Thailand To Be Hub Of Alternative Energy Production In Asia

[Jai Dee]

Energy Minister indicates that Thailand will be the center of producing alternative energy in Asia

Energy Minister Wiset Jupibal (วิเศษ จูภิบาล) indicated that Thailand will be the production center of alternative energy in Asia in the future. He also expected a widespread usage of bio-diesel over the next three to four years.

Following a seminar organized by the Council of Engineers, Mr. Wiset stated that the seminar was held in an attempt to seek ways to apply the state-of-the-art technology in the transport sector so as to reduce oil imports from foreign countries.

The conclusion will be proposed to the government for further implementation.

Moreover, the Transport Ministry, the Energy Ministry, and the Finance Ministry will work together to support this project.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 Febuary 2006

[ratcatcher]

Energy Minister indicates that Thailand will be the center of producing alternative energy in Asia

Energy Minister Wiset Jupibal (วิเศษ จูภิบาล) indicated that Thailand will be the production center of alternative energy in Asia in the future. He also expected a widespread usage of bio-diesel over the next three to four years.

Following a seminar organized by the Council of Engineers, Mr. Wiset stated that the seminar was held in an attempt to seek ways to apply the state-of-the-art technology in the transport sector so as to reduce oil imports from foreign countries.

The conclusion will be proposed to the government for further implementation.

Moreover, the Transport Ministry, the Energy Ministry, and the Finance Ministry will work together to support this project.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 Febuary 2006

Hub, Hub, Hooray!

[zzap]

Another hub? Give us a break...

I am glad they heard about something called 'alternative energy'.

They could fuel a power station with all the plastic bags handed out when you buy anything here.

[zoltannyc]

Biofuel – no silver bullet

For many of us biofuel sounds like a really smart solution let’s grow oil palms and we have fuel however there are pitfalls too.

a.) deforestation in order to grow any biofuel you need land and land is coming by clearing existing rainforests the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per cent of deforestation in Malaysia". In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia. In Brazil the Mato Grosso state's governor is also the agriculture tycoon Blario Maggi, (known locally as "O Rei da Soja," the King of Soy) who clears rainforest to grow soybeans. Maggi is the largest producer of soybeans in the world. Mato Grosso led all Brazilian states in deforestation with 48 per cent of the destruction last year, feeding Brazil's booming Soya industry.

b.) food supply problems, the most productive oil crop averages a yield 3-3.5 tonnes per hectare. One tonne of rapeseed produces 415kg of biodiesel. So every hectare of arable land could provide 1.45 tonnes of transport. Road transport in the UK consumes 37.6m tones every year.

Therefore to run all road transport in the UK on biodiesel, would require 26m hectares. . All arable land comprises about 40% (4,000,000 ha) of all farmland in UK (MAFF, 1994).

If the same thing is to happen all over the world, the impact on global food supply will be catastrophic: big enough to tip the global balance from net surplus to net deficit. If, as some environmentalists demand, it is to happen worldwide, then most of the arable surface of the planet will be deployed to produce food for cars, not people.

[cclub75]

Biofuel – no silver bullet

Absolutly. Once again, it's the perfect "good false idea".

The kind of ideas that politicians looooooove (close the gas stations to reduce consumption, close shopping mall earlier to save gas, allow sales of alcohool to certain hours to reduce consumption etc. etc.)

But hey, regarding energy, they must DO something... They know that they will have some big personal problems (revolution) when the liter will cost 50 THB.

[Khun Jean]

If the 'green' folks would not be so strong against nuclear energy, this problem was much more easy and less urgent to solve.

Nowadays they are turning 'nuclear' as the only way to keep our planet 'green'. (Under the current circumstances and energy demands).

How things can change.

I believe in 'electricity' as there are numerous ways of producing it.

With fuel cells getting better al the time i think that is the way to go.

You can have wind, solar, nuclear, tidal energy sources, many of them renewable.

Bio-diesel is just a temporary solution, and as said it will destroy large areas of nature.

[OZONE]

Oil palm isn't the only vege used to make Bio-diesel. You can use Corn. Soy Bean & existing vege oil from the old deep fryer. It will defitnitely help save our planet from the ozone depletetion.

[haha]

if there is one thing that thailand has for sure - it's sunlight. boy! it would be something to see a solar farm here.

one of the first things I would do is to get information on solar farms from these guys...

