When Union Minister Nitin Gadkari recently declared that “650 Crores Ltr. DIESEL in our country is imported just for consumption of Telecom towers. We import this vast quantity. This causes Pollution too. If we replace it by Flex Generators, or Iso-butanol blended fuel, it’ll help a lot”, he touched on a problem that cannot be denied (short video). Diesel dependency in telecom is vast, costly, and polluting.
But the proposed “magic fix”—replacing diesel with ethanol or iso-butanol generators—misses the fundamental point. India does not need a new class of hydrocarbon-powered machines. It needs a reliable electricity system that keeps telecom towers running on the grid, with batteries and renewable back-up. This is how mature telecom markets operate worldwide, and it is what India must aspire to.
2. Counting the Litres: Fact-Checking the 650 Crore Claim
India’s telecom sector today operates more than 816,000 towers. At an average consumption of 8,760 litres of diesel per tower per year, this adds up to roughly 715 crore litres annually—slightly above Mr. Gadkari’s figure, but still broadly accurate.
This scale matters. Telecom towers consume about 6.5% of India’s total diesel use, second only to the Railways. In environmental terms, this translates into over 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.
So yes, the Minister is right about the size of the problem. But identifying a problem correctly is only half the battle. The other half is prescribing the right solution. And here, a focus on alternative fuels alone risks distracting from the systemic fixes India urgently needs.
3. The Ethanol Dilemma: Competing With India’s E20 Goals
India’s ethanol production capacity currently stands at 465 crore litres annually, and even with ongoing expansions, much of it is already earmarked for achieving the government’s E20 petrol blending mandate. By 2025–26, India is expected to need more than 1,000 crore litres annually just to meet this blending target.
If telecom towers were to consume 650 crore litres on their own, it would directly compete with the transport sector, cannibalising ethanol supplies and destabilising both policy and markets. Moreover, a large share of the ethanol ramp-up depends on grain-based feedstock—raising food security concerns at a time when India’s cereal balance is under pressure.
Put simply, diverting ethanol to telecom towers is neither feasible nor desirable. What looks like a “green solution” on the surface risks becoming a zero-sum game between keeping cars on the road and keeping phones connected.
4. Iso-Butanol: A Fuel of the Future, Not the Present
Mr. Gadkari also floated the idea of iso-butanol blended fuel. On paper, this has merit. Iso-butanol has higher energy density than ethanol, blends more easily with petroleum products, and can deliver efficiency gains with fewer engine modifications.
But the harsh reality is that India does not yet produce iso-butanol at commercial scale for energy applications. Current production is focused on niche chemical industries, not nationwide fuel supply chains.
To reorient iso-butanol production for 800,000 telecom towers would require massive new investments in manufacturing capacity, distribution networks, and handling protocols—investments that could take years before yielding results. Iso-butanol may indeed be part of India’s future energy mix. But it is not a solution for the telecom sector today.
5. Beyond Rumours, Back to Reality
We do not, for a moment, endorse the rumours floating in some market circles that India’s ethanol capacity—current and in the pipeline—is already adequate for E20 blending, and that the Minister’s proposal is really about creating new markets for distilleries, some of which may be linked to his associates. These whispers, however amplified by the market, remain speculative and distracting.
The real issue is not whether ethanol producers stand to gain. It is whether India should continue to chase hydrocarbon substitutes for a problem that demands a structural energy solution. Mr. Gadkari is right to highlight the diesel burden of telecom towers. But his fuel-switch proposal risks repeating the errors of the past—locking India into yet another hydrocarbon pathway instead of fixing the fundamentals of power supply.
6. Global Best Practice: Grid First, Renewables Next
How do other countries power their telecom towers? The answer is simple: they put them on the grid.
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission requires operators to ensure resilience, but assumes grid electricity as the primary power source. Backup comes from batteries for short outages and diesel generators for emergencies. In Europe, telecom regulators like Ofcom focus on network continuity standards, not on mandating alternative fuels.
In Africa, where grid access is patchier, operators increasingly deploy solar-hybrid systems combining photovoltaic panels, batteries, and smart controllers. These reduce diesel runtime dramatically, often achieving over 50% savings with payback periods of less than two years.
The international lesson is clear: hydrocarbons should be a last resort, not the baseline. India’s towers should mirror this model—grid-connected wherever possible, battery-buffered, and supplemented by solar or hydrogen fuel cells where the grid cannot reach.
7. The Economics of Fixing the System, Not Selling Generators
Replacing diesel with ethanol or iso-butanol does not fix the structural cost drivers. Fuel must still be transported to thousands of dispersed sites, stored safely, and consumed in generators that demand frequent maintenance.
By contrast, solar plus batteries cut operating expenditure dramatically. Once installed, panels and batteries require minimal fuel logistics, and their costs continue to fall. Energy-as-a-service models now allow tower operators to outsource power provision, with hybrid systems reducing diesel use by half or more.
The economics are clear: capital costs for renewable-battery systems pay back in 12–24 months, after which savings accrue steadily. In comparison, a wholesale switch to flex-fuel generators would lock operators into another cycle of fuel procurement and distribution headaches. India must decide whether it wants a future-ready system or a repackaged version of the past.
8. A Better Roadmap: Grid, Storage, and Clean Backups
What, then, is the constructive path forward?
First, mandate grid connectivity for all non-remote telecom towers within a clear timeline, with DISCOMs held accountable for service standards. Where capex is a barrier, the Universal Service Obligation Fund can bridge the gap.
Second, cap generator runtime at grid-served sites, monitored through smart meters, and incentivise operators to meet these caps through solar and storage.
Third, support battery storage through production-linked incentives, explicitly extending coverage to telecom and data centre power backup.
Fourth, keep hydrocarbons for edge cases only—sites that are truly off-grid or disaster-prone. For these, accelerate hydrogen fuel cell pilots already underway, offering zero-emission, plug-and-play solutions.
This roadmap aligns with India’s clean energy commitments while directly tackling the telecom diesel problem. It offers systemic reform, not another generator sales pitch.
9. Conclusion: Generate Energy, Not Policy Confusion
Mr. Gadkari deserves credit for spotlighting an important issue. Telecom diesel consumption is indeed vast, costly, and polluting. But the policy answer is not to market new types of generators, however innovative they may seem.
The real fix lies in reliable grid power, scaling renewable integration, and deploying clean backup technologies like batteries and hydrogen. This is where ministerial leadership can make a lasting impact—by aligning telecom energy strategy with India’s broader transition to a low-carbon economy.
India does not need another hydrocarbon pathway disguised as a magic fix. It needs to generate real energy solutions. And that means ensuring our telecom towers are powered by the grid and the sun—not by endless debates over which fuel to pour into the same old machines.