Hydroelectricity is often considered to be “clean” in view of less carbon emissions especially in comparison to thermal power. However, hydropower is intrusive in the natural environment and has many environmental costs that may outweigh the benefits from reduced carbon emissions. Hydroelectricity projects (HEPs) in India are required to submit a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) statement in the approval processes. However, the monetary value of the environmental costs is not required to be calculated and not considered in the approval process. Thus, the projects are approved even if the costs are greater than the benefits. The projects are required to submit an “Environment Management Plan” (EMP) to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. However, the proposals made in the EMP are inadequate to mitigate the impacts and are more cosmetic than real. The calculation of monetary value of environmental impacts is resource intensive. This paper suggests that proxy values can be used to arrive at an estimate. Ignoring the environmental costs because of absence of robust estimates is tantamount to assuming that the environmental costs are zero which is not plausible. Taking the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti HEP as an example, it is shown that the project overestimates the benefits and underestimates the costs. The Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR) is less than 1 irrespective of whether the environmental benefits and costs are included or excluded. The paper argues that hydropower is not as green as often said to be.
| Published in | International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment (Volume 6, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13 |
| Page(s) | 35-45 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Hydroelectricity, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environmental Costs, Environment Management Plan, Proxy Values, Carbon Emissions
| [1] | Letter No 14-11/14/2019-H-I dated 20.12.2019 from Ministry of Power (MOP). |
| [2] | Para 5.3 Page 32 Minutes of PIB dated 26.2.2007. |
| [3] | Gill, Bigsna, et al., Electricity Pricing and the Willingness to Pay for Electricity in India: Current Understanding and the Way Forward, The Energy and Resources Institute, 2017. |
| [4] | Moti L. Mittal, Hemendra Sharma and Richa Singh,” Estimates of Emissions from Coal Fired Thermal Power Plants in India,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267687877_Estimates_of_Emissions_from_Coal_Fired_Thermal_Power_Plants_in_India, Retrieved March 22, 2021. |
| [5] | Reed Shapiro, “Value of Carbon Market Update 2020,” Carbon Credit Capital, https://carboncreditcapital.com/value-of-carbon-market-update-2020/, Retrieved March 22, 2021. |
| [6] | Negi, GCS and Disha Punetha, People’s perception on impacts of hydro-power Projects in Bhagirathi river valley, India, Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189: 138. |
| [7] | Chakrabarty, Abhishek and Soumendu Chatterjee, Geoinformatics in Environmental Cost Assessment of Purulia Pumped Storage Project-West Bengal, Indian Journal of Geography and Environment, Volume 11, 2010. |
| [8] | Jhunjhunwala, Bharat, Economics of Hydropower, Kalpaz, New Delhi 2009. |
| [9] | McCully, Patrick, Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, Orient Longman, Hyderabad, 1998. |
| [10] | Sajwan KS and Sushil K, “A Geological Appraisal of Slope Instability in Upper Alaknanda Valley, Uttarakhand Himalaya, India,” Journal of Geology & Geophysics, 2016, 5: 5. |
| [11] | Singh (1998), Abhay Kumar and Syed I. Hasnain, “Major ion chemistry and weathering control in a high-altitude basin: Alaknanda River, Garhwal Himalaya, India,” Himalayan Glacier Project, School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Hydrological Sciences—Journal—des Sciences Hydrologiques, 43 (6). |
| [12] | NEERI (2004), Self-Purification Capacity of River Bhagirathi: Impact of Tehri Dam, Annual Report 2003-04. |
| [13] | Murty, M. N. and Surender Kumar, Water Pollution in India: An Economic Appraisal, India Infrastructure Report 2011, Table 19.2, Page 289. |
| [14] | Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Estimates of District Domestic Product of Uttarakhand (2011-12 to 2016-17 with Base Year, 2011-12), Dehradun. |
| [15] | World Commission on Dams, Thematic Review, Environmental Issues II. 2, Workshop on Dam Reservoirs and Greenhouse Gases, Part III, February 24 & 25, 2000, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, Final Minutes, Page 82. |
| [16] | Surendran, A and C Sekar, An economic analysis of willingness to pay (WTP) for conserving the biodiversity, International Journal of Social Economics, July 2010. |
| [17] | Ninan, K N, The Economics of Biodiversity Conservation: Valuation in Tropical Forest. |
| [18] | Maharana, Iyatta, S. C. Rai & E. Sharma, “Environmental economics of the Khangchendzonga National Park in the Sikkim Himalaya, India,” Geo Journal 50, 329–337 (2000). |