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/

http://www.solonmover.com/english/projekte/lproj.php

http://www.energycooperation.org/solarh2.htm

according to the stirling site, you would need a 100 miles x 100 miles solar farm to supply all the electrical needs of the entire usa.

since thailand is not as big, I wonder how much it would be for here? maybe 5 miles x 5 miles? 10 x 10?

with all the electricity produced by a solar farm, even the production of hydrogen as fuel would seem feasible even though more energy is used in the process to obtain hydrogen.

the author of the following article suggests that hydrogen is not the way to go, but with enough solar energy produced electricity, I think he is wrong. yes, a lot of electricity would be wasted to produce the hydrogen, but since electricity produced by solar energy is limitless, it is feasible.

http://www.taemag.com/printVersion/print_a...articleID=18976

those guys on the stirlingenergy site even provided images of their stirling engine, I wonder if someone here in thailand can produce it for local use?

isn't google incredible? the following links provide more information on the research going on all over the world.

http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=1895

http://www.moea.state.mn.us/p2/hydrogen.cfm

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

http://www.energycooperation.org/bioproductionH2.htm

http://www.solarserver.de/index-e.html#world

[Ricardo]

Up here in the North, we've got plenty of hot-springs, so I wonder whether thermal-energy might be a starter ? Failing-which, how to harness all the hot-air, contained in these government or political announcements ??

[penzman]

Energy Minister indicates that Thailand will be the center of producing alternative energy in Asia

Energy Minister Wiset Jupibal (วิเศษ จูภิบาล) indicated that Thailand will be the production center of alternative energy in Asia in the future. He also expected a widespread usage of bio-diesel over the next three to four years.

Following a seminar organized by the Council of Engineers, Mr. Wiset stated that the seminar was held in an attempt to seek ways to apply the state-of-the-art technology in the transport sector so as to reduce oil imports from foreign countries.

The conclusion will be proposed to the government for further implementation.

Moreover, the Transport Ministry, the Energy Ministry, and the Finance Ministry will work together to support this project.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 Febuary 2006

Another victim of the hub worm.

The hub worm is a parasite that crawls into your ear while sleeping and slowly makes it's way to the center of your brain where it takes control and has you talking nonsense once awake.

[PeaceBlondie]

I've had cars that had wheels that had hubs. Maybe the hubs have hubs that have hubs. If so, hubs seem to reproduce. Hmm, they'll have to start a hub to teach hubs not to reproduce on Valentine Day in the back seat of a car.

Seriously, it's almost impossible to start up a technology that can beat the ICE (internal combustion engine). In real dollars, ICE has probably had hundreds of billions of dollars in basic and applied research. There was no reason why Mr. Otto's four cycle gasoline engine conquered the engine race a hundred years ago, but it sure was better than steam or electric. Now it has such a head start, that 'alternative fuel sources' are designed to operate in an engine using induction, valves, pistons, piston rings, cylinders, crankcase, crankcase pins, cams, chains, exhaust, etc. But do you have a spare trillion dollars that you're willing to throw away to find a replacement? I thought not.

[The Dan Sai Kid]

I heard that they want to make LOS the Hub country for establishing hubs all over the worlds.

The hub hub, if you like!

[Johpa]

I heard that they want to make LOS the Hub country for establishing hubs all over the worlds.

The hub hub, if you like!

Many of you of ex-pats of the male persusaion come here specifically for the affordable hubba hubba. Add a hub here and another hub here and pretty soon we are talking some serious hubba. Thailand will become the most well endowed source of hubs on the planet, the Pamela Anderson of nation-states.

But on a more serious note, I do think that solar energy is the direction that Thailand needs to take. The electrical needs of the masses in the rural regions are quite modest: most homes only require power to a few lamps in the evening, a few fans, a fridge, and a TV for a few hours in the evening and weekends. A solar system hooked to a battery should suffice for most rural residents. And before the electric grid arrived in our village, I was able to build a solar powered water heater for under 200 baat at that time that worked well enough even in the winter months when the night temps went below 10 C. on a nightly basis.

Bio-fuels, despite their emotional appeal, are simply not a viable alternative on a large scale.

[phuketsiam]

the amount of sunshine LOS has, they should do more with solar power, its a large upfront investment I know, but so is a new airport

[Maejo Man]

Having driven several thousand kilometres in the last few weeks all over the north and central Thailand I have to admit that I'm impressed with the use of solar power, all be it on a small scale. On my travels I encountered hundreds of solar powered amber warning lights. These were placed on dangerous bends, crossroads and the like and were blinking away merrily with their little solar panels neatly mounted on top. All were new, and probably funded from outside the kingdom, but if they are a local concept and manufacture...well done, virtually zero maintainence, which is what the Thais love Way to go....

[The Dan Sai Kid]

I heard that they want to make LOS the Hub country for establishing hubs all over the worlds.

The hub hub, if you like!

Many of you of ex-pats of the male persusaion come here specifically for the affordable hubba hubba. Add a hub here and another hub here and pretty soon we are talking some serious hubba. Thailand will become the most well endowed source of hubs on the planet, the Pamela Anderson of nation-states.

But on a more serious note, I do think that solar energy is the direction that Thailand needs to take. The electrical needs of the masses in the rural regions are quite modest: most homes only require power to a few lamps in the evening, a few fans, a fridge, and a TV for a few hours in the evening and weekends. A solar system hooked to a battery should suffice for most rural residents. And before the electric grid arrived in our village, I was able to build a solar powered water heater for under 200 baat at that time that worked well enough even in the winter months when the night temps went below 10 C. on a nightly basis.

Bio-fuels, despite their emotional appeal, are simply not a viable alternative on a large scale.

I saw that Thaksin wants to make Thailand the world centre of bubble gum productions. Thailand is to be the Hub of Hubba Bubba.

[Carmine6]

Oil palm isn't the only vege used to make Bio-diesel. You can use Corn. Soy Bean & existing vege oil from the old deep fryer. It will defitnitely help save our planet from the ozone depletetion.

I'd also add that the bio-fuel being discussed the most these days is ethanol, not bio-diesel. Most cars work ok with up to 15% ethanol/85% gasoline mixture already. But if you replace certain components, seals, and other things, vehicles can go to 85% ethanol/15% gasoline (aka "E85"). Many new vehicles are already E85 compatible and can use any mix from 100% gasoline to E85. E85 Compatible Vehicles lists 59 different models from 8 different manufacturers that already are.

The best part is, you don't need all kinds of new crops to make ethanol, you can use sugar. According to the American Sugar Alliance, Thailand is one of the top 10 exporters (around 6 or 7) and exports 70% of it's sugar. So clearly Thailand can move toward ethanol without burning down forests. Any other crop you can make alcohol with, such as rice or corn, work as well. As the #1 rice exporter, there's another domestic source to go towards ethanol production.

So, we're not talking about an enormous investment with Thailand taking the lead in creating new technology. Much of that's already been done by the car companies. The switch could start with something as simple as moving a portion of the taxi fleet from LPG to an ethanol blend. No major new infrastructure required outside the big cities, since they could just buy regular gasoline as needed.

I don't know what's planned, but a real commitement could have good results.

[awarrumbungle]

Biodiesel is arguably a temporary solution.

1) It's better than fossil fuels - pollutes less and doesn't contribute to CO2, and requires no changes tp a standard diesel engine unlike hydrogen does- however deforestation and competition with food is a problem.

2) There are other means of producing oil than palm, soy etc --> Algae

The production of algae to harvest oil for biodiesel has not been undertaken on a commercial scale, but working feasibility studies have been conducted to arrive at the above yield estimate. In addition to a high yield, this solution does not compete with agriculture for food, requiring neither farmland nor fresh water. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel)

Also check out http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

3) Biodiesel doesn't have to saturate the world market to be effective. IMHO alternative energy will be a collection of different technologies solving our current dependence on 1 super (dirty) fuel - oil.

This in one hub I'd love to see

[steveromagnino]

3) Biodiesel doesn't have to saturate the world market to be effective. IMHO alternative energy will be a collection of different technologies solving our current dependence on 1 super (dirty) fuel - oil.

Yep, this is key. There is no single solution, and evolving beyond the petrol powered internal combustion engine must be done in steps. The hybrids are one example, using NGVs is another. Incidentally, there are a lot of vested interests around the world wanting to keep petrol; despite NZ for instance having ample gas to power cars (and NGVs are FAR more environmentally friendly, there are no major barriers to market entry and they retrofit into existing technology) continuous lobbying stopped the distribution channels and shut that idea down.

For power, nuclear is not the answer at all. If you do a complete TVM calculation, and factor in the cost of managing toxic waste for 10,000 years and then also factor in the risk calculation, nuclear is an absolute dog. If I recall correctly from the pool in NZ, it was like comparing hydro (which has the unwritten cost of the land used and damage to environment) was 1.5c a kWh, coal was 5c kWh, gas was 6c kWh, wind was 11c kWh, solar was higher again and nuclear was 15c kWh ++. Advantage of gas and wind is you can put the plants right near the city, with less pollution, thus saving on transmission loss.

Coal is the worst of the fossil fuels, but there are easy gains from going to more efficient technologies compared to the old single cycle stations of old.

Gas is the best of the fossil fuels, but when it is used to generate electricity with resultant use for say boilers or hot water, then why not just use gas for that in the first place.....

Solar and wind are great but expensive.

The great hope for a while was the electric car, which is stupid unless it generates electricity itself. For a car that simply loads up off the grid, somewhere someone is burning fossil fuels, losing power in the transportation then loading it into a car. Big deal. The battery stuff in cars doesn't factor in the massive cost of dealing with the environmental mess these guys leave behind sometimes, but is a step forward.

The increased efficiency of the car is a major help, but sadly there are some politicans around the world (e.g. Clinton, Bush) who are favouring massive vehicles; if everyone drove 1.5l Solunas instead of the big V8 SUVs the world would instantly reduce pollution, and get rid of a generation of soccer mums terrorising children while talking on their cellphones.

The best thing to happen to the environment is the high oil price, because it forces a change in the way we do things, and hopefully can get certain new options going.

But ultimately...there is no single solution - people have tried with stirling engines and fuel cells and wind and so on - however the future is in IMHO small scale imbedded generation, efficient technology of many types, large power plants elsewhere, efficent usage and recycling.

e.g. teach people to run air only at 24 degrees instead of 15. stop people showering in hot water for hours. teach businesses energy efficiency in their manufacturing. INstigate cost reflective pricing for power. Increase tax on fossil fuels. Decent public transport systems. Good city planning.

The Kyoto agreement is a poorly thought out idea, the carbon tax idea is also not going to work, Autralia and USA (two major developed countries with major fossil fuel industries) don't support the schemes while developing countries get off the hook with it. Caring for the environment can be done in a developed country because they can shunt the problem off to the developing countries where all their 'dirty work' is done.

But for Thailand, it is reaching a point where a main revenue generator of tourism is threatened, plus we import so much energy. About time someone started to support energy alternatives.

[opothai]

on what i've been reading it seems nuclear is the way the coutries with money will be going,

china to build up to 20 plants, america is looking deeply into more reactors and so is the uk.

this is not maybe the correct way but it is cost effective, and with more advanced technology and understanding of the reactors[ so we will be told] it will be our only viable source of affordable and sustainable energy.

[steveromagnino]

on what i've been reading it seems nuclear is the way the coutries with money will be going,

china to build up to 20 plants, america is looking deeply into more reactors and so is the uk.

this is not maybe the correct way but it is cost effective, and with more advanced technology and understanding of the reactors[ so we will be told] it will be our only viable source of affordable and sustainable energy.

I think more likely it is similar to fishing without quotas, cutting all the trees down and using aerosols with CFCs...short term no problem. Long term (after our time) massive difficulties.

The time is now to make some hard decisions about long term cost of energy. Nuclear just puts a whole lot of costs into the coming generation's hands, but 'no problem' we want cheap energy now!

Plus GE is the one really pushing this new technology, and they know their way around doing infrastructure deals... there is a lot in the power industry that simply rests of the willingness to pay, China could easily do without nuclear if they were willing to pay about 10 times more for power.

Since they are not (and neither is any other country) we end up back here, with taking the short term sort of cheap energy and long term devastation of dealing with the mess.

[joe beets]

on what i've been reading it seems nuclear is the way the coutries with money will be going,

china to build up to 20 plants

Whoah.

Take China's devil-may-care attitude toward intellectual property, especially in the domain of heavy industry;

their abyssimal industrial safety record;

and a rush to build these nuke plants,

and that's enough to scare me shitless.

Let 1000 Chernobyls bloom.

jb

[mogoso]

I've always been curious about the amount of electricity used to light up office buildings at night. Every large city in the world is lit up like a christmas tree. It seems to me whether or not, your a signee of the Kyoto selective persecution treaty, you'd find ways to tone down this wasteful energy. I get the neon lights outlines the building for air traffic and aestetics. But a massive amount of energy is wasted, even on subdued settings. How many homes could that energy feed. And what of the cost to consumers, more energy used, equal higher overall cost to all, supply and demand.

Thailand has a very large coastline, coastlines generally are breezy places, and great places for wind generators, both large and small. I know in the US you can produce energy and actually reverse your electric meter. hence selling your extra capacity back to the power company when your demand is lower than your generation.

What about alternative home building, earth berming for example, utilizing the cooling capacity of soil to lower the homes temperature. Live next to cave? Cut a fan intake to cool your home.

Seems to me as a population we need to get smarter about our new constuction. I do like the photovoltaic lights mentioned, earlier, they make useful yard lights. Many have mentioned solar water heating, a great way to go, as I remember taking many cold showers high in the Andean mountains till I rigged up a really cheap system that operated well.

[awarrumbungle]

Nuclear just doesn't make sense - it's got so many flaws it's not funny. Why do these leaders push so hard for the destruction of the earth?

[opothai]

Nuclear just doesn't make sense - it's got so many flaws it's not funny. Why do these leaders push so hard for the destruction of the earth?

appeasment of the masses

i.e cheap energy,

no research and development, any problems left will be solved by the next generation or generations, one of the solutions for the waste was recycling or blieve it or not dump it on the moon, as the early waste was dumped in the sea and it should not be too long now to see if the cannisters it was stored in are going to deteriorate and leak or not, but that is this generations problem not the instigators, get the picture, [sad i know]

live for today f+kc tomorrow it seems

[awarrumbungle]

Don't these people have children too?

[mogoso]

Nuclear just doesn't make sense - it's got so many flaws it's not funny. Why do these leaders push so hard for the destruction of the earth?

appeasment of the masses

i.e cheap energy,

no research and development, any problems left will be solved by the next generation or generations, one of the solutions for the waste was recycling or blieve it or not dump it on the moon, as the early waste was dumped in the sea and it should not be too long now to see if the cannisters it was stored in are going to deteriorate and leak or not, but that is this generations problem not the instigators, get the picture, [sad i know]

live for today f+kc tomorrow it seems

I don't see where waste encased in concrete, then dropped into the mariana trench or a similiar trench of that depth would endanger anyone. Maybe the giant squids might mutate But deep deep sea disposal shouldn't be much of a problem. Man feeds not on anything that lives at that depth. Isn't there a higher rate of background radioactivity at that depth anyhow due the production (deposit) of heavy elements at vents in the depths.

[awarrumbungle]

I don't see where waste encased in concrete, then dropped into the mariana trench or a similiar trench of that depth would endanger anyone. Maybe the giant squids might mutate But deep deep sea disposal shouldn't be much of a problem. Man feeds not on anything that lives at that depth. Isn't there a higher rate of background radioactivity at that depth anyhow due the production (deposit) of heavy elements at vents in the depths.

That's exactly it - you don't see how! No one saw how cane toads would ravage Australia when introduced or CO2 cause massive climate change. Don't try it unless your bloody well 100% positive. Nuclear waste has got some full on consequences - not something to just experiment with. Have you ever heard of biomagnification? A process where a chemical or toxin magnifies up the food chain. We may not eat out of that depth but something sure does - and the question is - do we eat that?

Edited February 22, 2006 by awarrumbungle

[Plus]

Nice thread, but what has it got to do with Thai government?

None of those wonderful solutions- biodiesel, ethanol, algae, or solar, will see the light of the day. It's way beyond government's competence.

Just look at gasohol. They've been pushing it for at least a year setting deadlines for a complete conversion to gasohol and didn't get anywhere. If not for the subsidy I doubt that even current 1-2% of customers would continue buying it.

Sugar is plentyful, but it's too expensive to produce ethanol, and so are other crops.

They haven't done any research into effects of gasohol on fuel consumption. While in the US it's believed that gasohol has higher octane level and so gives more power, it's right opposite here, or at least that's what the auto journos have been saying. No one has any numbers, no one has calcualted any costs, no one has any clue.

Hub of incompetence.

[steveromagnino]

Nice thread, but what has it got to do with Thai government?

None of those wonderful solutions- biodiesel, ethanol, algae, or solar, will see the light of the day. It's way beyond government's competence.

Hub of incompetence.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in Senor Thaksin .... in fact generally around the world the people least likely to be any good at looking after anything of any worth are the government. Rather, they should be creating an environment where people are willing to support alternative fuels, through tax, regulation or by choice.

Although interestingly, the idea of choosing to pay to buy wind generated electricity in NZ was, according to the alt fuel there, a bit of a disaster, because people would rather get cheap energy even if it is filthy rich and catflap, than pay 10% more to have clean green wind energy. Sad really.

The idea of a carbon tax would help, and fuel taxes of course help. That's about as far as the govt should get involved.

Looking at Thailand though it seems like the higher oil price has already created some changes such as turning off power lights at night, conversion of taxis to gas and so on; the growth of the NGV network and fleets - all good to go.

Solartron (listed) are doing some moderately cool stuff.

I could do with a laugh and a learn, let's have a list of countries where power is actually cheap and generated using alternative energies in a way that Thailand could easily replicate. Then we can become a hub of hip hop style samplin'.