What's new

Is solar power really the best solution for Pakistan?

I do believe India is doing quite well in this sector,and it is not that much costly,thats why Indian Government targets it big time..

It is expected that Our Solar Industry will grow 250% this year..Plus,it is heavily subsidized by Indian Government.

read this...

With an intention to significantly increase the rooftop solar power capacity in the country, the Indian Government may be planning a massive funding boost.

During the the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017), India had planned to spend Rs 600 crore (US$92 million) on expanding rooftop and small-scale solar power projects. However, this planned funding was according to the initial targets set under the National Solar Mission.

Announced in 2009, the National Solar Mission had a target to have 20 GW of grid-connected solar, and 2 GW of distributed solar capacity installed by 2022. The new government, which came to power last year, increased this target to 100 GW, 60 GW through utility-scale projects and 40 GW from rooftop solar power projects (these would probably include both grid-connected as well as off-grid projects).

As a result, the Indian Government is now planning to increase the funding for grid-connected and small-scale solar power projects from Rs 600 crore (US92 million) to Rs 5,000 crore (US$770 million).

Indian Government May Hike Funding For Rooftop Solar To $770 Million | CleanTechnica
 
.
Solar Energy Cost is front-loaded and as this cost drops Solar Energy will become extremely Cost Effective and viable.
 
.
$131.15-million has been divided by plant name plate capacity of 100 MW to arrive at $1.31-million per MW. This method of cost calculation is erroneous because 100 MW is the maximum out-put capacity of the plant and not produced all the time. 100 MW would be produced only during about 6 - 8 hrs per day when sun is shining at maximum. Power production is less in the morning & in the evening and zero during 10 - 12 hours of the night. Additionally, more power would be generated during summer and less during winter when the days are short.

Having no sunlight hours data on the QASP Bahawalpur; I am not in a position to determine power output accurately. A rough estimate of the daily power generation on the annualized basis would be about 40 to 45 MW at best. Therefore Capex cost is not $1.31 per MW but close to $3-million per MW. When you include transmission losses Solar Power is still the most expensive method of power generation on the industrial scale.

I like solar power as it is “Clean” and a mix of as much as 20% of all power production would be great. However despite 70% drop in PVC panels, optimum use of solar power is ‘in situ’. That is, on individual houses, where transmission cost is zero. Installation of large plants such as QASP is not the way to go. Perhaps it would have been better to install PVC panels of 4 KW per house on 25,000 houses instead of single 100 MW plant.

Latest estimate of 4 KW panels installation cost in UK is about £5,000. Total cost for 100 MW would have been about £120-million pounds or $190-million but with zero transmission losses and hardly any maintenance. Any surplus energy not being consumed is sold back to the national grid. Pay - out period for investment per house is about 9 to 10 years. Economics would probably improve in sunny climates such as Pakistan.

Solar Power is not the Panacea for Pakistan’s power problem. Pakistan is short of about 4,000 MW of electricity and since the nation has decided not to build Kalabagh dam; our choice is limited to nuclear, gas, furnace oil and coal based power generation.

In the meantime, we should continue putting PVC panels on individual houses.
 
.
solar-park-bahawalpur.jpg


A lot is being quoted, and misquoted in the media on how best to overcome the 'existing' energy crisis in our country.

As most of the debate is, at best, misinformed, it will be helpful to analyse what is the best source of electricity and more importantly how kosher solar is.

Solar power — which was once the darling of media folks and ‘aam awaam’ for its supposed ”free power” nature — is subject to much ridicule these days ever since it emerged that the recently setup 100MWp Quaid-e-Azam Solar Power Plant (QASP) in Bahawalpur is producing too little and too expensive electricity. In fact, the second most expensive in the existing energy mix.

How could this be true? If sunlight is free and abundant, how come solar power is that costly and rare?

Is this a scam?

Interestingly, much of the outrage on the recently setup QASP can, at best, be described as an assault on laws of economics, physics and nature.

