Thailand Backs 3.5 Billion Dollar Mekong River Dam Project

[OzMick]

After 20 years working in the electricity generation industry (coal-fired BTW), I predict that in the future as fossil fuels are depleted, the objections to this dam will be seen as ridiculous and to waste such a valuable energy resource near-criminal.

Expected annual generation is 7,400 GWh the equivalent of burning 300,000 tonne of coal EACH YEAR.

Or you could try to produce 20GWh/day from solar, which would require a 2.5GW solar plant (allowing a capacity factor of 33.33%, much higher than achieved anywhere). The world's largest solar plants are being built in Oz (where hydro power availability is minimal), at 0.15 GW (150 MW) they are twice the size of anything yet built and estimated cost exceeds a billion $AU each.

So not only is the dam FAR cheaper than any alternative, it also requires far less maintenance, and produces power that can be sold at a much higher price due to 24hr availability and load-following ability.

In a perfect case scenario,my wife would work and be cheerier and provide sex at my desired hour, my son would be hitting the books and not playing video games and the dogs would sleep through every bark filled night. So the fuc_kin dam_n might make some rich folks richer and fuc_k up the area when we have sun up the ying yang here.Sure, take a red flag enema break ya freak....

Let me try to explain in very simple terms. As fossil fuels are depleted they become more expensive and this will make the price of electricity go up. The lucky people of Laos won't have this problem and will be able to afford to turn on a light when the sun goes down, or stops coming out of their ying yang as you put it.

I included the information about solar power so that simple minds that cry out for it will understand that solar installations are very expensive and require maintenance for solar tracking equipment and regular cleaning, which means that the electricity that they make is also expensive.

Not to mention that when the sun up their ying yang goes down, the power stops unless you have some way to store it. The best way is to build 2 dams and pump water uphill through the day, but I'm guessing you won't like that suggestion either.

[DonaldBattles]

The pump back of the water is a great solution. They use it in Georgia at night when the power use is low and electricity is cheap. This way Lao can tell the big dragon to piss off. If anyone thinks the world is running out of fossil fuels they need to move to Lao. Nuclear energy is the only hope for renewables You can forget the 50 year payback for solar unless the governments sucks off tax money to give to people to install it. A better investment would be in refineries. The ethanol scam in the USA is one of the best examples of subsidizing the corn farmers, producers and refiners. On an energy basis ethanol costs $1.83 per gallon more than refined gasoline. "I am from the government and I want to help you with your money supply." May the arabs of the world keep pumping. North American including Canada wants to save its energy resources and use the arab oil until it runs dry.

[OzMick]

So the Xaraburi dam building has re-started..........a tragedy for the river, the people and the environment. Laos is a poor country and hope to benefit from this.

What is nearer the truth is that a few rich men in Thailand will benefit the most, followed by a few rich men in Laos.

They claim that the electricity will benefit the poor of Laos - rubbish! - they haven't even got the infrastructure for this - the power is to be sold to Thailand - who apparently don't even need it now or in the future.

Using electricity a long way from source is hugely inefficient - up to 50% - this whole project is just a bunch of self-serving plutocrats feathering their nests at the expensive of people and the environment - what a legacy!

Please try to be more accurate - transmission losses over the distances involved are nowhere near 50%. Power generated in Queensland is transmitted daily to power hungry industries in Sydney and Newcastle. Total transmission losses for the contiguous states of the US is around 6.5%, and some of that is likely to be power theft (measured by power in minus that sold).

It is Thailand's policy to steadily move away from fossil fuel generation. Is that policy wrong?

[OzMick]

The pump back of the water is a great solution. They use it in Georgia at night when the power use is low and electricity is cheap. This way Lao can tell the big dragon to piss off. If anyone thinks the world is running out of fossil fuels they need to move to Lao. Nuclear energy is the only hope for renewables You can forget the 50 year payback for solar unless the governments sucks off tax money to give to people to install it. A better investment would be in refineries. The ethanol scam in the USA is one of the best examples of subsidizing the corn farmers, producers and refiners. On an energy basis ethanol costs $1.83 per gallon more than refined gasoline. "I am from the government and I want to help you with your money supply." May the arabs of the world keep pumping. North American including Canada wants to save its energy resources and use the arab oil until it runs dry.

