UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Mission documents state that India aims to develop at least 5 MMT per annum of green hydrogen production capacity by 2030. To supply this, about 125 GW of additional renewable energy capacity will be needed, creating a large clean-power ecosystem. This mission is expected to cut fossil fuel imports, abate around 50 MMT of CO₂ annually and generate substantial investments and employment. (hareda.gov.in)

Option A:
This option correctly states the numerical production target and its linkage to large-scale renewable capacity, matching official descriptions of the mission.

Option B:
This option understates both the scale of hydrogen production and the renewable energy requirement, and therefore does not match the approved mission.

Option C:
Producing hydrogen from coal does not qualify as green hydrogen and contradicts the decarbonisation objective; no such 50-MMT coal-based target has been announced.

Option D:
The mission explicitly sets quantitative goals; it is not restricted to small pilots with no numbers.

Statements A, B, C, E and F are correct and show technical, economic, behavioural and policy aspects of efficiency. Statement D is false because energy efficiency supports energy security by reducing demand and contributes to sustainable development by lowering environmental impacts. Hence, the correct combination is A, B, C, E and F only.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D, which wrongly dismisses efficiency’s role in energy security and sustainability.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits E and F, missing behavioural and policy tools that help realise efficiency gains in practice.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it includes D (false) and omits A, losing the basic definitional statement of efficiency.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B, so it underrepresents emissions benefits of efficiency when power is fossil-fuel based.

Higher ethanol blending can reduce net emissions compared to pure fossil petrol when the biofuel is produced sustainably. It also displaces a portion of imported crude oil, improving energy security and reducing the trade deficit. Additionally, it can create markets for agricultural residues and certain crops, potentially supporting farmer incomes if water and land are managed carefully.

Option A:
This option is incorrect because blending ethanol actually substitutes part of the imported fossil component, reducing dependence.

Option B:
This option correctly captures the multiple co-benefits claimed for E20 in climate, energy and rural-development terms, while noting that sustainability conditions apply.

Option C:
While emissions can decrease, E20 alone cannot eliminate all pollutants; vehicle technology and maintenance also matter.

Option D:
Shifting entirely to private cars would worsen congestion and emissions; biofuel policy is meant to complement, not replace, public transport improvements.

India’s leadership has committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2070, a pledge reiterated in various official platforms. Recent Economic Surveys describe climate policy as integral to the goal of becoming a developed nation by 2047, rather than as a separate agenda. The documents emphasise that adaptation, energy security, job creation and low-carbon growth must be pursued together. The framing is therefore one of integrated, phased transition rather than a trade-off between development and climate action. (Press Information Bureau)

Option A:
This option correctly weaves together the 2070 net-zero timeline and the 2047 development vision, reflecting how government publications present them. It highlights the idea of balancing multiple objectives, which is a key theme in India’s climate narrative.

Option B:
This statement is incorrect because India has publicly announced and defended a net-zero year, rather than rejecting the concept. Dismissing net zero as incompatible with development misrepresents current policy.

Option C:
A net-zero target of 2030 is far more ambitious than anything currently proposed and would be extremely disruptive; it is not India’s stated goal. Moreover, policy documents do not suggest halting industrial growth.

Option D:
Postponing climate action to after 2100 contradicts actual commitments and international negotiations in which India is actively engaged. This option therefore fails to reflect real-world climate diplomacy or domestic planning.

The National Green Hydrogen Mission sets a target of developing at least 5 MMT of annual green hydrogen production capacity by 2030. Achieving this will require substantial new renewable energy capacity, as green hydrogen must be produced from low-carbon electricity. The mission is expected to support decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sectors, enhance energy security and create new industrial and employment opportunities. It is thus a key pillar of India’s long-term low-emission development strategy. (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy)

Option A:
This option significantly understates the ambition of the mission and does not match official documents, which clearly mention a much higher target.

Option B:
This option also falls short of the target and is not supported by policy announcements. While 2 MMT would be a substantial amount, it is below the mission’s stated goal.

Option C:
This option correctly reflects the quantitative target and the link to additional renewable capacity. It recognises that green hydrogen is intended to be produced at large scale from clean power to deliver multiple co-benefits.

Option D:
A 50 MMT target with “no need for renewable power” contradicts the very definition of green hydrogen, which requires low-carbon electricity. Such a figure is not part of current Indian plans.

Higher ethanol blending in petrol can cut lifecycle emissions compared to pure fossil gasoline when produced sustainably. It reduces the quantity of imported crude oil needed for transport fuels, improving energy security. At the same time, it creates additional demand for crops such as sugarcane and maize, potentially raising rural incomes if supported by responsible water and land management.

Option A:
This option is incorrect because blending ethanol substitutes a part of imported fossil fuel, thereby lowering, not increasing, crude oil dependence.

Option B:
This option correctly summarises the multiple co-benefits of E20 in climate, energy and rural development terms, while implicitly recognising sustainability conditions.

Option C:
Regular maintenance is still required for vehicles; fuel type alone does not remove the need for upkeep, so this statement is misleading.

Option D:
Public transport investments remain essential for reducing congestion and emissions; E20 is a complementary measure, not a substitute.