The solar power plant is being criticised for being expensive and for having low power output. Let’s talk about the expensive bit first.

Massive cost
Every power project, whether solar or any other, has two major cost components — the one-off upfront capital expenditure component called the Capex for setting up the power plant and the recurring operating cost called the Opex to run the plant.

Compared to the conventional fuel-based power plants, the renewable power plants (solar, wind or hydro) have high Capex (measured in terms of $/MW) and low Opex simply because there is no fuel involved.

Both Capex and Opex components, along with the agreed investment return element, are ultimately reflected in the tariff of a particular power project.

The first 100MWp of the QASP has a total upfront Capex of $131.15mn ($1.31mn/MWp) and a levellised tariff of US14.15 cents/kWh1.

So is this tariff expensive or cheap?

To find out, we can compare these numbers with those of India which has a similar geographic and economic profile and risk factors like that of ours.

Doing that tells us that in terms of tariff, the QASP is pretty much in the range of what they have in India where CERC had announced a levellised tariff of US12.45 cents/kWh for FY2014-15.

And India had its first grid-scale solar power project operational in May 2011 — four years before Pakistan.

In developed countries, the tariffs for such grid-scale solar power plants will be considerably lower. So then why is it lower in developed countries and higher in Pakistan and India?

Answer: laws of economics.

As mentioned before, ultimately the project cost is a function of costs and required investment return which is, in turn, reflected in the tariff. The higher the required return, the higher the tariff. And while the technological factors (level of local solar industry and availability of domestically produced solar plant components) also play a role, the investors require a substantially higher return for their investments in developing countries to compensate for the higher risk.

The Government of Pakistan presently guarantees, subject to certain conditions, a 16 per cent $-indexed return to the equity investors in renewable power projects.

This may look excessive but justifies the considerably higher country risk of Pakistan vis-à-vis other developed countries.

Low power output
The other criticism on QASP is that its power output is very low. Despite having a capacity of 100MWp, it generates on average only 18MW every hour for the whole day!

This is indeed too low. But then this has to do with laws of physics and nature.

A solar plant will generate power only in presence of solar light. No sun, no power. It’s as simple as that. Adjusting for solar panel efficiency (technology factor), the amount of power produced is directly proportional to the intensity of sunlight (often measured in terms of solar insulation) and number of sun hours in a day.

Pakistan is blessed in a way that the solar insolation here is among the highest in the world. Yet no solar power plant in the world can run 24 hours a day. And this is what makes the power output (called the capacity factor or the availability factor) of such plants so low.

Moreover, this is true for all renewable-based power plants.

Since there is no fuel involved and they are entirely dependent on natural factors (sunlight, wind speed, water flow), they cannot run 24/7 and 365 days a year.

All renewable projects have low capacity factors, and that’s why no country in the world can solely be dependent on renewables for its power needs.

So it turns out that, our solar power has, indeed, a higher tariff and a lower capacity factor when compared to the conventional fuel-based power plants. Yet none of this should be surprising because that is how solar technology works.

Solar power plants are meant to meet peak power demands during day time.

As technology advances and economies of scale kick in, and they are scaling rapidly, the costs will come down and eventually solar power will achieve thermal fuel-based power. But until that happens, it remains one of the costlier sources of energy.

Yet, despite all the negatives (high cost; low output) of solar power, let’s not lose sight of the significant positives it carries.

On the plus side
The first and foremost is the 'time to setup'. Solar plants take the shortest time to construct.

Compare this to a medium to a large size hydroelectric project, which can take around 10 years. Thermal projects take between 2 to 4 years.

The 'opportunity cost' of not having power for those 2, 4 or 10 years is immense. And that’s where solar power stations can be extremely useful. Quick to setup and even quicker to ramp-up.

The other big benefit of renewables, in general, and solar, in specific, is the non-dependency on fuels which makes them immune to rising fuel prices.

So the next time oil touches $100 a barrel, while the thermal electricity prices may shoot through the roof (as they did before), solar electricity prices wouldn’t.

And for a country like Pakistan, that relies on imports for bulk of its energy needs, the benefits will also accrue in the shape of saving precious forex reserves.

And we aren’t yet talking of the green energy factor as yet. Renewables are greener. They are environment friendly, which has positive long-term implications.

To conclude, solar power is not the panacea for all our energy problems. Clearly not!

As a matter of fact, no single power plant type, whether hydel or thermal or nuclear or solar, can be completely relied upon to meet the country’s energy demands. It has to be a mix.

Our energy mix, with a heavy reliance on expensive imported fuels, has deteriorated over the past two decades. Hence, cleaner, 'quicker' and natural solar power is a welcome addition to the energy mix and will only serve to improve it.

Musa Khan Durrani is a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) by qualification. He currently heads the business advisory function at a large industrial and services group in Islamabad. He takes a keen interest in politics, economy and energy.

Solar power is never been a good source of energy in the practical and economical terms given the fact that the panels required for converting the solar energy into the electrical energy is neither cheap nor its efficiency is high. It could be used as an alternative source of providing the energy but I never find it very attractive, as a matter of fact its panel should be used covering all the surfaces of the building or the tower rather been grown like the mushroom jungle utilizing the space.

In the event of the fast depleting sources of the energy i.e fossil fuel and the nature of it to pollute the environment in which we survives the best source of energy is the thermal energy derived from the earth, i.e geo thermal utilization.
There have been various geo thermal power stations in iceland and newzealand its the land where the earths crust is the thinnest but don't why more resources and the R&D are not pumped in this field. Bellow our surface there is a fast source of energy in the form of heat and only thing that is required is to dig it. The humans till now have been able to go just 8km deep and the R&D should be made to develop the technology to dig deeper to harness the abundant resources.
 
.
how much does a solar panel cost? how much a barrel of oil? how much oil is required to run a plant in order to produce energy?
I am not sure if you have come across my note: Pakistan - Power Sector and its Future (discuss)
If Pakistan is to produce all of ~85 Twh (terra watt hour) of electricity from gas then it would cost around $1.6-$1.7 billion at current gas prices (provided all the gas plants are combined cycle). But as the generation infrastructure is old in Pakistan, the electrical efficiency of the plants will be much lower and this will make it more expensive to generate.

Perhaps it would have been better to install PVC panels of 4 KW per house on 25,000 houses instead of single 100 MW plant.

Latest estimate of 4 KW panels installation cost in UK is about £5,000. Total cost for 100 MW would have been about £120-million pounds or $190-million but with zero transmission losses and hardly any maintenance. Any surplus energy not being consumed is sold back to the national grid. Pay - out period for investment per house is about 9 to 10 years. Economics would probably improve in sunny climates such as Pakistan.
Very good post niaz as always.
Totally agree with the panels installation on houses and then connecting it to the grid. It will cost slightly more but much more beneficial going forward. This will also help decentralize the grid and reduce the line losses.
 
.
please be logical talk with fact and figures not just hawai firing.

how much does a solar panel cost? how much a barrel of oil? how much oil is required to run a plant in order to produce energy?
logical ????
QA solar power plant cost 200 B
energy production 14 MW :rofl::rofl:

yes we need solar energy but 14/16 MW :omghaha:
 
.
I am not sure if you have come across my note: Pakistan - Power Sector and its Future (discuss)
If Pakistan is to produce all of ~85 Twh (terra watt hour) of electricity from gas then it would cost around $1.6-$1.7 billion at current gas prices (provided all the gas plants are combined cycle). But as the generation infrastructure is old in Pakistan, the electrical efficiency of the plants will be much lower and this will make it more expensive to generate.