Oz has had the Snowy Mountain Hydro scheme which started construction in 1949. We use it to keep the big generators spinning overnight, and the energy stored for morning/evening peak loads.

Another similar scheme has been suggested on the Clarence River, NSW but the current government prefers hugely expensive solar systems.

[DonaldBattles]

I am pleased to know that Thailand has an energy policy. Can you tell me where this is published, it would be interesting reading. Does Thaksin benefit form Thailands energy policy, if not then I doubt that it exist.

[OzMick]

I am pleased to know that Thailand has an energy policy. Can you tell me where this is published, it would be interesting reading. Does Thaksin benefit form Thailands energy policy, if not then I doubt that it exist.

There was a Nation/TVF thread some time back that mentioned a policy to move away from fossil fuels at something like 20% over 20 years (?? from memory only.) I do remember working out the expenditure required to build solar plants at that rate.

[DonaldBattles]

One of my friends who works on an oil well on an oil well in Phitsanulok tells me that PTT is holding oil and gas production back as it allows them to spend their money overseas. Thailand has good reserves of both natural gas and oil. If Thailand would start using hydraulic fracturing it could dramatically increase it's natural gas supply. Maybe not necessary as pipelines from Malaysia and Burma provide them with more gas than they know what to do with at extremely low prices. It is note worthy that 67% of the power generated in Thailand comes from natural gas. Don't think you will ever see this trend change and not in the next 20 years. If there was not corruption involved or big subsidies what would be the motivation for solar energy in Thailand. I still don't believe that there is a written Thai Energy policy and published by the current government If there was then it would reflect there continued dependence and utilization of the abundant natural gas supply they have. Not that there are many natural gas filling stations throughout Thailand and the dependance on gas for automative fuel is growing by leaps and bounds. Gas is higher in energy density by 2-1 than oil and the noxious gases and C02 is dramatically reduced. Gas is Thailands energy future for cars and power generation. Solar is no more than a bad dream but if they must waste their money like the USA bring it own as ugly as solar panels and wind mills are withtheir noise and utilization of space.

[zakk9]

It is Thailand's policy to steadily move away from fossil fuel generation. Is that policy wrong?

If the consequence is that the livelihood of 60 million people is endangered, it's most certainly wrong.

Thailand is extremely energy inefficient, particularly with regards to transportation, but also in buildings, homes as well as commercial buildings. Unfortunately, there's little money to put in the pockets for those in power by promoting energy efficiency, so it doesn't happen. Instead, they subsidise gas for use in cars and even cars for those who don't have one.

[morocco]

OzMick, on 2012-11-08 08:41:46, said:

It is Thailand's policy to steadily move away from fossil fuel generation. Is that policy wrong?

zakk9

"If the consequence is that the livelihood of 60 million people is endangered, it's most certainly wrong."

morocco

OzMick,are you starting to understand the big picture here?

Edited November 8, 2012 by morocco

[noob7]

If the consequence is that the livelihood of 60 million people is endangered, it's most certainly wrong.

That's how Thai politics works for decades: Made for the top 10%, nothing else planned for the future.

In case, something good comes through the parliament, it is even better, for the ruling party.

Collateral 'damage', you can call it. And almost every time, they need voters, only!

[DonaldBattles]

Thailand's Energy Policy is like the USA starting with Nixon, every president since Nixon have publicly stated that their policy is energy independence and promotion of alternative energy except nuclear. The one alternative that could displace coal in power plants. For politicians this always sounds good to the people. If anyone believes these lies then look at what energy consumption trends have been for past 40 years. Thailand's great hope and thrust is toward natural gas and you can forget the rest of the eye wash. There is no current plan to replace the big coal generating power plants in the north of Thailand that have always been a big source of pollution. The lignite that these plants comes from both Thailand and Laos and is high in ash and very low in energy level (30%). This is one of worst forms of coal that can be used but there is no movement toward replacing the lignite with high quality coal from Indonesia.

