Concerns over Chiang Mai coal project are ‘logically sound’, says engineering academic

[webfact]

Concerns over Chiang Mai coal project are ‘logically sound’, says engineering academic

By PRATCH RUJIVANAROM 
THE NATION

 

Photo from: Too Young to Die's Facebook

 

AN ENGINEERING ACADEMIC has raised concerns about the potentially serious environmental impacts of an open coal mine planned for Chiang Mai’s Omkoi district.

 

The Primary Industries and Mines Department has already given assurances that the project must first be subjected to public hearings and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but residents of Omkoi this week voiced opposition to opening a coal mine in what is currently forestland.

 

Sate Sampattagul, a lecturer in mechanical engineering at Chiang Mai University, said public concerns about the project were logically sound. Even if proper environmental measures were implemented, he said, the mining activity would likely cause multiple environmental issues in the future, he said.

 

Among potential problems are a major loss of forestland and biodiversity, air pollution and high greenhouse-gas emissions caused by extracting and burning coal, Sate noted.

 

Photo from: Somlak Hutanuwatr's Facebook

 

“The details haven’t yet been made publicly clear, so I can’t properly predict how serious the environmental impacts will be,” he said. “But coal mining is generally considered quite harmful for both the environment and people’s health.

 

“Even if the project owners have good mining practices and pollution-control standards, opening a coal mine in the forest will surely cause some deforestation and would lead to degradation of the environment and ecosystem.”

 

He said the mining activity would contribute more air pollution in an area already suffering from seasonal smog. Dust and the exhaust from mining machines would worsen air quality and, if the mine were high on a mountain, the area affected by air pollution would be even wider.

 

“The air pollution from coal mining will be much more harmful to people’s health than wildfire smoke, because it contains several toxic substances that could severely endanger health,” Sate stressed.

 

“Moreover, the extraction and burning of coal will emit a large volume of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change, and end up causing global harm to the environment and people’s wellbeing.”

 

 Charukit Ketkaew, director of Primary Industries and Mines Office 3 in Chiang Mai, said the project proponent was currently applying for a coal-mining concession. Approval would not be granted without a public hearing, an EIA, and permission secured from several state agencies.

 

“I know coal mining is seen as quite negative in the public’s mind, so I understand why the local people are concerned,” he said. 

 

“But I assure you that the proposal must first pass several processes in order to guarantee that the operation would have the least impact on the environment and the people before they can begin their project.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30369911

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-05-24

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Thailand]

Should help the smog in the coming years, still remember the stink from the mines in Yorkshire back in the 50's.

[Snow Leopard]

I am no expert here, just throwing something out there. If they want to mine coal and build a power station then why not use smaller ones and use the biofuel from sugar cane production. 

[Lungstib]

Remove some forest and replace it with a coal mine. Another fine example of how serious our govt treats environmental issues and climate change. As for the correct procedures of a public hearing and an EIA, we all know how that works out in a time of no dissent and protest.

[ZeVonderBearz]

No need to worry. We all know from trump that if you take coal and clean it before you burn it then it is safe.

[SoilSpoil]

Criminal to build a coal mine in this beautiful part of the country, that already suffers from uncontrolled burning and smog 4 to 5 months a year. 

[Stargeezr]

Oh yes, Bad Coal, great Nuke power! Justbask India!  Hah.

   Green people! How lovely..

Geezer

[Krataiboy]

Irrespective of the impact of burning fossil fuels on global warming, coal is only a "cheap" option if one is prepared to turn a blind eye to its inherent environmental drawbacks and discount the indisputable damage it does to human health.

 

This cheap, yet anything-but-cheerful, power source kills more than a million people a year, according to the World Heath Organisation. It is also responsible for over 1,500 deaths a year in Thailand - not including workers who die and are maimed in accidents at the coal face.

 

Such ongoing carnage, about to be extended with another controversial ill-sited mine, is an unaffordable and unnecessary price to pay for failing to identify and exploit obviously preferable available sources of energy.