Very good post niaz as always.
Totally agree with the panels installation on houses and then connecting it to the grid. It will cost slightly more but much more beneficial going forward. This will also help decentralize the grid and reduce the line losses.
I am not sure if you have come across my note: Pakistan - Power Sector and its Future (discuss)
If Pakistan is to produce all of ~85 Twh (terra watt hour) of electricity from gas then it would cost around $1.6-$1.7 billion at current gas prices (provided all the gas plants are combined cycle). But as the generation infrastructure is old in Pakistan, the electrical efficiency of the plants will be much lower and this will make it more expensive to generate.


Very good post niaz as always.
Totally agree with the panels installation on houses and then connecting it to the grid. It will cost slightly more but much more beneficial going forward. This will also help decentralize the grid and reduce the line losses.


I have read your post. I did not comment because I had nothing to add.

If we are to overcome power shortage in Pakistan and supply electricity to the rural locations, we have to utilize all available sources. I am also in favour of small power plants (1 – 5 MW) but IMO these small plants should be such that can burn bio gas and may be even used cooking or motor oil. No point having recycle boilers in small plants else these require too much initial investment.

Many oil refineries these days use turbines of 5 to 10 MW where they burn low sulphur fuel oil & light gasses. Thermal efficiency of these turbines (mostly single shaft) is about 30%. These however are rugged, can switch from gas to liquid fuel easily and don’t cost a lot.

Thermal efficiency of about 50% is the norm for modern combined recycle plants, I have even heard of breaking 60% barrier. But in my experience combined recycle works better in about 400 MW or larger plants.

One cannot rely too much on solar & wind energy either; because demand fluctuation in the seasons even during the single day in Western countries can be substantial. For example, in the UK difference between winter & summer demand is about 10,000 MW and the same between demand at 0100 hours and at 1700 hours on the same day. Therefore plants that can instantly increase/decrease production and switch on & off quickly are essential. Regrettably such plants run on fossil fuels.

Personally, I would never expect or propose to any country to completely rely on a single fuel. Fossil fuel plants no matter how efficient will always pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course in the US you need to install carbon capture. Power production in every country should be a mix of hydel, nuclear & fossil fuels (gas, fuel oil & coal) with some solar & wind energy thrown in.
 
Last edited:
.
Thank you niaz.

If we are to overcome power shortage we have to utilize all available sources. I am also in favour of small power plants (1 – 5 MW) but IMO these small plants should be such that can burn bio gas and may be even used cooking or motor oil. No point having recycle boilers in small plants else these become too expensive.
Yes I agree that we should tap into the biogas resource and I have seen some people running their generators on gas/diesel mix. Mainly these people have dairies and have access to enough biogas to provide for their electric need as well as the surrounding houses.

Thermal efficiency of about 50% is the norm for modern combined recycle plants, I have even heard of breaking 60% barrier. But in my experience combined recycle works better in about 400 MW or larger plants.
Yes the new plants have broken the 60% efficiency barrier. I don't about the minimum size of the plant at which point it becomes economical as well as technical feasible but the idea was to see how much it could cost to build the infrastructure and try to answer the question as to how long it will take to get rid of power outages. I came across these guys:Bladon Jets | Micro Gas Turbine Engines and they make small generators. As the technology improves I am hopeful that smaller more efficient power plants would be available.

Power production in every country should be a mix of hydel, nuclear & fossil fuels (gas, fuel oil & coal) with some some solar & wind energy thrown in.
Agree that is why I included a mix of a few different sources in my note. I see solar only possible as we discuss above. Government should initiate/subsidies the panels for each house and grid should be upgraded.
 
.
Most ideal form of energy for Pakistan at the moment is I believe hydro electricity. I will look into it but I am almost 100% sure that per kWh it is cheaper than renewables like solar and wind energy. Plus dams also help prevent flooding, a major issue for our country.
Though dams will have impact on ecological/natural balance if some animals/fish depend on these kind of events.

Dams will allow to controls and could be used for production of food, redirecting rivers, with enough resources you could try to make it something like Nile in egypt. Solar power should not be ignored due to being long term beneficial too.

