than drivers owning their own ride.
2. On a technological level a varied market with many alternatives can sometimes better facilitate innovation as opposed to an oligopoly limited to 2-3 larger actors.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about India in general, so my opinion is that of an uninformed external observer.
I agree with the gist of your comment, however, given that the majority of drivers in India are illiterate and not economically well off (especially considering the maintenance costs as a % of the vehicle's initial MSP), I think it makes sense for them to rent the e-rickshaws out from a centralized provider/operator -- initially, at least -- until the drivers reach a certain level of economic prosperity and familiarity with the technology.
Another option could be the mass training of vocational technicians and other auxiliary support staff in a co-operative framework to keep the whole operation running, thereby creating a ton of good, decently-paying side jobs in the process.
Coal is bad, polluting, creates health hazards and we need to get rid of it. Petrol and Diesel are not "better" and there are reasons central generation may overall be net beneficial especially given the efficiency of generation, transmission losses and in-engine effects comparing ICE to EV
Source: https://www.niti.gov.in/reports [Line item 6]
PS: NITI is the apex advisory body to the Indian Govt.
NITI's report (2015)* says there are still 300M people without electricity, but that "India’s solar potential is greater han 750 GW and its announced wind potential is 302 GW". A fine demonstration of what foresight, will and technical capability can accomplish.
There are other answers than "base load"
But.. the article doesn't say "CNG is better" It just says the worst-case costs in the US, for coal sourced power to charge the batteries.
CNG has much less pollution than those two things, but emits the same amount of CO2 (in concern of global warming).
Countries with local NG supplies, especially developing ones, really should use them.
The hard part is done.
The article says the electricity is often stolen. We’ll call that market forces.
"The compressed natural gas run buses are harmful for humans as they emit "nanocarbon" particles which can cause cancer, according to a study conducted by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
Though the study was conducted on a very limited sample size in Delhi, CSIR took the findings seriously owing to the health hazard it poses to humans and alerted the central government for further follow up, CSIR's director general Dr MO Garg said on Thursday."
Could it breach Blood Brain Barrier?
"Another route by which nanoparticles can enter the brain is via the olfactory nerve, circumventing the blood-brain barrier. The olfactory nerve (nervus olfactorius) has a direct connection to the brain by way of its long processes (axons). It is therefore conceivable that inhaled nanoparticles enter the olfactory nerve and are transported to the brain along the axons"
It says nanoparticles. Not sure nano carbon is included in it.
I was the project lead for a (sadly failed) electric autonomous vehicle project in India, the Amritsar Pod. This was using a technology which, when deployed in the west, is vastly environmentally superior to (say) buses. That's for several reasons that are broadly shared with electric rickshaws:
1. As a demand-responsive vehicle, it only runs when there is passenger demand. So (aside from empty-vehicle redistribution movements) there is a minimum occupancy of 25% (for a single person in a 4-person vehicle), and in many cases, the average occupancy is closer to 35%-50%. This is in contrast to buses, which need to keep circulating even when there is little or no demand. A full-occupancy bus is very efficient, but a 50-person-capacity bus that is carrying 4 passengers is more polluting, per-person than a single-occupant SUV. This is in fact the case in America, where the average occupancy of urban buses is 9%. In Europe it's more like 20-25%. But in both cases, pods are still more efficient.
2. As electric vehicles, they of course produce no tailpipe emissions, and are as clean as whatever grid they draw power from.
So put these two factors together, and it's an environmentally winning proposition in the West (although it hasn't caught on there either, yet). But interestingly, this calculation doesn't work in India:
1. The urban buses are hardly low-occupancy. Average occupancies tend to be around 55%, and can reach 85% in some cases. Replacing these with 25%-50% occupancy pods is only a win if the pods are significantly cleaner.
2. The grid energy is horribly dirty.
What I found when I did a CO2 analysis of my system is that what would have reduced CO2 by > 90% in the West was merely a break-even proposition in India. Didn't increase CO2 -- and would've been worth doing on the basis of travel time savings, pedestrian conflicts, etc. -- but didn't actually help with CO2 either. This will be the case for any electric vehicle until India's grid becomes significantly cleaner.
That aside, because our cities are so crowded and generally hot already, everyone is very keenly aware of the heat and smoke diesel and petrol vehicles put out - if electric vehicles are affordable and charging infrastructure is in place, there's going to be no problems with adoption. The issue, of course, is that making them affordable and setting up charging infra go against the interests of the oil and gas companies that built India up to where it is so far.
To its credit, though, the government seems keen to get things going, even at the expense of breaking earlier promises to big oil and big auto. Now it's just figuring out the chicken and egg situation of bringing down costs and setting up infra without clear current demand.
I think in urban areas pedestrians should have precedence. Walking is our natural way of getting around.
The country is something like 70-80% literate and a significant part of the illiterate population consists of old people.