 

Thailand has in excess of 3,000 miles of breezy coastline, plus virtually year-round sunshine, and is tailor-made for large-scale investment in the greener alternatives of wind/wave power and solar.

 

Yet neither of these practical and attractive options merits not so much as a passing mention in the waffly 20-year Energy Efficiency Plan foisted on the incoming government and future generations by the current regime.

 

Why?

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Krataiboy

[Sealbash]

Irrespective of the impact of burning fossil fuels on global warming, coal is only a "cheap" option if one is prepared to turn a blind eye to its inherent environmental drawbacks and discount the indisputable damage it does to human health.
 
This cheap, yet anything-but-cheerful, power source kills more than a million people a year, according to the World Heath Organisation. It is also responsible for over 1,500 deaths a year in Thailand - not including workers who die and are maimed in accidents at the coal face.
 
Such ongoing carnage, about to be extended with another controversial ill-sited mine, is an unaffordable and unnecessary price to pay for failing to identify and exploit obviously preferable available sources of energy.
 
Thailand has in excess of 3,000 miles of breezy coastline, plus virtually year-round sunshine, and is tailor-made for large-scale investment in the greener alternatives of wind/wave power and solar.
 
Yet neither of these practical and attractive options merits not so much as a passing mention in the waffly 20-year Energy Efficiency Plan foisted on the incoming government and future generations by the current regime.
 
Why?
 
 

Because if you do research into the overall carbon footprint of mining materials, manufacturing components, maintenance, of sufficient renewable energy components to satisfy electricity demand, it is not only more economical, but also less environmentally damaging to use coal or fossil fuels for power generation.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Krataiboy]

3 minutes ago, Sealbash said:

Because if you do research into the overall carbon footprint of mining materials, manufacturing components, maintenance, of sufficient renewable energy components to satisfy electricity demand, it is not only more economical, but also less environmentally damaging to use coal or fossil fuels for power generation.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Not sure Greta would agree with you.

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, Sealbash said:

Because if you do research into the overall carbon footprint of mining materials, manufacturing components, maintenance, of sufficient renewable energy components to satisfy electricity demand, it is not only more economical, but also less environmentally damaging to use coal or fossil fuels for power generation.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Can you recommend a reliable source for what you claim? Not disputing, just asking.

[Sealbash]

Can you recommend a reliable source for what you claim? Not disputing, just asking.

Please define “reliable”.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Can you recommend a reliable source for what you claim? Not disputing, just asking.

There's a problem in defining what a reliable source is. Those who as skeptical about the claimed disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels, will tend to argue that such sites that are promoting the alarm are not reliable.

 

Likewise, those sites that express certainty that CO2 is the main driver of the current warming period, and that any warming will be bad, will not be considered reliable by the skeptics.

 

However, there does seem to be a genuine problem regarding the environmental pollution caused by the mining and processing of metals necessary for the construction of renewable energy devices such as solar panels and Lithium batteries.

 

Here are a few sites which address the problem.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

 

"Two other key ingredients, cobalt and nickel, are more in danger of creating a bottleneck in the move towards electric vehicles, and at a potentially huge environmental cost.
Unlike most metals, which are not toxic when they’re pulled from the ground as metal ores, cobalt is “uniquely terrible,” according to Gleb Yushin, chief technical officer and founder of battery materials company Sila Nanotechnologies."

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/battery-batteries-electric-cars-carbon-sustainable-power-energy/

 

"Batteries powering electric vehicles are forecast to make up 90% of the lithium-ion battery market by 2025. They are the main reason why electric vehicles can generate more carbon emissions over their lifecycle – from procurement of raw materials to manufacturing, use and recycling – than petrol or diesel cars."

 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lithium-ion-battery-production-is-surging-but-at-what-cost#gs.dgotd8

 

"Though an explosion in EVs and energy storage will allow countries to rely on less carbon-intensive energy, the extraction of essential ingredients to make cost-effective lithium-ion batteries generally leaves environmental and human devastation in its wake."