[gk10002000]

I am confused. Is this the same dam project that started and stopped and is almost done or is that another one?

[zakk9]

I am confused. Is this the same dam project that started and stopped and is almost done or is that another one?

It's a new one. Building has just started.

[OzMick]

OzMick, on 2012-11-08 08:41:46, said:

It is Thailand's policy to steadily move away from fossil fuel generation. Is that policy wrong?

zakk9

"If the consequence is that the livelihood of 60 million people is endangered, it's most certainly wrong."

morocco

OzMick,are you starting to understand the big picture here?

My dear sir, while I am looking at global trends over the long term, you are looking at a single dam (one of many) to be built on one river. That may be the big picture, but only in a tiny mind.

86% of man's energy consumption comes from fossil fuels and demand is continually increasing. Fossil fuels are not infinite and as they are becoming increasingly expensive in money and energy to obtain. The inevitable trend is for energy prices to increase, and for a move to alternative energy supplies. The ONLY two viable alternatives at the moment are hydro and nuclear power at around 7% each. All other sources combined total less than 1%.

The world's largest solar plant is under construction at over a billion dollars for a 150MW which will produce power less than 30% of the time. That is called a very expensive drop in a bucket. If we start covering vast acreages with solar panels, we will need to store it for the 70+% of the time it is not operating. The best way is 2 dams at different levels.

Are you starting to understand the big picture here? Probably not, still crying about a fish.

[zakk9]

Are you starting to understand the big picture here? Probably not, still crying about a fish.

Dear Mick,

60 million people is almost as much as the entire population of Thailand. If things really go bad with the fisheries (and a lot of the agriculture) in the lower Mekong region, replacing all that food will require a lot more energy than any power stations in that river can produce. This of course apart from the fact that neither Cambodians nor Vietnamese will see a single watt from those power stations unless the Cambodians build one themselves.

This is not a question about reducing pollution, but destroying sustainable food production to make rich people in Thailand richer and enable the Thai nation as a whole to use even more energy. Do you really think they are going to close down those lignite fired power stations when this happens? Of course not. They are going to sell energy back to the neighbouring countries, generating even more profit for themselves. Why do you think the Thais build a lignite fired power station in Laos right now, close to the Thai border?

[OzMick]

Are you starting to understand the big picture here? Probably not, still crying about a fish.

Dear Mick,

60 million people is almost as much as the entire population of Thailand. If things really go bad with the fisheries (and a lot of the agriculture) in the lower Mekong region, replacing all that food will require a lot more energy than any power stations in that river can produce. This of course apart from the fact that neither Cambodians nor Vietnamese will see a single watt from those power stations unless the Cambodians build one themselves.

This is not a question about reducing pollution, but destroying sustainable food production to make rich people in Thailand richer and enable the Thai nation as a whole to use even more energy. Do you really think they are going to close down those lignite fired power stations when this happens? Of course not. They are going to sell energy back to the neighbouring countries, generating even more profit for themselves. Why do you think the Thais build a lignite fired power station in Laos right now, close to the Thai border?

You take the assumptions of the protesters as being true, that other more adaptable fish species won't replace those affected, and everything will go to crap. We are the most successful species because we are the most adaptable, so adapt.

It is not my fault that changes will cause pain, and I have no influence over those changes. I am only telling you what will happen in the long term big picture scenario. And this scene will be repeated 100s of times over as locals object to dams and nuclear power stations.

Energy prices are increasing world wide as demand grows, and both trends will continue. Some people will get rich, others shafted, but the capitalist system still seems to be the most efficient.