It takes more time to make a dam then set up solar powerplants.
 
.
logical ????
QA solar power plant cost 200 B
energy production 14 MW :rofl::rofl:

yes we need solar energy but 14/16 MW :omghaha:

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR FIGURES?

secondly solar power energy plants is front loaded. as time passes economies of scale will kick in.

it is the cheapest source of energy. much much cheaper than furnace oil run power generating plants.
 
.
Solar is the best solution for Pakistan if you read the list of priorities from bottom.

In this country people stole the railway tracks and sold it as metal --- something that is used everyday and nobody took notice of it and here we are talking about expensive source of electricity. If for some reason solar project stops in Pakistan. I am not sure if the panels will start disappearing one by one
 
.
The first 100MWp of the QASP has a total upfront Capex of $131.15mn ($1.31mn/MWp) and a levellised tariff of US14.15 cents/kWh1.

Pretty Expensive! Most likely there was no auctioning carried out and the contract was given to company offering maximum kickbacks.


To find out, we can compare these numbers with those of India which has a similar geographic and economic profile and risk factors like that of ours.

Doing that tells us that in terms of tariff, the QASP is pretty much in the range of what they have in India where CERC had announced a levellised tariff of US12.45 cents/kWh for FY2014-15.
BS! Different states have different tariffs.
Punjab recently awarded Photo Solar,rights to develop three projects of 50 MW capacity each for bids between Rs 5.09 and Rs. 5.57/kWh. In 2013, Punjab allocated 250 MW at a lowest bid of Rs. 7.67/kWh.

Telangana auctioned 2GW Solar capacity with a ceiling tariff of up to Rs. 6.45/kWh and the average tariff of the bids was around Rs. 5.73/kWh.

In developed countries, the tariffs for such grid-scale solar power plants will be considerably lower. So then why is it lower in developed countries and higher in Pakistan and India?
Where did he pull this one from ?

Despite having a capacity of 100MWp, it generates on average only 18MW every hour for the whole day!
Is he talking about 18MWh or something else and how can a plant with installed capacity of 100MWp produce 18MW ?

A 230Wp panel is usually 1600mm x 1000mm x 50mm or 1.60 m^2 and 97% of 230W is guaranteed in the first year which drops to 90% by the 10th years.


So to get 1KWp you will need 1000/230 = ~5 panel and the array will be 5 x 1.60 = 8m^2.

People keep mixing solar cell efficiency with panel output.If the efficiency of the cells is more (say 17% instead of 15%) than the panel size will be smaller or in other words it will produce more energy per square meter than the less efficient one because we can pack more.
 
.
You are specifically referring only to photovoltic. There are alternatives to this e.g. heating up a solution to generate steam in a closed cycle - Spain has a few of these projects; they are able to get away with 3 days of no light.
Wind is a bigger bang for the buck. Given the coast line, this would be a better way - if not a complementary solution.

South Africa is investing heavily in solar energy... its late but never too late.
Every passing moment we don't harness this natural energy... we are wasting it.
 
.
solar-park-bahawalpur.jpg


A lot is being quoted, and misquoted in the media on how best to overcome the 'existing' energy crisis in our country.

As most of the debate is, at best, misinformed, it will be helpful to analyse what is the best source of electricity and more importantly how kosher solar is.

Solar power — which was once the darling of media folks and ‘aam awaam’ for its supposed ”free power” nature — is subject to much ridicule these days ever since it emerged that the recently setup 100MWp Quaid-e-Azam Solar Power Plant (QASP) in Bahawalpur is producing too little and too expensive electricity. In fact, the second most expensive in the existing energy mix.

How could this be true? If sunlight is free and abundant, how come solar power is that costly and rare?

Is this a scam?

Interestingly, much of the outrage on the recently setup QASP can, at best, be described as an assault on laws of economics, physics and nature.

The solar power plant is being criticised for being expensive and for having low power output. Let’s talk about the expensive bit first.

