 Saya harap anda telah berjaya menggantikan pemeriksaan. Ia adalah pemeriksaan yang mudah, yang hanya menggantikan semua perkara yang kita telah menghubungkan. Kita akan menghubungi pemeriksaan dengan pertanyaan. Jadi mari kita mulakan dengan pertanyaan pertama. Pertanyaan pertama adalah apabila kita perlu menulis sesuatu yang benar dan menjelaskan sebabnya untuk jawabannya. Dan tentu-tentu anda patut berikan kecemasan sendiri hanya jika perasaan anda betul. Jadi pertanyaan pertama adalah pemeriksaan manusia untuk CO2 adalah 0.305. Sekarang, kita lihat apa adalah pemeriksaan manusia. Pemeriksaan manusia, yang jika anda ingat, mempunyai John Holdren, adalah rasio pemeriksaan manusia yang mempunyai pemeriksaan manusia yang mempunyai pemeriksaan manusia secara angin, dibuat oleh pemeriksaan natural atau pemeriksaan basel. Pemeriksaan natural atau pemeriksaan basel. Apa yang berlaku adalah jika pemeriksaan manusia adalah satu atau lebih dari satu, kemudian kita memiliki masalah. HDI, jika HDI untuk CO2 adalah 0.0005, kemudian pemeriksaan matahari akan dapat mengambil diri pemeriksaan CO2 yang sangat mudah. Ia adalah kecil seperti pemeriksaan natural atau pemeriksaan basel dan kemudian tidak akan menjadi masalah CO2. Ini adalah salah. HDI untuk CO2 adalah lebih tinggi. Ia adalah sekitar 0.1. Sejak koncentrasi CO2 menjadi lebih tinggi dan tidak mungkin untuk pemeriksaan natural untuk mengambil diri dan itu sebab ada masalah global. Jadi jawapan seperti yang kita katakan adalah salah kerana jika HDI menjadi begitu kecil kemudian CO2 tidak akan ada masalah CO2. Kalau CO2 pemeriksaan manusia akan menjadi lebih tinggi daripada apa yang pemeriksaan natural dan apa yang natural boleh menghubungi. Jadi ini adalah pertanyaan pertama. Mari kita pergi ke 1B. 1B adalah CONGC-Videsh mengambil masalah natural di Kazakhstan. Ini berhasil dalam perbaikannya keadaan di India. Jadi seperti yang kita katakan, keadaan keadaan keadaan keadaan keadaan keadaan keadaan keadaan adalah di mana kita mahu melihat bahawa pemeriksaan kita tidak akan mempunyai dan kita boleh mempunyai keadaan keadaan yang diperlukan untuk society. Kalau kita memperkawal masalah natural di Kazakhstan kita akan mengagumkan segalanya dan keadaan keadaan pemeriksaan di India dan kita akan memasukkan segalanya keadaan. Jadi jawapan ini adalah yg benar dan ini akan memasukkan segalanya keadaan keadaan kerana kita mempunyai segalanya keadaan yang sudah diperkawal sehingga kita akan mengadakan kekerjaan Ong Cipur. Jadi, ini akan menjadi jawapan yang benar. Mari kita lihat pertanyaan ketiga. pertanyaan ketiga adalah, Kostan kebiasaan karbon untuk kebiasaan kawasan 1 megawatt pb plan, plan yang sama, sebuah kondisi teknikal dan karakteristik yang sama, akan menjadi sebuah tempat di Kerala seperti sebuah tempat di Chhattisgarh. Sekarang, apakah kawasan kebiasaan karbon? Kawasan kebiasaan karbon adalah kawasan kebiasaan kawasan itu. Jadi, itu bermakna, apakah kawasan kebiasaan kawasan pb plan? Dan apabila kita kebiasaan, dan kemudian, kawasan kebiasaan karbon kebiasaan karbon. Jadi, beberapa perkara, perkara pertama adalah, bahawa di kedua tempat di Kerala dan Chhattisgarh, insolasi solar mungkin berbeza. Jadi, walaupun kawasan kebiasaan sama, kebiasaan mungkin berbeza. Sudah tentu ini mungkin tidak berbeza, perkara kedua adalah, apabila kita melihat kawasan kawasan, di Chhattisgarh, kawasan kebiasaan karbon Kawasan Chhattisgarh, kawasan kebiasaan karbon, bermakna, apabila kita melihat kawasan pb plan, kita sebenarnya mengubah kawasan kebiasaan karbon dan kawasan kebiasaan CO2 lebih tinggi, dan kawasan CO2 per kilowatt-hour. Di Kerala, ia adalah kawasan kebiasaan karbon. Jadi, kawasan CO2 per kilowatt-hour lebih tinggi, dan kemudian, kawasan CO2 akan berbeza. Insolasi solar mungkin juga berbeza. Jadi, jawapan adalah, ia akan menjadi salah, ia tidak akan menjadi sama. Jawapan ini adalah salah. Mari kita lihat perjalanan yang berikutnya, 1D. 1D berkata, kawasan CO2 adalah kawasan kebiasaan karbon. Ingat, apa kawasan kawasan Primeri dan Kawasan Kawasan Kawasan Primeri? Primeri kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan kawasan energi yang digunakan dalam perjalanan, mempunyai sebuah keputusan untuk mendapatkan energi kedua. Jadi ini salah kerana, tentu saja, radiasa solar adalah digunakan