BTW I think lignite power stations suck and should be banned as one of the worst fossil fuel energy sources. But it won't happen.

[osiboy]

as thailand will be using 90% of the electric from this dam_n, does that mean there will be a 90% increase of power cables on the streets or will they just overload the existing spagetti that looks soooo pretty

[jaideeguy]

So very sad to hear, as I haven't 'done' the downriver Mekhong run from Chiang Khong to Luang Prabang yet and hope that I can get my family going to do it before 'deliverance day'. Wonder when the last boat will run down river??

[cowslip]

OzMick, on 2012-11-08 08:41:46, said:

It is Thailand's policy to steadily move away from fossil fuel generation. Is that policy wrong?

zakk9

"If the consequence is that the livelihood of 60 million people is endangered, it's most certainly wrong."

morocco

OzMick,are you starting to understand the big picture here?

My dear sir, while I am looking at global trends over the long term, you are looking at a single dam (one of many) to be built on one river. That may be the big picture, but only in a tiny mind.

86% of man's energy consumption comes from fossil fuels and demand is continually increasing. Fossil fuels are not infinite and as they are becoming increasingly expensive in money and energy to obtain. The inevitable trend is for energy prices to increase, and for a move to alternative energy supplies. The ONLY two viable alternatives at the moment are hydro and nuclear power at around 7% each. All other sources combined total less than 1%.

The world's largest solar plant is under construction at over a billion dollars for a 150MW which will produce power less than 30% of the time. That is called a very expensive drop in a bucket. If we start covering vast acreages with solar panels, we will need to store it for the 70+% of the time it is not operating. The best way is 2 dams at different levels.

Are you starting to understand the big picture here? Probably not, still crying about a fish.

actually I've read your posts and your 'overview" is really quite the opposite it is a highly blinkered partial view that makes some astoundingly facile assumptions. You really need to do some thtorough research before making wild claims about "the big picture" -which I don't think you'd recognise ....

[OzMick]

OzMick, on 2012-11-08 08:41:46, said:

It is Thailand's policy to steadily move away from fossil fuel generation. Is that policy wrong?

zakk9

"If the consequence is that the livelihood of 60 million people is endangered, it's most certainly wrong."

morocco

OzMick,are you starting to understand the big picture here?

My dear sir, while I am looking at global trends over the long term, you are looking at a single dam (one of many) to be built on one river. That may be the big picture, but only in a tiny mind.

86% of man's energy consumption comes from fossil fuels and demand is continually increasing. Fossil fuels are not infinite and as they are becoming increasingly expensive in money and energy to obtain. The inevitable trend is for energy prices to increase, and for a move to alternative energy supplies. The ONLY two viable alternatives at the moment are hydro and nuclear power at around 7% each. All other sources combined total less than 1%.

The world's largest solar plant is under construction at over a billion dollars for a 150MW which will produce power less than 30% of the time. That is called a very expensive drop in a bucket. If we start covering vast acreages with solar panels, we will need to store it for the 70+% of the time it is not operating. The best way is 2 dams at different levels.

Are you starting to understand the big picture here? Probably not, still crying about a fish.

actually I've read your posts and your 'overview" is really quite the opposite it is a highly blinkered partial view that makes some astoundingly facile assumptions. You really need to do some thtorough research before making wild claims about "the big picture" -which I don't think you'd recognise ....

I'm quite happy to discuss what you call "facile assumptions" if you would care to point them out.

As you make ridiculous claims of 50% transmission losses, I somehow doubt that you can. Prove me wrong, please.

[DeepInTheForest]

from the International Energy Agency:

Over the period 2000‐11, solar PV was the fastest‐growing renewable power technology worldwide... In 2011, Germany and Italy accounted for over half the global cumulative capacity, followed by Japan, Spain, the United States and China.

....

