Proposed projects 'will destroy Krabi'

[webfact]

ENVIRONMENT
Proposed projects 'will destroy Krabi'
Pongphon Sarnsamak
The Nation

Coal seaport, power plant will ruin largest seagrass area, fossilised shells

BANGKOK: -- Fossilised shells at a beach dating back 75 million years and over 10,000 rai of the country's second-largest seagrass area in Krabi would be destroyed if the coal seaport and coal-fired power-plant project go ahead, an environmental watch agency warned yesterday.

Adding to the concerns over the project, the local tourism association in Koh Lanta is worried that the project would jeopardise the area's tourism, with the industry generating between Bt1.4 billion and Bt1.5 billion annually for the local economy.

In response to the backlash, a consultancy company hired by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat), which would construct the plant, will on Sunday listen to public concerns about the project in Krabi.

"We fear that the public scoping for the Ban Klong Ruo Coal Seaport project will not be different to the one organised earlier for the coal plant," said Chariya Senpong, a campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia's Climate Change and Energy division.

"Both assessments only identify the impacts that they are able to mitigate, and play down the environmental, societal and economic harm the project will cause."

The 700MW power plant would be fuelled by bituminous and sub-bituminous coal, which would likely be imported from Indonesia, Australia and Africa.

Construction of the Bt30-billion facility is scheduled to be completed in 2019. Egat is conducting an environmental and health-impact assessment of the project, which is expected to be completed soon.

"The report will just be procedural compliance for Egat to carry on with the project," Chariya said.

A Greenpeace report states that the marine life surrounding the proposed project and the sea route to transport coal to the port includes the seagrass area, which covers 17,725 rai, dugongs, nursing grounds for aquatic species, a mangrove forest and over 21 species of wild birds.

The mouth of Krabi River is also recognised under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of wetlands.

Koh Lanta Tourism Association chairman Therapot Kasirawat said he was worried that hundreds of thousands of tourists, especially from Sweden, would shun the area if the project went ahead. Therapot said about 150,000 Swedish tourists annually visited Koh Lanta, staying on average 19 days, while about 95,000 visited Koh Phi Phi.

"We learnt that they [tourists] will go to other places once they see the first coal ship pass the island," he said.


-- The Nation 2014-03-07

[Pinot]

Fossil burning power plants are attractive due to their low initial costs but those costs don't include factors such as increased medical issues for people and the damage to the environment. There have been advances made in coal burning plants but they're still dirty. Far dirtier than the more expensive alternatives. If you're going to build a new power plant today, that will last 50 years, coal is not the way to go.

There was talk a couple of years ago about building a nuclear power plant. Thank Buddha that never got off the ground.

[PepperMe]

Coal fired power plant?

Wave goodbye to nice blue skies around Krabi and Phuket, around here I have never seen a blue sky in five years. I look out of the window and the sky is as white as a piece of A4 paper. it always has been thanks to air pollution.

Goodbye Blue Sky.

[maswov]

If they are planning a new site from the ground up nuclear should be the primary contender. Nuclear is cleaner than conventional sources of energy and one of the safest of all sources. Deaths per kilowatt is extremely low while coal is the highest not even considering the long term effects of black lung.

[fxe1200]

If they are planning a new site from the ground up nuclear should be the primary contender. Nuclear is cleaner than conventional sources of energy and one of the safest of all sources. Deaths per kilowatt is extremely low while coal is the highest not even considering the long term effects of black lung.

Yeah, good idea, and Thailand can deposit the radioactive waist in Yala, Pattani or Narathiwat.

Actually Thailand has enough sun, and it could power all their daytime running air-cons, freezers, coolers, parking garages,traffic lights right from the roof of their respective or adjacent houses with solar thermal energy, not to mention the hot water supply. If Thailand would have a halfway intelligent government, Thailand would be the "hub" of solar thermal energy.

If somebody wants to reply with a negative response, I ask her/him kindly to do some research and calculation, before doing so.

[borisloosebrain]

Yeah the tourists will flock to Krabi to breathe in the coal fumes. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-24/call-for-independent-inquiry-into-morwell-coal-mine-fire/5278594

[BadBouy]

This technoligy has been around for years, other than the volitility I do not see any drawbacks.

[Muggi1968]

So Strange. Europe used coal power plants for 50 Years. Europa moved(Still moving) away from coal,

because of the environmental and health issues

I Guess Thailand have to do their own mistakes and not learn from other.

(Human nature)

[Phil Water]

The same environmentalists who drive up the price of LNG through their protests to projects all over the world are unwitting participants in the Great Coal Lobby.

[Patrick Mills]

Solar is the way to go, why can't anyone see it, not enough money in the pocket. It's only natural for Thailand to think about the money they will make, not think about the grey skies that we already have, because of all the local burning of leaves,trash, toxic materials . It's always about the Money. I live next to a new house that was built by someone in the Kings family and made into a Day Spa, that is covered with solar, they are completely off the Power Grid, plus it's a nice addition to the neighborhood.

[Pinot]

If they are planning a new site from the ground up nuclear should be the primary contender. Nuclear is cleaner than conventional sources of energy and one of the safest of all sources. Deaths per kilowatt is extremely low while coal is the highest not even considering the long term effects of black lung.

Thailand going nuclear, what a fabulous idea!!!

Ye gods, using nuclear and Thailand in the same sentence. 555

[maswov]

If they are planning a new site from the ground up nuclear should be the primary contender. Nuclear is cleaner than conventional sources of energy and one of the safest of all sources. Deaths per kilowatt is extremely low while coal is the highest not even considering the long term effects of black lung.

Yeah, good idea, and Thailand can deposit the radioactive waist in Yala, Pattani or Narathiwat.

Actually Thailand has enough sun, and it could power all their daytime running air-cons, freezers, coolers, parking garages,traffic lights right from the roof of their respective or adjacent houses with solar thermal energy, not to mention the hot water supply. If Thailand would have a halfway intelligent government, Thailand would be the "hub" of solar thermal energy.

If somebody wants to reply with a negative response, I ask her/him kindly to do some research and calculation, before doing so.

Solar thermal is good stuff, I am thinking of doing my thesis on something related to solar thermal.

Solar thermal does take up a lot of land though, Solar One in Nevada is using 400 acres (about 1.6 Km^2) to fuel 75 MW maximum. They are proposing a 700 MW plant in Krabi, To get the same output they would need about 15 km^2. I think that is just too much area for one site. Smaller sites would be feasible though.

[fxe1200]

 

If they are planning a new site from the ground up nuclear should be the primary contender. Nuclear is cleaner than conventional sources of energy and one of the safest of all sources. Deaths per kilowatt is extremely low while coal is the highest not even considering the long term effects of black lung.

Yeah, good idea, and Thailand can deposit the radioactive waist in Yala, Pattani or Narathiwat.

Actually Thailand has enough sun, and it could power all their daytime running air-cons, freezers, coolers, parking garages,traffic lights right from the roof of their respective or adjacent houses with solar thermal energy, not to mention the hot water supply. If Thailand would have a halfway intelligent government, Thailand would be the "hub" of solar thermal energy.

If somebody wants to reply with a negative response, I ask her/him kindly to do some research and calculation, before doing so.

Solar thermal is good stuff, I am thinking of doing my thesis on something related to solar thermal.

Solar thermal does take up a lot of land though, Solar One in Nevada is using 400 acres (about 1.6 Km^2) to fuel 75 MW maximum. They are proposing a 700 MW plant in Krabi, To get the same output they would need about 15 km^2. I think that is just too much area for one site. Smaller sites would be feasible though.

 

I am thinking of decentralized small units to be built on rooftops, producing hot water or/and steam to generate power, those mainly consisting of matt black copper absorber tubes and small scale turbines. At Thailands Latitude (Hat Yai i.e. at 7 degrees North), there will be not much of a loss compared to countries at higher Latitudes. Volker Quaschning (http://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals2/index_e.php) did some research on solar thermal power, and also shows in Figure No. 3 a unit, which, if simplified (no storage device, could work even on rooftops for relatively low costs. Image how much electrical power i.e. the big supermarkets can save with such an installation, by running their coolers and aircons with their home made electricity, especially during late morning and late afternoon, when the demand for electricity is at its peak.

A statutory feed-in compensation should be implemented by the Thai Government, but as they only can think from 12 to noon, we probably have to wait for another 100 years.