dalam perjalanan. Ia adalah energi primar dan bukan sebuah sebuah energi kedua. Jadi jawapan ini memang salah. Mari kita lihat 1E. 1E berkata, Emeja carbon dikesurkan pasukan bahawa keselamatan utama akan tetap sama, walaupun energi dan efisi tidak dapat berkembang. Jadi mari kita lihat faktor carbon dikesurkan. Emeja carbon dikesurkan, Emeja carbon dikesurkan, adalah keju atas CO2 per kilowatt heure. Itu faktor cometer carbon dikesurkan. Mari kita lihat apa yang adalah efeksi, efeksi. Ini akan menjadi output eleksiti di kilowatt hours dibuat oleh input energi. Jadi kita boleh menulis ini sebagai kilowatt hour eleksiti dibuat oleh kG kohl menjadi konten energi kohl. Sekarang jika kohl kompositi tinggalkan sama, apa yang akan berlaku adalah jika kita melihat kG CO2 per kilowatt hour itu akan menjadi kG kohl per kilowatt hour menjadi kG karbon per kG kohl, iaitu perusahaan karbon dalam kekulangan menjadi 44 x 12. Sekarang jika efeksi meninggalkan sama, untuk koh kohl eleksiti, kita akan menggunakan kurang kohl. Jadi ini akan berlaku. Dan jika kohl kompositi tinggalkan sama, ini akan bermakna faktor emisi akan meninggalkan. Emisi akan meninggalkan jika efeksi meninggalkan. Dan kekulangan di sini berkata bahawa jika kohl kompositi tinggalkan sama, bahkan jika efeksi energi meninggalkan. Jadi kekulangan itu memang salah jika efeksi meninggalkan dan iaitu kohl yang sama yang kita bincangkan tentang faktor emisi akan meninggalkan. Jadi mari kita melihat kekulangan 1F yang selanjutnya. Ia berkata bahawa ia tidak mungkin untuk negara dengan kekulangan eleksiti tinggalkan dengan kekulangan dan kekulangan dunia untuk mempunyai kekulangan dan kekulangan lebih besar daripada negara yang mempunyai kekulangan dan kekulangan yang lebih daripada 120% kekulangan dunia. Jadi sekarang, jika anda ingat plot yang kita telah menunjukkan, di mana kita telah menunjukkan HDI, jika anda menunjukkan HDI dengan kekulangan eleksiti dan index perubahan manusia, anda pasti melihat bahawa ada sebuah kata tapi juga ada sebuah kata dalam data dan anda mempunyai sesuatu seperti ini yang mempunyai kekulangan lebih daripada kekulangan, tetapi di mana-mana kekulangan eleksiti ada sebuah kata yang besar daripada negara yang mungkin ada banyak index perubahan manusia. Jadi HDI, seperti yang kita lihat, adalah sebuah index kompositi dari setiap kekulangan, kekulangan kekulangan dan kekulangan dan kekulangan dan kekulangan dan kekulangan. Jadi, mungkin ada negara yang menggunakan pengalaman energi yang kurang kurang, tapi yang telah mengembangkan kekulangan kekulangan dan kekulangan. Jadi banyak negara fokus pada kekulangan kekulangan dan kekulangan dan mereka dapat mempunyai kekulangan lebih daripada kehidupan, walaupun mereka tidak menggunakan kekulangan eleksiti. Jadi, mungkin ada negara yang tidak mungkin dengan kekulangan eleksiti daripada kekulangan dunia, mungkin ada negara yang mempunyai kekulangan kekulangan dan kekulangan dunia untuk mempunyai kekulangan lebih daripada kehidupan. Ada negara yang mempunyai kekulangan eleksiti yang tinggi dan yang tidak efeksi, ada lebih banyak kekulangan dan kekulangan dan pendidikan tidak begitu bagus. Jadi, negara ini pentingnya salah sebab mungkin untuk negara untuk mempunyai kekulangan eleksiti lebih daripada kehidupan. Sebenarnya, ada banyak kekulangan eleksiti yang perlu untuk memperbaiki kekulangan hidup, tetapi apabila anda membuat kekulangan, ada banyak kekulangan lain daripada kekulangan eleksiti yang memerlukan kekulangan hidup. Jadi, ini adalah berkata-kata dan jika anda mempunyai jawapan yang betul dan kekulangan kekulangan dan kekulangan anda betul, maka anda boleh berikan diri dua kekulangan untuk setiap seks. Jadi, sekarang mari kita lihat pertanyaan kedua. pertanyaan kedua adalah pada kekulangan, sebuah negara mempunyai kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan hampir 600 juta dan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan kekulangan 510 juta, hanyalah 1.40 jutaan. Berkata-kata, halbe badan kualiti. Jadi halbe badan kualiti yang berkualiti yang kita bincangkan ialah sebab pada akhir, jadi mari kita kata-kata satunya, All that we have to do is divide 140,000 million tonnes by 600 million tonnes and we get 233 years. This is the static R by P ratio. The second part of the question is considering the compound annual growth rate during 2013-18 as the growth rate for an exponential growth model. Calculate the number of years that the coal will last. Dan, obviously, it will be less than this 233 because we are talking of an exponential growth model. So, let's say P 2018 is 600 million tonnes and P 2013 is 500 million tonnes. These are similar to the numbers for India actually for coal. So, if you want to find the growth rate, it will be 1 plus G 2013-18 is 5 years. 