Greenpeace Goes Over The Edge To Protest Krabi Coal Plant

[webfact]

Greenpeace goes over the edge to protest Krabi coal plant
Phuket Gazette


Greenpeace activists up in the air to protest proposed coal plant in Krabi. Photo: Greenpeace

PHUKET: -- Hanging from the cliffs of Railay Bay in Krabi (view here), east of Phuket, Greenpeace activists staged a dramatic protest against the Thai government’s plan to build coal power plants across Thailand, including an 800 Megawatt plant in Krabi.

The protest, held last Thursday, follows that of 500 Krabi villagers on February 11 (story here) who claimed that a coal-fired plant in their area from 1964 to 1995 had left many of them with respiratory problems and cancer.

Holding signs that said “Stop Coal” and “Coal is not the answer”, Greenpeace was sending a message to the public and the government to exchange coal-powered plants for clean energy, said Jariya Senpong, an energy and climate change campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

“Coal is not the answer for critical energy problems today,” Ms Jariya said.

“They should think about supporting clean energy which will be a sustainable solution,” she added.

“Local people and Greenpeace are standing up against the project because we believe the plant will create pollution that could affect not only the villagers’ way of life, but also tourism in Krabi.

“It may also harm the seagrass in the area, which is the habitat for endangered dugongs,” she said.

Ms Jariya also called for a government crackdown on corruption and conflict of interest of dirty energy industries that help politicians.

“Villagers will be the ones who suffer,” she said.

A meeting is planned for Wednesday, from midday to 6:30pm for villagers, Greenpeace Southeast Asia and other supporters to discuss Thailand’s energy crisis and the Krabi coal power plant, she said.

Source: http://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket_news/2013/Greenpeace-goes-over-the-edge-to-protest-Krabi-coal-plant-20599.html


-- Phuket Gazette 2013-03-25

[jbrain]

Coal plants are not the answer.

Nuclear reactors are too dangerous.

Oil is running out.

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

[DannyApneaMartens]

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

I think the world would be way better off without people like you, mister jbrain

If you would have opened your eyes and mind a wee lil' bit, you might have noticed that is plenty of technology available to have clean sources of energy,

specially in countries like this where there is an abundance of sun and wind.

Or, no, you're right, it is "only" a little hazard for us, to burn fossile fuels, it's mainly your children and grand children suffering from, so nothing to worry in YOUR life, do you?

[retell]

like solar and windpower is really no option here in thailand

[Rionoir]

Coal isn't the answer... nuclear isn't the answer... so what do they want? I think if they actually knew how many of those stupid windmill farms it would take to power the planet they would have to go back and rethink their strategy.

[Mrjlh]

There is a new innovative process for using coal powered energy producing plants that has some amazing Eco friendly results. Unfortunately it will be another 5-10 years before it reaches maturity.

[jbrain]

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

I think the world would be way better off without people like you, mister jbrain

If you would have opened your eyes and mind a wee lil' bit, you might have noticed that is plenty of technology available to have clean sources of energy,

specially in countries like this where there is an abundance of sun and wind.

Or, no, you're right, it is "only" a little hazard for us, to burn fossile fuels, it's mainly your children and grand children suffering from, so nothing to worry in YOUR life, do you?

No need for insults, it shows your real nature.

Haven't they been burning coal for hundred years, long before you were born ? Hey and look you're still alive.

Alternatives like solar or wind energy are way more expensive than current energy sources.

But hey, we need something to whine about, not?

[lungmi]

Coal plants are not the answer.

Nuclear reactors are too dangerous.

Oil is running out.

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

But Thailand has the sun, if not blocked by haze.

[jbrain]

Coal isn't the answer... nuclear isn't the answer... so what do they want? I think if they actually knew how many of those stupid windmill farms it would take to power the planet they would have to go back and rethink their strategy.

Don't forget that in Europe there are large protests from those same green guys because the windmill farms block the view.