Massive cost
Every power project, whether solar or any other, has two major cost components — the one-off upfront capital expenditure component called the Capex for setting up the power plant and the recurring operating cost called the Opex to run the plant.

Compared to the conventional fuel-based power plants, the renewable power plants (solar, wind or hydro) have high Capex (measured in terms of $/MW) and low Opex simply because there is no fuel involved.

Both Capex and Opex components, along with the agreed investment return element, are ultimately reflected in the tariff of a particular power project.

The first 100MWp of the QASP has a total upfront Capex of $131.15mn ($1.31mn/MWp) and a levellised tariff of US14.15 cents/kWh1.

So is this tariff expensive or cheap?

To find out, we can compare these numbers with those of India which has a similar geographic and economic profile and risk factors like that of ours.

Doing that tells us that in terms of tariff, the QASP is pretty much in the range of what they have in India where CERC had announced a levellised tariff of US12.45 cents/kWh for FY2014-15.

And India had its first grid-scale solar power project operational in May 2011 — four years before Pakistan.

In developed countries, the tariffs for such grid-scale solar power plants will be considerably lower. So then why is it lower in developed countries and higher in Pakistan and India?

Answer: laws of economics.

As mentioned before, ultimately the project cost is a function of costs and required investment return which is, in turn, reflected in the tariff. The higher the required return, the higher the tariff. And while the technological factors (level of local solar industry and availability of domestically produced solar plant components) also play a role, the investors require a substantially higher return for their investments in developing countries to compensate for the higher risk.

The Government of Pakistan presently guarantees, subject to certain conditions, a 16 per cent $-indexed return to the equity investors in renewable power projects.

This may look excessive but justifies the considerably higher country risk of Pakistan vis-à-vis other developed countries.

Low power output
The other criticism on QASP is that its power output is very low. Despite having a capacity of 100MWp, it generates on average only 18MW every hour for the whole day!

This is indeed too low. But then this has to do with laws of physics and nature.

A solar plant will generate power only in presence of solar light. No sun, no power. It’s as simple as that. Adjusting for solar panel efficiency (technology factor), the amount of power produced is directly proportional to the intensity of sunlight (often measured in terms of solar insulation) and number of sun hours in a day.

Pakistan is blessed in a way that the solar insolation here is among the highest in the world. Yet no solar power plant in the world can run 24 hours a day. And this is what makes the power output (called the capacity factor or the availability factor) of such plants so low.

Moreover, this is true for all renewable-based power plants.

Since there is no fuel involved and they are entirely dependent on natural factors (sunlight, wind speed, water flow), they cannot run 24/7 and 365 days a year.

All renewable projects have low capacity factors, and that’s why no country in the world can solely be dependent on renewables for its power needs.

So it turns out that, our solar power has, indeed, a higher tariff and a lower capacity factor when compared to the conventional fuel-based power plants. Yet none of this should be surprising because that is how solar technology works.

Solar power plants are meant to meet peak power demands during day time.

As technology advances and economies of scale kick in, and they are scaling rapidly, the costs will come down and eventually solar power will achieve thermal fuel-based power. But until that happens, it remains one of the costlier sources of energy.

Yet, despite all the negatives (high cost; low output) of solar power, let’s not lose sight of the significant positives it carries.

On the plus side
The first and foremost is the 'time to setup'. Solar plants take the shortest time to construct.

Compare this to a medium to a large size hydroelectric project, which can take around 10 years. Thermal projects take between 2 to 4 years.

The 'opportunity cost' of not having power for those 2, 4 or 10 years is immense. And that’s where solar power stations can be extremely useful. Quick to setup and even quicker to ramp-up.

The other big benefit of renewables, in general, and solar, in specific, is the non-dependency on fuels which makes them immune to rising fuel prices.

So the next time oil touches $100 a barrel, while the thermal electricity prices may shoot through the roof (as they did before), solar electricity prices wouldn’t.