1 plus G raised to 5 is equal to 600 by 500, 1.2 and so G comes out to be 0.037 or 3.7%. Compound annual growth rate of 3.7% during these 5 years. Now, let us see how do we calculate the number of years for which the coal will last. So, we can just take this. We just derive this earlier P plus P into 1 plus G and so on P into 1 plus G raised to N. Of course, if you remember the formula, that is also fine but you can just derive it in one or two steps. So, this gives us S into 1 plus G minus 1 is P into 1 plus G raised to N plus 1 minus P. So, S by P and this is the S by P is the total that we were looking at is the static R by P ratio. This should be 1 plus G raised to N plus 1 minus 1 by G. Substitute this, we get 233 is equal to 1.037 raised to N plus 1 minus 1 by 0.037. So, what we can then do is we can just, you can see that this is going to be equal to 233 into 0.037 is equal to 1.037 raised to N plus 1 minus 1. This comes out to be 8.621. You can take the 1 on this side, this comes to 1.037 raised to N plus 1. We can just take ln on both sides and you get ln of 9.621 is equal to N plus 1 into ln 1.037. And you get N plus 1 is equal to 2.264 by 0.0363 and you get this as 62.3. N plus 1 is 62.3. So, N approximately equal to 61 years. And so that means it will last from 2018 plus 61 year in which it gets completed will be 207980. That's the model. Earlier we got R by P ratio as 233 years. Now we have got it as 61 years. So, that's the question part B. Let's look at part C. The coal production data has been fitted. So you have a data set and it has been fitted to the data set and an S shaped curve, logistic curve. That means this is production like this. This is Qp by T, Qp is integral Pdt. That's what has been done. And this has been fitted for an ultimate reserve of 140,000 million tonnes. And this is the equation that we got. Qp, this has been given to you. 140,000 divided by 1 plus 600 e raised to minus 0.06 T. Where Qp is the cumulative production and it starts from T is equal to 0 is 1960. So, the question that has been asked is calculate the time when the peak production is reached. Now if you remember when we had derived this, we had derived the, you can differentiate this and find the point at which we are getting the peak. That is going to be the differentiation of this gives you dQp by dt will be the production and the second differential of that and I have said that equal to 0. That will be when the production is maximum. You can check. This will give you TQp is ln A by BQ infinity. This was the formula that we had derived and we can substitute the values. This is going to be ln 600 by 0.06. 0.06 is BQ infinity and this is your A. So, this turns out to be approximately 106.6. So, it is about 107 years. That is when the peak will occur and if T is equal to 0 is 1960. So, peak will occur in 2067 AD. Memang, we found in the exponential growth case that it will last get depleted in 2079. Here it will, the peak will occur in 2067. So, if we want to calculate the second thing which has been asked is calculate the time when the peak production is reached and that we've just done and when 90% is exhausted. So, when 90% is exhausted, we want to put Qp is 0.9 into 140,000. This is equal to 140,000 by 1 plus 600 e raised to minus 0.6 T90. T90 is what we want to find out. So, then this becomes 1 plus 600 e raised to minus 0.06. 0.06 T90 is equal to 1 by 0.9. 