Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Greenpeace (yes, I know) have launched a petition to urge the Thai government to support renewable energy. They also want the government to reject coal and nuclear. Can an energy expert please enlighten me as to whether it is possible to Thailand to shift to alternative energy big time?

Posted

Since Thailand has shifted to Fossil Fuel Energy in a big way the answer is yes.

There are characteristics about energy use in Thailand that deserve questioning, not just for the sake of the environment but also for the national balance sheet.

Examples include:

The application of inappropriate design and construction techniques in homes, offices etc

The underuse of railways as a means of mass transport

The use of face to face transactions requiring people to travel to perform even the most menial of transactions, rather than use of post/post office/bank transactions

The use of 'old technology' in the Thai motor industry (why is the sale of inefficient vehicle engines acceptable in Thailand where the same manufactures already have fuel efficient engines in production/sale elsewhere?)

Removal of tax barriers that prevent the import and development of energy efficient technologies

Green Peace and other are quite right to question these issues, off the shelf energy saving solutions are available and should not be ignored by government agencies pushing their own agenda.

Nor are the environmental issues minor.

In the past month there has been a serious chemical leak in the Rayong area, despite the evidence of people living in the area being hospitalized through the effects of the chemical leak the response of the authorities was to deny the seriousness of the leak and claim it to have been kept within the boundaries of the chemical plant.

This is an object lesson in the attitudes of the Thai administration to environmental safety and importantly to the safety of the public around a facility. Yet we are told that this is a mindset that should be allowed to build and operate Nuclear reactors. (A technology that must be sourced wholly from outside of Thailand).

Add to that the controversy around Thailand's coal fired plants, the intimidation of Thai citizens who have objected to the use of coal plants and it is clear that what Thailand needs to develop is a policy of giving the Thai people the say they deserve in Thailand's energy policies.

Green Peace entering the debate is a positive step in that direction.

Posted

The answer is yes, but Greenpeace and their ilk have to be more practical about things. Thailand faces an energy challenge (natural gas supply is less that able to cover Thailand’s future needs) so Greenpeace needs to do more that run a petition. (WARNING: I'm going to have a constructive greenpeace Thailand rant).

Although I am all for participatory democracy (eg survey's are fine), Greenpeace in Thailand (as well as most other NGO's) are going to have to up their game to recognise the needs and aspirations of Thai's and the financial realities of energy supply, and most importantly, work with 'the enemy' ie power and coal companies to develop approaches that are win-win for everyone. The list by gueshouse is a good example, which they could start running with.

While I have great respect for Greenpeace outside of Thailand (who have over the past two decades filled their ranks with financially literate and politically savvy members and have dropped the confrontational approach to many of their activities) they don't seem to have done that here.

While lobbying for 'change' in Thailand they've failed to point out simple things like the governments solar feed in tariff offer is vastly inadequate to encourage the development of solar generation in Thailand, nor have they offered to the general public basic advice on how to save energy. One of the simple things that they could do (cause the government won't) is to undertake public education so that people could drive slower - thus saving fuel costs and emissions, with the added bonus of having safer roads. Nor have they said particular much about the efficacies of biofuels, nor had a debate or done any analysis about what it means for Thailand.

Basically, greenpeace in Thailand don't strike me a particularly practical. Rather, they are a 'feel good' cocoon for overseas educated hi-so's who need something to do to feel good about themselves. Case in point was the dumping of GM modified fruit in front of the agricultural ministry last year. Their PR stunt turned into an embarrassment after the fruit was quickly hauled away by poorer passersby happy to have a bit of free fruit come their way.

Posted

Yep - Thailand pushing coal is not good but its meeting strong opposition from communities. And so it should.

At a more local level there is a push for renewables. There is a push for bio fuels (Bangchuck Petroleum etc) and the BMA has even placed over 100 bio gas digesters in schools, unis and restaurants with variying degrees of success. But this is not necessarily mirrored by the government in its energy strategy.

Of course there is a fair amount (relatively) of hydro power being produced - 7%?- (more enviro probs there too tho) from dams but almost no wind as far as I know. There are plans for at least one private bio fuel refinery for celulosic ethanol production to set up in central and north east Thailand which aim to connect to the grid and sell energy.

Deforestation is a serious concern too. Between 1990 and 2005 Thailand lost nearly 15% of its forests and woodland habitat.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...