According to IEA analysis, under extreme assumptions solar energy could provide up to one-third of the world’s final energy demand after 2060. Solar Energy Perspectives outlines a bold ‘what if’ scenario for reaching this ambitious target. A number of assumptions are made to see what might be possible in terms of solar deployment, while keeping affordability in sight. These include policy makers successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond the current international targets, and electricity-driven technologies fostering significant energy efficiency improvements and displacing fossil fuels in many uses in buildings, industry and transportation. While a broad range of aggressive policies will be needed, this target is achievable.

http://www.iea.org/topics/solarpvandcsp/

It would seem to be desirable to get solar technology to developing countries. Currently its growth is taking place in places like China, Spain, and Germany. Why not Southeast Asia? It could certainly outdo Germany in terms of solar exposure.

Edited November 10, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[DeepInTheForest]

Could there be a different energy plan? Two researchers named Chuenchom and Chris Greacen (they're married, I think) have come up with one. Here's what they say about Thailand's current approach:

Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP), prepared periodically by the state‐owned Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), is the master investment plan for power system development. It determines what kind and what quantity of power plants get built, where and when.

The official PDP document... reflects a planning process in crisis. By selecting excessive amounts of controversial, expensive, risky, and polluting power plants over cheaper, cleaner, and safer alternatives, the PDP is at odds with both Thai energy policy as well as the interests of the vast majority of Thai people. The well‐documented casualties are predominantly the rural poor. Afflictions include acute respiratory disease in thousands of villagers from operations of coal mining and power plants( Sukkumnoed, 2007), a number of violent conflicts associated with power plants (Polkla, 2010), as well as higher prices because of excessive investment (Sirasoontorn, 2008). Investment in hydropower projects in Thailand and neighboring countries has led to human rights violations, impaired livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of riverside communities, flooding of high conservation value areas and destruction of river ecosystems upon which millions

depend (IRN, 1999; World Commission on Dams, 2000).

This document is a new PDP. We do not wish to call it an “Alternative PDP” because we believe a document that makes sense should not be relegated to the marginal title “alternative”. We call it simply “PDP 2012”...

http://www.internati...pdp2012-eng.pdf

For me, examining alternatives to the prevailing energy strategy makes a lot of sense. Maybe the big dam(s) really aren't necessary. (And in any case, in my view screwing around with the main protein source for tens of millions of people-- not to mention the employment losses-- is a dodgy prospect at best.) If energy can be supplied in other ways without crapping up the Mekong, why not look into them? My answer: Because special interests are currently having their way.

http://www.internati...-of-destructive

The pdf linked to in the first link above is worth a read (though be warned, it is not light reading).

Edited November 10, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[OzMick]

from the International Energy Agency:

Over the period 2000‐11, solar PV was the fastest‐growing renewable power technology worldwide... In 2011, Germany and Italy accounted for over half the global cumulative capacity, followed by Japan, Spain, the United States and China.

....

According to IEA analysis, under extreme assumptions solar energy could provide up to one-third of the world’s final energy demand after 2060. Solar Energy Perspectives outlines a bold ‘what if’ scenario for reaching this ambitious target. A number of assumptions are made to see what might be possible in terms of solar deployment, while keeping affordability in sight. These include policy makers successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions beyond the current international targets, and electricity-driven technologies fostering significant energy efficiency improvements and displacing fossil fuels in many uses in buildings, industry and transportation. While a broad range of aggressive policies will be needed, this target is achievable.

http://www.iea.org/t.../solarpvandcsp/

It would seem to be desirable to get solar technology to developing countries. Currently its growth is taking place in places like China, Spain, and Germany. Why not Southeast Asia? It could certainly outdo Germany in terms of solar exposure.

Why not SE Asia? Because they can't afford the huge cost per generated unit. Because the electricity produced is generally not available at peak system load times, so non-solar plant has to be built to supply load then.

"under extreme assumptions" is right, and one of those is that electricity becomes so expensive that people will stop using it. " a broad range of aggressive policies will be needed" is another way of saying tax the crap out of electricity while subsidising solar. Something to look forward to.