1.1. So, we get 600 e raised to minus 0.6. And we can take logs and you get T is 143.2 years. So, 1960 plus 143 comes out to be 2103 AD. Then you asked compare the three estimates of time duration of coal in ABC. So, obviously, the smallest value comes out to be with exponential growth, T exponential growth less than T perl kerba s-shaped or the Hubbert's model s-shaped kerba perl kerba and this will be less than the static R by P ratio. These are three different ways in which we get estimates of time for which the resources will last. So, the last part of this question says what are the limitations to the Hubbert's model and are there any other approaches possible. So, there are in all of this the technology in Hubbert's model technology is assumed to be static. So, what happens is that with time resources which are not considered to be minable based on improvements in technology and economics many of these now become minable and so the estimate of the reserves changes. So, that is one problem with the model. The second problem with the model is that the curve considered is symmetric about the point of inflection but in actual practice if you reach the peak beyond that it will not remain symmetric. Also there are other substitutes and so this is that that is not considered in this model. Another approach or other approaches possible there are approaches where you have you create a cost of supply and you can see this was there in the global energy assessment chapter on resources. If you look at the quantity that you can get or the reserves which are there at different costs of supply you can actually create a supply curve in terms of cost of supply in the quantity of the reserve. That means today we may get it at some cost there may be other reserves which are relatively more difficult to mine when they can have so we can have basically a different things and these could be these need not be deterministic these could also be probabilistic. We will look at now the next question. The question 3 is a question on economics we are talking of let me just read out and explain the question to you then we will go over it step by step. Diesel engine generators and you may see this all over the country wherever there is a problem with power supply we usually have what is known as a gen set it is a diesel engine cum generator they are commonly used as backup power supply and we want to look at a company with a discount rate of 30% which has a diesel engine generator DG set of rating 25 kilowatt for its outlets as backup supply with the normal electricity supply coming from the grid and in 2018 we are told that the diesel engine generator was operated for a total of 800 hours with a total electricity generation of 12,000 kilowatt hours so the details of the generator are given capital cost of the diesel engine generator is 4 lakhs life of the DG set is 10 years then there is an operating cost there is a fuel and the non-fuel non-fuel operating maintenance cost annually is given to us as 25,000 rupees the efficiency is given as 35% fuel used is light diesel oil the energy content and the price and the carbon percentage is given so let us see what all we are asked to determine the first thing is calculate the annual amount of LDO used light diesel oil used and the annual fuel cost so first let us see the total electricity generation annually is given as total electricity generation is 12,000 kilowatt hours and we want to find out how much fuel is being used so we have the fuel input will be the generation divided by the efficiency 12,000 kilowatt hours 1 kilowatt hour is 1 kilowatt kilojoules per second into 60 seconds per minute into 60 minutes per hour so this is going to be 3600 kilojoules per kilowatt hour so now this numerator is in kilojoules divided by the efficiency 35% fuel input in kilojoules is this and if we want to find out so this is the fuel input in kilojoules if you want to find out in megajoules this is going to be 12,000 into 3600 by 0.35 divide by 10 raise to 3 this is in megajoules and this comes out to be 123429 megajoules if we want to find out how many kgs of fuel is used we know what is the energy content of 1 kg of coal we are 1 kg of sorry 1 kg of LDO there is a royal is 41 megajoules that is given in the question so we just divide this by 41 and we get approximately 3000 kgs 3,010 kgs of LDO in 1 year so what is the annual fuel cost then annual fuel cost is take this and multiply it by the price so 3010 into 50 rupees per kg comes out to be rupees 5,1 lakhs the next part is to calculate the annualized life cycle cost and the cost of generated electricity for the LDO system so if we look at the cost we have the