British International Investment invests $100 mn for 10% stake in ReNew's solar module manufacturing business
The UK government entity will acquire a 10% stake in ReNew Photovoltaics Ltd, valuing the subsidiary at $1 billion, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The investment will be deployed towards adding 4 gigawatts of solar module and cell manufacturing capacity. ReNew has 6.4 GW of module capacity and 2.5 GW of cell capacity. The cumulative capacity of ReNew will be about 13 GW following the capacity addition.
BII recently sold its stake in National Investment and Infrastructure Fund-backed Ayana Renewable Power Pvt Ltd to ONGC NTPC Green Private Ltd in a ₹ 6,600 crore equity deal. Ayana manages a 4.1 GW renewable energy portfolio across Indian states and delivers solar, wind, hybrid, storage and round-the-clock renewable solutions.
ReNew said in a statement on 6 May that this is BII's first investment in solar manufacturing in India.
'This partnership underscores our commitment to delivering high quality, top-tier products,' said Sumant Sinha, founder and chairman of ReNew. 'Venturing into manufacturing was a strategic decision aimed at securing our supply chain, particularly as India advances its objective of indigenising the solar supply chain… our goal was to partner with a like-minded, long-term partner in the manufacturing sector."
Sally Taylor, minister counsellor for climate, science and tech at the British High Commission, said the investment in ReNew's subsidiary will diversify the supply of panels and build the strong partnership between the UK and India on clean energy.
"The UK Government is pressing ahead with our own clean energy transition, where the private sector is playing a key role, and we are keen to work with India and other countries showing domestic and international leadership on tackling climate change," Taylor said.
Shilpa Kumar, MD and head of India at BII noted that enhancing India's capacity in solar manufacturing will not only boost clean energy generation but also reduce the country's dependency on imports, promote sustainable industrialisation and create jobs.
"It underscores BII's unwavering commitment to making investments that drive sustainable development and climate resilience in India," BII's India head said.
Established in 2021, ReNew Photovoltaics operates a 6.4 GW solar PV module facility in Jaipur and a 2.5 GW solar cell facility in Dholera, Gujarat. BII's investment will be primarily utilised to construct a 4 GW cell facility in Dholera. The expansion is expected to create over 2,000 jobs, the company said in the statement.
ReNew Photovoltaics' customers include state-run NTPC and Shakti Pumps.
In an interview to Mint in September 2024, Sinha said ReNew Energy Global is looking at monetising its solar components manufacturing business and may approach private equity firms to raise funds.
First Published: 6 May 2025, 05:43 PM IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
14 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Breaking down the Chinese wall
As India and China commemorate 75 years of diplomatic engagement this year, strong signs of a diplomatic thaw have emerged. The meeting between Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting in January; resumption of the Kailash Manasarovar Yatra in June; and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's two-day visit to India this week all offer glimpses of warmth. A meeting point for two worlds Long before modern diplomacy took shape, and borders were established and redrawn, the relationship between India and China was nurtured by something more enduring: the shared pursuit of knowledge. As early as the first millennium CE, Chinese monks such as Faxian, Xuanzang, and Yijing journeyed across treacherous landscapes to reach Indian centres of learning. At the heart of this exchange stood Nalanda, where ideas flowed more freely than goods, and religious belief and secular inquiry coexisted in harmony. Nalanda was a meeting point of the two worlds, where cultural and intellectual connections flourished far beyond the concerns of modern statehood. In the quest to revive Nalanda today, there is more than nostalgia; there is hope to rebuild the kind of meaningful, respectful engagement that once defined our ties. Nalanda, both as an institution and as a philosophy, has long embodied a commitment to peace, dialogue, and intellectual diplomacy. It's enduring spirit lives on in its motto — 'Aa no bhadra kratavo yantu viśvata (let noble thoughts come to us from all directions).' This same spirit lives on in the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world as one family). This way of thinking has, for centuries, held together the threads of exchange between India and China. Since the time of Xuanzang, scholars, teachers, and students from both nations have engaged in meaningful interaction, unimpeded by the boundaries that define the modern state. Today, the space for such academic and cultural exchange seems to be narrowed. Should contemporary political complexities necessarily limit the flow of ideas between two ancient civilisations? Stalling of trade, recurring military confrontations, and hundreds of academic or people-to-people connections awaiting bureaucratic clearance have created a kind of stillness, one that feels far removed from the natural flow of exchange that once defined our ties. Why must scholars on either side require permission to engage in dialogue, or students hesitate before considering an academic exchange with institutions of global standing across the border? There is immense potential for mutual learning. India can look to China's initiatives in areas such as food security, local infrastructure development, or grassroots entrepreneurship. And China's academic and policy community may find value in studying India's democratic decentralisation, open civil society engagement, or digital public goods framework. These are not points of comparison, but possible pathways of collaborative learning. In this light, one wonders: why does India's engagement with China remain so carefully limited? Why does strategic ambiguity continue to define a relationship rooted in shared intellectual history? How can we move from reactive diplomacy towards a more confident, future-facing framework that honours the depth of our civilisational ties, while meeting the complexities of the present? How do we deal with the emergence of 'the gatekeeper states,' limiting the range of possibilities? The Nalanda way Just as Nalanda once created space for dialogue and learning between civilisations, perhaps today too, we can draw from that spirit to shape how we engage with China. There will always be areas where our paths differ: on the border, in trade, or in the way we see the region around us. But Nalanda reminds us that disagreement does not have to mean disengagement. It is possible to hold firm where we must, and still stay open to conversations where they matter. This approach also calls for some reflection on how we prepare ourselves. We don't need to change our principles, but we may need to adapt how we practice them. Investing in stronger academic and policy research on China, allowing smoother academic exchanges in areas such as environment, health, and culture, and building long-term people-to-people connections are quiet but important steps. Nalanda drew its strength from more than just being a beacon of knowledge. At the heart of Nalanda's tradition were values that still feel close to us: curiosity, compassion, and the transformative power of knowledge. Scholars such as Śīlabhadra, who taught the Chinese monk Xuanzang, showed that learning could also be a form of diplomacy. Nalanda wasn't just India's; it was also a place of deep importance to generations of Chinese scholars who carried its teachings home and helped shape the intellectual and spiritual fabric of East Asia. Today, perhaps these principles matter even more. If India and China can draw from this shared legacy with genuine intention, they may find a way to engage with each other more thoughtfully. Curiosity without fear, dialogue without suspicion, and clarity without aggression could be the beginning of a steadier path built on understanding and mutual respect. We need to break down our Chinese wall to move beyond the paranoia that sustains our China policy. Rajeev Ranjan Chaturvedy, Associate Professor heading the School of International Relations and Peace Studies, and founding coordinator of the Centre for Bay of Bengal Studies; Anushka Padmanabh Antrolikar, Postgraduate scholar at Nalanda University, Rajgir
Deccan Herald
44 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
The rhetoric and real costs of trade wars
India misread the tariffs brought on by the United States and, at a broader level, the Trump administration. We were one of the first to approach the US on this matter, and we continued to believe that we would have a favourable deal till recently, given what we felt was a great rapport between Modi and Trump. Mainstream electronic media houses were complicit in driving this narrative. To understand why India got it wrong, it would be useful to connect two disparate data dots. Top that with India's misreading of Trump's desire to be seen as a look at the first irritant and its impact. India exports roughly $90 billion, paying approximately 2 per cent tariffs currently, and imports roughly $45 billion at 12 per cent tariffs. The trade deficit of $45 billion carries a tariff differential of $5 billion per year in India's favour after adjusting for exempted products. We should have seen this imbalance in America's trade deficit and tariffs long ago and proactively addressed this. Modi is now overhauling the tax rates in a bid to boost the economy. This is expected to cost $20 billion, four times the tariff differential India was enjoying. .The other irritant is oil imports. In 2021/22, India imported roughly 2.5 million barrels of oil every day. Under the tacit approval of the West, India's imports from Russia grew from 2 per cent then to 40 per cent today. India buys 45 per cent of the exported oil from Russia, a growth of 1900 per cent from pre-war levels. China buys the same percentage, a growth of 50 per cent from pre-war levels. So why did India need this extra oil suddenly? It was because we processed this extra oil and sold it for a profit overseas. Therefore, the rhetoric is misplaced, as we are profiting and fuelling the Russian war machine. Predicting the flow of events, we should have scaled down our offtake back to the 2022 levels and with that, justify our need to fuel the Indian economy and keep inflationary tendencies in check. We have now started to do this, drawing a balance between the US and predict that the impact of tariffs at 25 per cent is likely to be in the region of $11-12 billion per annum on tariffed goods and about 0.25 per cent on GDP. In the earliest days of cranking up our imports of oil, the difference was around $30 a barrel, leading to a gain of $16 billion. That has now come down to around $5 a barrel after accounting for logistics, etc. The benefit we get is estimated today to be only $3.5 billion, a delta of $8.5 billion from what we lose out on with the long commentators have suggested many responses, ranging from the knee-jerk to keeping the long-term in mind. The real issue is what we do now. There is no pattern in the madness. Why have the four treatments of the BRIC countries been different? Because there is a different playbook with each one. With Brazil, the US has a trade surplus. Why then, do they have tariffs of 50 per cent, which is higher than China and equal to India? Bolsonaro? With China, 150 per cent was brought down to 30 per cent; here, it is about the rare earths. For the quantities required, the ecosystem is expensive, and the returns don't work out for a commercial operation. The CCP subsidised this for leverage and their long-term plans to pursue electric mobility and clean energy. This leverage on supplies was used to resolve the $650 billion of trade at stake between the US and China. .India made public its hypocritical treatment at the hands of the US, as it bought palladium, uranium, etc. from Russia. However, the reality is that US imports from Russia were at best $3 billion, down some 45 per cent from the previous year. India's imports from Russia stood at $70 billion, almost twice what it imports from the must now not get caught in the whirlpool of its rhetoric. And it certainly must not seek to appease China and Russia in a hurry and on the rebound. One can expect that this is short-term. There are many moving parts – Russia and Ukraine could arrive at a truce as early as next month. India has already started to demonstrate it is willing to reduce its import of Russian oil while not displeasing Russia. The midterms in the US could go against Trump, and the US courts could reverse Trump's executive decisions. Importantly, Trump does not define the long-standing US relationship with India. Trump himself may not have a long-term view on this the US, it seems clear. The average tariff on its imports has seen inflows of $28 billion, three times post these levies were collected in June. This aggregates to $350 billion. Add to this DOGE cuts and some others, and we have $500 billion being saved or added to the US treasury. This pays half its annual interest cost of $1 trillion, which, if left alone, is not sustainable. This is good for no one, as it is the world's biggest market by the short term, one sees no harm in subtly managing the relationships and dynamics at play and being practical. In the long term, anyway, as economist John Maynard Keynes said, we are all dead..(The writer is the former managing director of a Tata Company and now runs a Bengaluru-headquartered corporate finance practice)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
Israel weighs Hamas truce offer amid Gaza offensive plans, hostage release talks intensify
Israel is studying Hamas' response to a proposal for a 60-day ceasefire and release of half the hostages still held in Gaza, two Israeli officials said on Tuesday, although one source reiterated that all Israeli captives must be freed for the war to end A view of destroyed buildings in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the border between Gaza and Israel, on Tuesday. Reuters Israel is studying Hamas' response to a proposal for a 60-day ceasefire and release of half the hostages still held in Gaza, two Israeli officials said on Tuesday, although one source reiterated that all Israeli captives must be freed for the war to end. Efforts to pause the fighting gained new momentum over the past week after Israel announced plans for a new offensive to seize control of Gaza City at the heart of the Palestinian enclave. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Mediators Egypt and Qatar have been pushing proposals to restart indirect talks between the sides on a US-backed ceasefire plan. The proposals include the release of 200 Palestinian convicts jailed in Israel and an unspecified number of imprisoned women and minors, in return for 10 living and 18 deceased hostages from Gaza, according to a Hamas official. Two Egyptian security sources confirmed the details, and added that Hamas has requested the release of hundreds of Gaza detainees as well. Israel says a total of 50 hostages remain in Gaza, 20 of them still alive. 'Israel's policy is consistent and has not changed. Israel demands the release of all 50 hostages in accordance with the principles established by the cabinet for ending the war. We are in the final decisive stage of Hamas and will not leave any hostage behind,' an Israeli political source said. The comment, while adamant, fell short of an outright rejection of the proposal on the table. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to convene discussions about the ceasefire proposal soon, the two Israeli officials said. A response was expected in the coming two days, said a Palestinian source close to the talks. Before Hamas responded on Monday to the proposal, Netanyahu had ruled out any deal that excluded the return of all the hostages. Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Majed Al Ansari said the 60-day truce deal would include 'a pathway to a comprehensive agreement to end the war.' The proposal includes a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, which presently control 75% of Gaza and the entry of more humanitarian aid into the enclave, where a population of 2.2 million people is increasingly facing famine. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Israel had previously agreed to the outline, advanced by U.S. special Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, but negotiations faltered over some of its details. The last round of talks ended in deadlock in late July. While Israel's political echelon weighed a response, Defence Minister Israel Katz met commanders late on Tuesday. Public broadcaster Kan's military correspondent Itay Blumental said on X the meeting was to approve plans to capture Gaza City. The post cited four stages to the plans: building humanitarian infrastructure in the southern Gaza Strip, evacuation of Gaza City, encirclement of Gaza City and manoeuvring into Gaza City. Thousands of people fearing an imminent Israeli ground offensive are estimated to have fled the area in the past few days for points to the west and south in the shattered territory. On the ground, there were no signs of a ceasefire nearing as Israeli gunfire, tank shelling and airstrikes killed at least 20 Palestinians on Tuesday, according to Gaza health officials. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At a shelter in Khan Younis, in the south of the enclave, displaced people had mixed feelings over whether a deal would be reached this time. 'I expect - every time the (Israeli) occupation would be obstinate, reject and receive proposals with negative responses - I expect the same for this proposal as well,' said Abdallah Al-Khawaja. Women sat by wood fires cooking meals for their families, while men filled plastic gallons with water; many hoped Israel would approve the proposal. 'What I say and expect as a member of the Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip, one of the bereaved and displaced, is that I expect a positive response (from Israel),' said Awad Labde. In Israel, the threatened offensive prompted tens of thousands of Israelis on Sunday to hold some of the largest protests since the war began, urging a deal to end the fighting and free the remaining hostages held in Gaza. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Netanyahu faces domestic political pressure from his far-right government partners who object to a truce with Hamas. Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir have demanded to keep the war going until Hamas' defeat, and annex Gaza. Groups representing Israeli families of those held hostage have demanded their return to Israel and an end to the war. Hamas official Izzat El-Reshiq said that the truce proposal it has agreed to is an interim accord that would pave the way for negotiations on ending the war. A source close to the talks said that, unlike previous rounds, Hamas accepted the proposal with no further demands. But prospects for agreeing an end to the war appear remote, with gaps remaining on the terms. Israel is demanding the group lay down its arms and its leaders leave Gaza, conditions which Hamas has so far publicly rejected. The war began when Hamas-led fighters stormed into Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. Israel's offensive has since killed more than 62,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials who do not distinguish between fighters and non-combatants. The Israeli assault has plunged Gaza into a humanitarian crisis and displaced most of its population. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