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-for-the-environment/

 

"Locally, there's little doubt that electric cars will help to make our towns and cities cleaner, quieter and more pleasant. Nationally and internationally, the pressure to extract raw materials, the energy used in car production, and the source of electricity combine to rob the electric car of its holier-than-thou status."

[Krataiboy]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

There's a problem in defining what a reliable source is. Those who as skeptical about the claimed disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels, will tend to argue that such sites that are promoting the alarm are not reliable.

 

Likewise, those sites that express certainty that CO2 is the main driver of the current warming period, and that any warming will be bad, will not be considered reliable by the skeptics.

 

However, there does seem to be a genuine problem regarding the environmental pollution caused by the mining and processing of metals necessary for the construction of renewable energy devices such as solar panels and Lithium batteries.

 

Here are a few sites which address the problem.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

 

"Two other key ingredients, cobalt and nickel, are more in danger of creating a bottleneck in the move towards electric vehicles, and at a potentially huge environmental cost.
Unlike most metals, which are not toxic when they’re pulled from the ground as metal ores, cobalt is “uniquely terrible,” according to Gleb Yushin, chief technical officer and founder of battery materials company Sila Nanotechnologies."

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/battery-batteries-electric-cars-carbon-sustainable-power-energy/

 

"Batteries powering electric vehicles are forecast to make up 90% of the lithium-ion battery market by 2025. They are the main reason why electric vehicles can generate more carbon emissions over their lifecycle – from procurement of raw materials to manufacturing, use and recycling – than petrol or diesel cars."

 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lithium-ion-battery-production-is-surging-but-at-what-cost#gs.dgotd8

 

"Though an explosion in EVs and energy storage will allow countries to rely on less carbon-intensive energy, the extraction of essential ingredients to make cost-effective lithium-ion batteries generally leaves environmental and human devastation in its wake."

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-for-the-environment/

 

"Locally, there's little doubt that electric cars will help to make our towns and cities cleaner, quieter and more pleasant. Nationally and internationally, the pressure to extract raw materials, the energy used in car production, and the source of electricity combine to rob the electric car of its holier-than-thou status."

Thanks a bunch for the thoughtful input and references. Will do some new digging.

[Krataiboy]

6 hours ago, Sealbash said:

Please define “reliable”.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Dependable - or so I am reliably informed.

[laspalmas]

Funny ... they prefer coal mines rather than have digital nomads.

[donnacha]

Expect many more such projects to be announced, now that the smokey season is long gone and forgotten, and everyone's lungs are 100% fine again.

Thailand is a proud party to the Paris Agreement, along with fellow noble non-polluters such as China and India.

[rickudon]

Although BUILDING a coal fired power station and a coal mine will do less environmental damage than the mining of minerals to provide renewable energy infrastructure, the difference is that for the renewable infrastructure the environmental issues are front loaded, For the coal fired power station, the environmental issues are spread across the entire life span of the plant. CO2 and other toxic emissions from the power plant, fly ash disposal, and pollution and destruction from the mining activities.

 

To see what damage long term coal mining does, go to West Virginia, Apart from the environmental destruction, many areas have no safe tap water (and that is not just drinking, you cannot use it for washing either) due to pollution from mine wastes seeping into water supplies (and that doesn't end when the mining stops). It is hard to quantify 30 years of future environmental damage from coal mining and CO2 emissions, while easier to assess say the manufacture of batteries. Therefore any comparison is somewhat suspect.

[SpaceKadet]

On 5/24/2019 at 1:27 PM, Sealbash said:

Because if you do research into the overall carbon footprint of mining materials, manufacturing components, maintenance, of sufficient renewable energy components to satisfy electricity demand, it is not only more economical, but also less environmentally damaging to use coal or fossil fuels for power generation.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And it's even more economical and environmentally friendly to use nuclear than fossil fuels.

 

In any case, solar cannot provide 24/7 power generation, and if you look into the mining and manufacturing, it has pretty high CO2 footprint.