[jbrain]

Coal plants are not the answer.

Nuclear reactors are too dangerous.

Oil is running out.

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

But Thailand has the sun, if not blocked by haze.

Ever wondered why all the solar companies go broke after the subsidizing has stopped ?

[cheeryble]

I kinda liked Greenpeace early on.

Then I saw a presentation about the North Sea.

It was completely emotive and rabble rousing and totally exaggerated with hellish burning flames in the intro, and I lost respect for them.

I like clean air and happen to be a nuclear fan myself.

Look at the stats and compare.

Edited March 25, 2013 by cheeryble

[airconsult]

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

I think the world would be way better off without people like you, mister jbrain(less)

If you would have opened your eyes and mind a wee lil' bit, you might have noticed that is plenty of technology available to have clean sources of energy,

specially in countries like this where there is an abundance of sun and wind.

Or, no, you're right, it is "only" a little hazard for us, to burn fossile fuels, it's mainly your children and grand children suffering from, so nothing to worry in YOUR life, do you?

Let's see, solar doesn't work at night (or do you *really* want to build umpteen more dams to use as pumped storage, or untested on a commercial scale molten salt?)

Wind.... same problem, might surprise you but the wind doesn't always blow, so back to storage or build backup CCGTs (when there's currently a concern about gas supply).

Listen, if India plans to build 445 new coal stations in the next few years, and I forget how many hundred china plans (as well as nuclear), and Germany is opening 6 new coal-fired stations this year.... What DO you expect Thailand to do?

Cheers

[Stokakrishna]

a dramatic protest...

lol people from all over the world go to Railey beach to climb mountains there.

[laislica]

and now for something different:

Time to get back to Nikola Tesla's theories then?

Nikola Tesla investigated harvesting energy in space. He believed that it was merely a question of time until men would succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature, stating: "Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe."

Wouldn't it be fantastic if there really is a way of making "Free Electricity"?

Just sayin....

[3SoiDogNight]

I kinda liked Greenpeace early on. Then I saw a presentation about the North Sea. It was completely emotive and rabble rousing and totally exaggerated with hellish burning flames in the intro, and I lost respect for them. I like clean air and happen to be a nuclear fan myself. Look at the stats and compare.

My thoughts exactly!

[Plastic Brontosaurus]

Problem with nuclear is the waste problem. Look at the waste issues worldwide (and halflife of waste often being in the 10s of thousands of years), they're scary but conveniently ignored by the nuke lobby.

Solar and wind are more expensive but in the end will need to be considered as there's no other alternative long-term. With all the solar manufacturers going bust (which may well be too to overreach), there's an industry opportunity for Thailand, at least to supply the local market with solar and wind equipment.

Once the solar and wind generators are up, when there's low usage of the power the excess could be used to generate hydrogen (from any water source including seawater) and used in fuel cells either locally or transported and used in fuel cells elsewhere to generate power at any time of the day or night.

Costs a bit extra but near zero environmental impact. Wind farms could be planted offshore in the Gulf of Thailand...

[Plastic Brontosaurus]

One more: came across this old article some time ago whilst looking for energy alternatives on a large scale; might be useful for a Thai industry to manufacture floats like this, and then park them by the thousands in the Gulf of Thailand out of sight from land:

http://itimes3.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/wst-wind-solar-tide-energy-generating-floats/

[fxe1200]

I kinda liked Greenpeace early on. Then I saw a presentation about the North Sea. It was completely emotive and rabble rousing and totally exaggerated with hellish burning flames in the intro, and I lost respect for them. I like clean air and happen to be a nuclear fan myself. Look at the stats and compare.

Great, as a "Nuclear fan" you should offer your backyard to store the radioactive waste! Or do you want this dumped into Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani?

[airconsult]

I guess this might be amusing for all.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Measures the grid source every 5 minutes or so in the UK. I'll admit wind's been doing well since Thursday, currently at 4.31GW, but look before then to see why it's not reliable. Solar's not in there as it's really not a viable economic option for UK grid.

Baseload is important.

[airconsult]

I kinda liked Greenpeace early on. Then I saw a presentation about the North Sea. It was completely emotive and rabble rousing and totally exaggerated with hellish burning flames in the intro, and I lost respect for them. I like clean air and happen to be a nuclear fan myself. Look at the stats and compare.

Great, as a "Nuclear fan" you should offer your backyard to store the radioactive waste! Or do you want this dumped into Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani?

Ok, if you're worried about it, where have the French been keeping theirs for the last 40 odd years? How much is the tonnage? How have they coped with 70 odd percent of their baseload coming from nuclear? Are they so much superior to us that they can do it and no-one else can?

(Not fair answering the last question if you're French)

Cheers

[fxe1200]

The point is, the government in Bangkok cannot get their act together. Thailand urgently needs a feed-in-tariff law, and a law that sets standards for the insulation of houses. Then solar energy, not only photo voltaic, but with the temperatures here, solar thermal energy would be the choice. Small power plants could be produced in a modular manner, serving different power demands. Especially during the daytime, these could reduce the electric bill significantly, as A/C s would consume the produced power right away.

But as the thinking of the Thai society and their politicians is reduced to think from twelf to noon, I do not see a chance to better the situation.

[airconsult]

The point is, the government in Bangkok cannot get their act together. Thailand urgently needs a feed-in-tariff law, and a law that sets standards for the insulation of houses. Then solar energy, not only photo voltaic, but with the temperatures here, solar thermal energy would be the choice. Small power plants could be produced in a modular manner, serving different power demands. Especially during the daytime, these could reduce the electric bill significantly, as A/C s would consume the produced power right away.

But as the thinking of the Thai society and their politicians is reduced to think from twelf to noon, I do not see a chance to better the situation.

Question - Night?

Considering most governments are scaling back FITs, as they have proved too costly for the results, why do you want Thailand to follow a failed example?

EDIT: The best example of *why* it's wrong came from the Qld govt study in Australia, they found that the FIT was producing the most energy in the lowest wholesale price period of the day. So effectively the energy distributors were forced to buy above the wholesale price - then people complained about the rise in electricity bills.

Edited March 25, 2013 by airconsult

[fxe1200]

I kinda liked Greenpeace early on. Then I saw a presentation about the North Sea. It was completely emotive and rabble rousing and totally exaggerated with hellish burning flames in the intro, and I lost respect for them. I like clean air and happen to be a nuclear fan myself. Look at the stats and compare.

Great, as a "Nuclear fan" you should offer your backyard to store the radioactive waste! Or do you want this dumped into Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani?

Ok, if you're worried about it, where have the French been keeping theirs for the last 40 odd years? How much is the tonnage? How have they coped with 70 odd percent of their baseload coming from nuclear? Are they so much superior to us that they can do it and no-one else can?

(Not fair answering the last question if you're French)

Cheers

"...where have the French been keeping theirs for the last 40 odd years?"

Good question! Is it a safe place for the next 100.000 years, or may be 500 years? If you add the cost of the storage of the nuclear waste on top of the price, what you pay for electricity, nuclear power is more expensive, then any other generated form of electricity. Get your calculator out!

"How much is the tonnage?"

Also a good question, does all this waste fit in your backyard?

[fxe1200]

The point is, the government in Bangkok cannot get their act together. Thailand urgently needs a feed-in-tariff law, and a law that sets standards for the insulation of houses. Then solar energy, not only photo voltaic, but with the temperatures here, solar thermal energy would be the choice. Small power plants could be produced in a modular manner, serving different power demands. Especially during the daytime, these could reduce the electric bill significantly, as A/C s would consume the produced power right away.

But as the thinking of the Thai society and their politicians is reduced to think from twelf to noon, I do not see a chance to better the situation.

Question - Night?

Considering most governments are scaling back FITs, as they have proved too costly for the results, why do you want Thailand to follow a failed example?

You are wrong: If you produce a certain amount of electricity on your roof top and feed it into the system for a lower price than the regular fossil power is sold for, then it is an advantage for the society and you, as your installation will amortize, and the use of fossil power will be reduced. Sure this decentralized power production does not fit with the intentions of the big power companies, as they want to sell as much energy to you, as they can produce under their control. And besides: Who runs the country of Thailand? The big players or the poor folks?

[airconsult]

I kinda liked Greenpeace early on. Then I saw a presentation about the North Sea. It was completely emotive and rabble rousing and totally exaggerated with hellish burning flames in the intro, and I lost respect for them. I like clean air and happen to be a nuclear fan myself. Look at the stats and compare.

Great, as a "Nuclear fan" you should offer your backyard to store the radioactive waste! Or do you want this dumped into Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani?

Ok, if you're worried about it, where have the French been keeping theirs for the last 40 odd years? How much is the tonnage? How have they coped with 70 odd percent of their baseload coming from nuclear? Are they so much superior to us that they can do it and no-one else can?

(Not fair answering the last question if you're French)

Cheers

"...where have the French been keeping theirs for the last 40 odd years?"

Good question! Is it a safe place for the next 100.000 years, or may be 500 years? If you add the cost of the storage of the nuclear waste on top of the price, what you pay for electricity, nuclear power is more expensive, then any other generated form of electricity. Get your calculator out!

"How much is the tonnage?"

Also a good question, does all this waste fit in your backyard?

Sorry, I'll have to correct a few assumptions you made there.

I don't mean to be insulting, but did you study/read about, the relationship between energetic radiation and half-life? To remove the complexity from the discussion, let's put it as (more dangerous = faster half-life), so the materials you are talking about when you mention "thousands of years" are actually not very dangerous at all. (radiation-wise anyway, chemically it depends).

The currently defined "safe levels" are based on the idea that no amount is safe. Many people are calling for review on that as even WHO studies on nuclear plant workers find that (if anything) their incidence of cancer is lower than normal. (but call it normal, because it's noise threshold).

The point is - much of the fear is based on an uneducated media who couldn't be bothered going to more than one biased source for information.

eg. The ambient radiation at the gates of the Fukishima plant right now is lower than in Cornwall (normal background due to granitic formations).

Yet people are still scared by media stories.

[airconsult]

The point is, the government in Bangkok cannot get their act together. Thailand urgently needs a feed-in-tariff law, and a law that sets standards for the insulation of houses. Then solar energy, not only photo voltaic, but with the temperatures here, solar thermal energy would be the choice. Small power plants could be produced in a modular manner, serving different power demands. Especially during the daytime, these could reduce the electric bill significantly, as A/C s would consume the produced power right away.

But as the thinking of the Thai society and their politicians is reduced to think from twelf to noon, I do not see a chance to better the situation.

Question - Night?

Considering most governments are scaling back FITs, as they have proved too costly for the results, why do you want Thailand to follow a failed example?

You are wrong: If you produce a certain amount of electricity on your roof top and feed it into the system for a lower price than the regular fossil power is sold for, then it is an advantage for the society and you, as your installation will amortize, and the use of fossil power will be reduced. Sure this decentralized power production does not fit with the intentions of the big power companies, as they want to sell as much energy to you, as they can produce under their control. And besides: Who runs the country of Thailand? The big players or the poor folks?

It depends - what are you being paid for the FIT? If you are being paid the realistic wholesale price, then it will take longer than the life of the equipment to pay for itself. Remember photovoltaic cells don't last forever.

If you are being paid more than the wholesale price - then everyone else is paying you in increased tariffs.

Don't you think if it was cost-viable that BP solar would have thousands of solar generation plants already? The truth is it can only compete on a large scale if it's subsidized. (Remember that when you supply power professionally you guarantee a certain amount 24/7/365 - home FIT cheats - you only supply what your cells produce during daytime)

On a home scale for your own use - depending on costs of running grid, it sometimes makes sense, but without subsidy it cannot compete in a 1-to-1 market on a commercial supply basis.

[khunken]

This is about a coal-fired generating station and it is clear that no Thai community wants this type of plant in their vicinity. Yes, this is NIMBY, but the emissions from the coal-fired plant in Lampang (or is it Lampun?) has virtually killed this in Thailand.

Coal may be the cheapest on a narrow calculation which doesn't account for the deaths in coal mines around the world.

The problem for Thailand is twofold: it relies too much on imported energy sources & gas is too prevalent.

IMO Thailand needs to find a mix of types of energy generation, including wind, solar, gas, hydro, nuclear & even newer technologies (wave?). It needs some sort of masterplan with zero political input. If subsidies are required, so be it - couldn't cost any more than the current rice subsidies.

[lungmi]

Coal plants are not the answer.

Nuclear reactors are too dangerous.

Oil is running out.

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

But Thailand has the sun, if not blocked by haze.

Ever wondered why all the solar companies go broke after the subsidizing has stopped ?

Effect from narrow minded people with big assets to block the future. You are on their pay-roll as PR-Manager?

[jbrain]

Coal plants are not the answer.

Nuclear reactors are too dangerous.

Oil is running out.

I think someone should get rid of those green guys.

But Thailand has the sun, if not blocked by haze.

Ever wondered why all the solar companies go broke after the subsidizing has stopped ?

Effect from narrow minded people with big assets to block the future. You are on their pay-roll as PR-Manager?

Your knowledge base is obviously restricted to what you read on Thaivisa.

Maybe you could do some googling about Solar panels cost effectiveness and next read some financial reports from the major solar companies and their stockprices over the past 2 years.

Edited March 25, 2013 by jbrain

[airconsult]

khunken, on 25 Mar 2013 - 17:47, said:

This is about a coal-fired generating station and it is clear that no Thai community wants this type of plant in their vicinity. Yes, this is NIMBY, but the emissions from the coal-fired plant in Lampang (or is it Lampun?) has virtually killed this in Thailand.

Coal may be the cheapest on a narrow calculation which doesn't account for the deaths in coal mines around the world.

The problem for Thailand is twofold: it relies too much on imported energy sources & gas is too prevalent.

IMO Thailand needs to find a mix of types of energy generation, including wind, solar, gas, hydro, nuclear & even newer technologies (wave?). It needs some sort of masterplan with zero political input. If subsidies are required, so be it - couldn't cost any more than the current rice subsidies.

Agree, mostly,

What the article is about is greenpeace objecting to a plant (judging on their past performance in related matters, I'd be curious to have a door-to-door sample of the community to see if they actually agree with greenpeace in unbiased questions, remember the plant does provide employment as well).

The only direction given to EGAT, is to provide power at the lowest cost possible. They do not mine coal in Thailand, so the purchase cost plus waste is considered, not deaths of coal miners in australia or china - from what I understand, most is australian coal, china uses it's own.

I was just pointing out in replies that it's all very well to talk about wind and solar, but if I build a 10MW wind generation site, I need to build 10MW of reliable base-load as well (coal, nuclear, CCGT, OCGT). Plus of the 4, I cannot just turn on/off coal and nuclear (actually you really need to run CCGT at idle all the time).

So - what is my real advantage? None, except feeling good about myself. All I did was double to triple the cost to the consumer.

Your view on the rice subsidy is a bit confusing too - if I subsidize a power plant, I'm stuck with that subsidy for 30-40 years. A rice-pledge can be dissolved any year I feel like it.

But - enough - I personally would feel sorry for the poorest segments of the population if you double/triple the price, but that's just a personal view I don't expect to be shared by everyone.

Cheers

Edited March 25, 2013 by airconsult