annualized life cycle cost will be the annualized capital cost let us calculate this in lakhs so we have the DG set has been told that it costs 4 lakhs 4 lakhs into the capital recovery factor so that we annualize it discount rate is 30% life is 10 years plus the fuel cost which we just now calculated which was 1.51 lakhs plus the non-fuel O&M which was 25,000 rupees which is in lakhs which is 0.25 which is in lakhs CRF 0.3 10 we have already calculated this is 0.31.3 this is 0.323 so ALCC is 4 into 0.323 plus 1.51 plus 0.25 so this comes out to be 3.1 lakhs cost of generated electricity if you want to calculate cost of generated electricity we divide this by the total amount that we are generating annually so it is 3.1 into 10 raised to 5 divided by 12,000 and this will be rupees per kilowatt and if you calculate this it comes out to be 25.4 rupees per kilowatt and we have done some rounding off so if you get something which is similar off by a decimal place or so it is alright so this is the amount so keep this number in mind we will compare it with the new the next part is compute the carbon dioxide emission factor for the DG set and the annual carbon dioxide emitted so annual kg of CO2 we said 3010 kgs of diesel we are also told that diesel has 84% carbon so this will be 3010 0.84 this is the kg of carbon which is emitted now C plus O2 giving you CO2 this is 12 this is 44 so kg of CO2 per kg of carbon is into 44 by 12 we have done this a number of times so you probably just remember this factor but so this way we can get this 9000 sorry 9271 kgs of CO2 annually or if you just they talked about carbon it would have been 2500 kgs of carbon so this is 9.3 tons of CO2 being emitted now let us see what is the emission factor emission factor is the amount that we are emitting 9271 kgs divided by which is in kilowatt hour so this will be kg per kilowatt hour and if you do this number you will find that this is 0.773 kg of CO2 per kilowatt hour so this is if you look at the number that are there in our power sector you will find that this is a reasonable number it is within that kind of range the power sector is sector which is responsible for significant CO2 emission let us look at the next part of the question next part of the question is that there is a proposal to replace the DG set with the solar PV module why are we trying to do this well we have the DG has emissions both local emissions as well as CO2 emissions and if we replace this with solar then these emissions would be avoided and there is an annual cost of fuel if you replace it with solar there will be no annual cost of fuel so in this case the solar PV module rating is 10 kilowatt module life of 25 years price 6 lakhs and battery rating of 30 kilowatt hour price 2.4 lakhs life 5 years and balance of system power electronics controllers life 10 years so assume that the final X-series supplied by the system from the battery is the same as that of the DG so if we look at this we can just take this as total capital cost this is very similar to the example that we had done 6 pass 2.4 plus 1 this is 9.4 lakhs what is the annual saving the annual saving is essentially the difference in the fuel price the ONM is almost similar so the annual fuel saving is 1.5 lakhs 1.5 lakhs and what is then the simple payback period it is just going to be 9.4 lakhs which is the investment divided by 1.5 is approximately 6.3 years now the point in this is that this is this considers the entire capital because we are saying that the DG is already there we could also take in some cases if we are if it's a green field project we can take the initial cost we can subtract from this 4 lakhs the payback periods would be much lower if we consider if we neglect the non-fuel ONM in the case of PV then the annual savings could be slightly higher so this is in terms of the simple payback period now let's calculate what is the initial cost and simple payback period we have done this can calculate annualized life cycle cost so annualized life cycle cost PV system is going to be 6 into CRF 0.3 25 PV modules have a higher life the battery 2.4 lakhs capital recovery factor discount rate is the same life is 5 years plus balance of system 1 CRF 0.3 plus let's say 0.25 lakhs is the if we say that the non-fuel ONM is almost the same then this is going to be 6 into CRF for 0.325 turns out to be approximately 0.3 itself 0.301 or something this is 2.4 into 0.411 please check these numbers 2.323 plus 0.25 when we add this up this turns out to be 3.36 lakhs and the cost of generated electricity then becomes 3.36 into 10 raised to 5 divided by 12000 turns out to be rupees 28 per kilowatt hour just compare this with the earlier number that we had that number was 25.4 so this looks to be a costlier option of course it depends on the discount rate and what is the scarcity of capital if you do the same numbers with a discount rate of 10% you might find that the PV seems to be viable in this case let us the last part is should the company opt for the PV battery well based on the economic calculations and the discount rate the company would not opt for the PV battery system because the LCC is going to be less for the disease system however if we look at the cost of safe carbon and if there is an incentive based on the carbon and you have a carbon credit then they just might make it viable so let us calculate the cost of safe carbon this is going to be 3.36 minus 3.1 divided by 9271 this is the annualized life cycle cost in the case of PV annualized life cycle cost in the case of DG divided by the KGs of carbon save and this turns out to be Rp 3.34 per KG of CO2 or Rp 3340 per ton of CO2 and you can compare it with the carbon price for a CER, CER is 1 ton and so you can see this and compare it with that so if the CER that is sold at a price which is greater than 3340 then of course if this will become viable so we have seen this option it is essentially very simple in terms of it is simple application of what we had learnt in the energy economics and the emission factor now let us look at the fourth question talks about so this is a data for Sweden for 2 different years 2010 and 2016 and you can see the populations growing but not much 9.3 million and 9.9 million and look at the GDP in market exchange rate it has been growing and interestingly GDP in purchasing power parity less than the GDP in market exchange rate and the total primary energy supply you can see it has declined the electricity consumption, CO2 emissions and the energy imports so based on this these are all available for IEA statistics and the aggregate data is also given to you for India and the world in terms of and this is for snapshot in time in 2016 here we have both 2010 and 2016 we have similar numbers now overall indicators for India and the world and the question which is involved is a comparison of the Swedish energy sector and the economy with India and the world so the first thing which has been asked is what is the GDP per capita, what is the difference between the GDP based on market exchange rate and GDP based on purchasing power parity which one should be used for inter-country comparisons and in the case of Sweden the GDP purchasing power parity is lower than GDP market exchange rate is this also true for India so the straight forward calculations first GDP per capita we just take the GDP and divide it by the population 560 by 9.9 turns out to be 56 0.6 billion dollars this will be billion by million so this turns out to be 56,566 dollars per capita and if you see the India but we didn't have this here India numbers will of course be lower and this is based on the market exchange rate 2016 GDP market exchange rate similar thing if we did based on purchasing power parity we find that this is 45252 dollars per capita generally GDP per purchasing power parity used for inter-country comparisons and that is to adjust for the fact that in different economies there are different types of when you look at the exchange rate doesn't always reflect the purchasing power so the cost of living and prices in Sweden is high higher than the basis so the actual GDP is overstated when you correct it for GDP by purchasing power parity that amount which is there turns out to be lower and so in the case of Sweden is the GDP is lower is this also true for India this is not true for India for India on the other hand the GDP GDP in the market exchange rate in US dollars is much lower than the actual value of that money so the GDP per purchasing power parity is higher than the GDP market exchange rate