And for a country like Pakistan, that relies on imports for bulk of its energy needs, the benefits will also accrue in the shape of saving precious forex reserves.

And we aren’t yet talking of the green energy factor as yet. Renewables are greener. They are environment friendly, which has positive long-term implications.

To conclude, solar power is not the panacea for all our energy problems. Clearly not!

As a matter of fact, no single power plant type, whether hydel or thermal or nuclear or solar, can be completely relied upon to meet the country’s energy demands. It has to be a mix.

Our energy mix, with a heavy reliance on expensive imported fuels, has deteriorated over the past two decades. Hence, cleaner, 'quicker' and natural solar power is a welcome addition to the energy mix and will only serve to improve it.

Musa Khan Durrani is a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) by qualification. He currently heads the business advisory function at a large industrial and services group in Islamabad. He takes a keen interest in politics, economy and energy.

This is called tunnel thinking.
People with no idea about the business, only confuse the public.
I have no time to make long speeches... actually we are past that time. Today, every other house hold have solar inverters and is reaping its benefit and have practically experienced its utility vs cost.
Writer of the article failed to encompass the amount of corruption we have in Pakistan's state owned projects.
Nandipur hydel power project is one such example, where after spending more than $1Billion, still govt. is burning gas to produce some noise rather than any electricity.
As long politicians will rule Pakistan all equations of physics will prove wrong. Therefore, Pakistani politicians, their voters and supporters should be awarded with noble prize of corruption.
Keeping it short, when it comes to PV power plants, what matters most is the efficiency of PV cell/panel, in other words its capacity to produce electricity / square meter.
These panels comes with different efficiency, and if project is in Pakistan.. foreign companies can even deliver damaged panels and no one would notice. Infact, politicians will uproot the few working panels for them self, their extended families, tribes, activists and fill the empty spaces with painted glass.
There are many more bottel necks, where flow of energy can be choked until it connects the grid. Grid or off Grid or intelligent Grid... is another long technical debate.
Coming back to installed capacity vs. generation.... When the installed capacity is 100 MW than it should produce 100 MW. unless sun stop shining... if it still doesn't produce, than a technical audit is due, followed by commercial.
Comparing figures from Pakistan and declaring PV technology a fail.... reflect lack of experience or unfamiliarity with the tech.
Countries where sun shines and have very open and transparent energy policy.... foreign investors come like bees, guaranteed sunshine is nothing less than source of making money... one investment is good for 15-30 years and payback time (minus corruption) is 3-4 years, considering the cost of electricity in Pakistan.
Only few days ago, Germany announced to invest $1.5 billion in PV energy for India and since last 5-6 years, India has attracted far more $billions only from US govt.
Most of foreign PV investments are in Gujrat and surroundings, which is not far from the failed power plant of Bahawalpur Pakistan, which means muting all sane voices in Pakistan.
Its the choice of Pakistani public to believe that whole world incl. Indians are stupid... for investing insanely in PV energy, and trust article writers and their pseudo endorsers as gurus on solar energy.
A country where Zardari didn't disclosed, how much he agreed to pay Iran for gas and neither Sharif disclosed how much he agreed with Qatar for LNG..... expect investment only from corrupt investors and failed projects. Nothing wrong with technology though.
Clearly Pakistani politicians are conspiring against state and opposition is part and parcel of whole drama.
Pakistan have to pay to IMF and no political party can afford to liberalize energy policy of Pakistan or publicizing true figures and facts. Hence such misleading articles by fake intellectuals.

Solar is the best solution for Pakistan if you read the list of priorities from bottom.

Yes.. because you like to buy electricity from Iran... if left to you, you would buy sand from Iran and pay by selling Pakistan to IMF like your tribal leader aka Mr. 10%.
 
.
South Africa is investing heavily in solar energy... its late but never too late.
Every passing moment we don't harness this natural energy... we are wasting it.
Absolutely. We have one of the best light receiving areas and bad management by Eskom has caused havoc in terms of failing power plants.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom