Coal or Solar? A District Energy Choice
A district in eastern Assam has a proven coal block of 1.2 million tonnes suitable for open-cast mining. A proposal would extract 0.4 million tonnes a year for three years, employ 600 people and pay ₹38 crore a year in royalties. It would displace 320 households and require 210 hectares, including 70 hectares of community forest. A second proposal is a 40 MW solar park on 200 hectares of degraded land. It would cost ₹180 crore, employ 90 people permanently and generate about 64 million kWh a year. The state grid has a peak deficit and buys power at ₹6.80 per kWh. The coal has 32% ash and 1.8% sulphur. The district receives 1,950 mm of rainfall and lies in a moderate seismic zone. The panchayat must send one recommendation to the district development council. Local youth groups favour the mine because of immediate jobs; farmers near the block fear water pollution; the forest department opposes the forest diversion.
1. Compare the two options using the three pillars of sustainability and at least two externalities.
Read the worked answer
Economic pillar. Coal: ₹38 crore/year × 3 = ₹114 crore royalties, 600 jobs for three years, but the resource is exhausted in three years. Solar: ₹180 crore capital, 90 permanent jobs, about 64 million kWh/year. At ₹6.80/kWh the avoided purchase is about ₹43.5 crore/year, so the capital is recovered in roughly four years before operation and maintenance. Solar also avoids fuel cost and has a 25-year life.
Social pillar. Coal displaces 320 households and 70 ha of community forest; mining jobs are temporary and hazardous. Solar on degraded land displaces fewer people and creates permanent but fewer jobs. Compensation and reskilling are decisive.
Environmental pillar. Coal: 32% ash means large ash ponds; 1.8% sulphur means SO2 emissions; open-cast mining affects water tables in a 1,950 mm rainfall zone. Solar: land use and panel disposal, but far lower emissions.
Externalities not in the price: health costs, forest loss, water pollution, and the loss of the forest's carbon and biodiversity services. The royalty figure does not include these.
2. Which option would you recommend, and what conditions or compensations would make it acceptable?
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: solar, conditional on grid evacuation and a just-transition package. The coal option lasts only three years and leaves a degraded landscape, displaced households and ash liabilities; the solar park has a 25-year life, lower externalities and a four-year payback at current tariffs. The moderate seismic zone also makes large ash-dam structures a risk.
Conditions:
- Land and livelihood: use only degraded land, with written consent; give the 320 affected households priority in construction and O&M jobs and a share of lease revenue.
- Grid: confirm evacuation capacity and a storage or demand-management plan, because solar output is intermittent and the deficit is at peak.
- Forest: no diversion of the 70 ha; if coal is still considered, require a cumulative impact assessment and a funded reclamation bond.
If the grid cannot evacuate solar, the fallback is no mining until reclamation and compensation are bonded, not a blank cheque for coal.