[DonaldBattles]

Does any one in thier right mind belive that solar power is an alternative when electrical grids are already available. Without government subsidies paid for by the tax payers along with local corruption solar is not practical when cost is compared to the electrical grid. Without government help, try 50 years as a period for returning the investment against the existing electrical grid. Remembering that the sun averages being available about 33 percent of the time.

[Pimay1]

Thailand will back anything that contains the magic words "billions of dollars".

[cowslip]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

[ResX]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

Let me see.... Most of the times, at most 2% will be lost due to wall friction inside the power tunnel. Average loss of a hydro turbine will be around 10%. Draft tube loss and exit residual energy account for another 2% or so. Generator and transformer up to 4%. Auxilarries power consumptions sum up to 2%, including bearing loss and windage resistance. Transmission loss at most accounts for 10%. All in all total loss wil be around 30%. From dam to your house. It is far less than the figure you have proposed, i.e. 50% loss belongs to transmission loss alone.

It is a matter of fact hydro turbine is the most efficient turbine that engineers have invented so far, and also it is the cheapest way to produce bulk electricity. This is true at least until today.

You can transmit the power across 1500km apart while keeping transmission loss well below 6%.

Edited November 10, 2012 by ResX

[DeepInTheForest]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

While some countries have high rates of transmission and distribution losses-- India has had great difficulties in this area-- a rate of 50% is rare.

http://www.nationmas...n-losses-output

Thailand's rate of transmission and distribution losses as given in the table linked to above (from 2004) is around 8%. The only countries in the neighborhood of 50% are Congo and Haiti.

Whether Thailand's relatively low rate of loss can be matched in Laos, I am not qualified to say.

I think you have a valid point in that settlement and industry adjacent to the river will certainly increase with the introduction of dams. And the river's water quality will certainly degrade, as we have seen in China. There is currently minimal treatment of sewage in all of Laos.

The wastewater from individual households in Vientiane is discharged into open drains along the

roads and into the natural wetlands in and around the city (Cecilia, 2003).

http://www.wepa-db.n...rum/paper42.pdf

http://wwf.panda.org...rojectID=LA0047

Edited November 10, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[ResX]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

While some countries have high rates of transmission and distribution losses-- India has had great difficulties in this area-- a rate of 50% is rare.

http://www.nationmas...n-losses-output

Thailand's rate of transmission and distribution losses as given in the table linked to above (from 2004) is around 8%. The only countries in the neighborhood of 50% are Congo and Haiti.

Whether Thailand's relatively low rate of loss can be matched in Laos, I am not qualified to say.

I think you have a valid point in that settlement and industry adjacent to the river will certainly increase with the introduction of dams. And the river's water quality will certainly degrade, as we have seen in China. There is currently minimal treatment of sewage in all of Laos.

The wastewater from individual households in Vientiane is discharged into open drains along the

roads and into the natural wetlands in and around the city (Cecilia, 2003).

http://www.wepa-db.n...rum/paper42.pdf

http://wwf.panda.org...rojectID=LA0047

50% power loss via transmission and distribution is virtually impossible scenario. If you have that figure being quoted, then it must be accounted for power lost due to theft. Let me make it this way. You transmit 500MW across 300km line, end to end. 250MW will be lost. Where it has gone? Skin effect? It could not be that much. Corona effect? I don't think so. The most logical way is it might be lost due to heat generation. But then 250MW heat dissipation is big enough to melt the entire transmission lines. Have you seen any of such?

Edited November 10, 2012 by ResX

[OzMick]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

As I have repeatedly reminded you, transmission losses are nowhere near this figure. A simple step-up in voltage will reduce transmission losses by the square of the increase. ie doubling the voltage will reduce transmission losses to one quarter. Though higher voltage causes other losses, this can be overcome with better designed cabling, double cables and hollow cores for example.

"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for ............ AC it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

We have learned a few things since 1980, and I don't expect transmission distances to be anywhere near 4000km.