| [19] | Agarwal, Rajat, Non-use values for River Ganga, Draft Report, January 2020, IIT Roorkee. |
APA Style
Bharat Jhunjhunwala. (2021). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro-Electricity Project. International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment, 6(2), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13
ACS Style
Bharat Jhunjhunwala. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro-Electricity Project. Int. J. Econ. Energy Environ. 2021, 6(2), 35-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13
AMA Style
Bharat Jhunjhunwala. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro-Electricity Project. Int J Econ Energy Environ. 2021;6(2):35-45. doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13,
author = {Bharat Jhunjhunwala},
title = {Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro-Electricity Project},
journal = {International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment},
volume = {6},
number = {2},
pages = {35-45},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijeee.20210602.13},
abstract = {Hydroelectricity is often considered to be “clean” in view of less carbon emissions especially in comparison to thermal power. However, hydropower is intrusive in the natural environment and has many environmental costs that may outweigh the benefits from reduced carbon emissions. Hydroelectricity projects (HEPs) in India are required to submit a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) statement in the approval processes. However, the monetary value of the environmental costs is not required to be calculated and not considered in the approval process. Thus, the projects are approved even if the costs are greater than the benefits. The projects are required to submit an “Environment Management Plan” (EMP) to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. However, the proposals made in the EMP are inadequate to mitigate the impacts and are more cosmetic than real. The calculation of monetary value of environmental impacts is resource intensive. This paper suggests that proxy values can be used to arrive at an estimate. Ignoring the environmental costs because of absence of robust estimates is tantamount to assuming that the environmental costs are zero which is not plausible. Taking the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti HEP as an example, it is shown that the project overestimates the benefits and underestimates the costs. The Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR) is less than 1 irrespective of whether the environmental benefits and costs are included or excluded. The paper argues that hydropower is not as green as often said to be.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Cost-Benefit Analysis of Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro-Electricity Project AU - Bharat Jhunjhunwala Y1 - 2021/04/30 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13 DO - 10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13 T2 - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment JF - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment JO - International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment SP - 35 EP - 45 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2575-5021 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeee.20210602.13 AB - Hydroelectricity is often considered to be “clean” in view of less carbon emissions especially in comparison to thermal power. However, hydropower is intrusive in the natural environment and has many environmental costs that may outweigh the benefits from reduced carbon emissions. Hydroelectricity projects (HEPs) in India are required to submit a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) statement in the approval processes. However, the monetary value of the environmental costs is not required to be calculated and not considered in the approval process. Thus, the projects are approved even if the costs are greater than the benefits. The projects are required to submit an “Environment Management Plan” (EMP) to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. However, the proposals made in the EMP are inadequate to mitigate the impacts and are more cosmetic than real. The calculation of monetary value of environmental impacts is resource intensive. This paper suggests that proxy values can be used to arrive at an estimate. Ignoring the environmental costs because of absence of robust estimates is tantamount to assuming that the environmental costs are zero which is not plausible. Taking the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti HEP as an example, it is shown that the project overestimates the benefits and underestimates the costs. The Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR) is less than 1 irrespective of whether the environmental benefits and costs are included or excluded. The paper argues that hydropower is not as green as often said to be. VL - 6 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: