Thai energy minister adamant for on more coal-fired power plants

[webfact]

Thai energy minister adamant for on more coal-fired power plants
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, Oct 28 -- Thailand's energy minister is determined to build more coal-fired power plants to increase their proportion of the country's electricity generation to 30 per cent of all fuel-fired generation.

Energy Minister Narongchai Akrasanee said Thailand needed more coal-fired power plants to meet its continuously growing electricity demand. Consequently the government intends to increase the proportion of coal-fired generation to 30 per cent to cut the proportion of gas-fired generation to 70 per cent.

He said that there would be an 800-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Krabi and coal-fired generation in Songkhla as well. Both Krabi and Songkhla are southern provinces.

Mr Narongchai said that electricity supply in the South was insecure and the region also depended on auxiliary power supply from Malaysia.

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) is persuading opponents of coal-fired power plants to support the plans.

Mr Narongchai said the Energy Ministry would also buy electricity from the 1,400-megawatt Hongsa power plant in the Lao PDR.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha sealed a deal to buy power from Myeik of Myanmar and will discuss a project to buy electricity from Cambodia.

Thailand has already built power transmission cables to Cambodia.

The Thai government plans to build a coal-fired power plant in the neighboring country and buy its excess power for use in Thailand.

Mr Narongchai promised that the government would apply internationally recognized clean coal-fired power plant technology. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2014-10-28

[gerry123]

i think a guy called SCARGILL had the same views about that subject good few years back now though

[siampolee]

Well in my opinion going down the road to a coal fired power station facility with all its claimed drawbacks real or otherwise is a darn sight safer than a nuclear powered facility.

When one view the casual way in which the Thais and Thai business in general view safety matters and environmental issues coal is definitely better than a nuclear fuel.

[Costas2008]

Has he heard of global warming?

[gerry123]

Has he heard of global warming?

777777 do you really need an answer to that

[siampolee]

Costas 2008 post # 4

Has he heard of global warming?

Well methinks a little global warming is preferable to all of us glowing in the dark like luminous watches due to radiation leaks.

[Chang_paarp]

The minister must have heard from the Australian government about the myth of "clean coal", at least he is not suggesting nuclear like some of his predecessors.

[gerry123]

or the uk government back in the sixties a chap name of

Dr Bronowski perfected this for the smog ridden city of London

[chainarong]

Renewable energy is now the darling in the west , this guy is out of step with the world opinion of coal , even atmosphere filthy China is dropping coal , the best example is the US, their system handles up to 75% of total load with renewable energy, , Germany hope to be completely renewable in 30 years, so their energy Minister stated the other day.

[Thailand]

They should be looking at wind power here as there is plenty of hot air being blown around.

[DeepInTheForest]

Renewable energy is now the darling in the west , this guy is out of step with the world opinion of coal , even atmosphere filthy China is dropping coal , the best example is the US, their system handles up to 75% of total load with renewable energy, , Germany hope to be completely renewable in 30 years, so their energy Minister stated the other day.

"... the best example is the US, their system handles up to 75% of total load with renewable energy...

How I wish that we lived in some kind of alternative universe where this were true.

It is not.

"... in 2010, data showed 25% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 22% from coal, and 22% from natural gas. Nuclear power supplied 8.4% and renewable energy supplied 8%, which was mainly from hydroelectric dams and biomass but also included other renewable sources such as wind power, geothermal and solar energy. "

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

Edited October 28, 2014 by DeepInTheForest

[rickirs]

Greater reliance on coal-fired power plants follows the recommendations of the Yingluck administration to reduce dependence on natural gas as part of the nation's efforts for fuel diversification. Reference the International Geoscience Conference (GEOSEA), March 7-8, 2012 in Bangkok, Thailand.

But without significant parallel increases in Alternative Energy Sources and development of Nuclear Power, there will become a danger of Thailand shifting to an over reliance on coal that will essentially take the nation back to the same energy position with an over reliance on NG. It looks like the Energy Minister is going after the "low hanging fruit" of coal as a quick fix to fuel diversification without pursuing a long-term energy strategy.

[noodle]

i think a guy called SCARGILL had the same views about that subject good few years back now though

yes, it was a staged fight after Ted Heath had backed into a corner a decade or so before against the gentlemanly Joe Gormley.

Scargill was a (rabid?) socialist and an easy target for the fascist (the govt controlled the mines beause it (previous) had nationalised them and thus she acted from a fascist podium regardless of her own view) Thatcher. The legacy is yuppies, TBTF banks, and the City as the beginning and ending of England, assuming that the rest escape.

[noodle]

Has he heard of global warming?

Que? Perhaps I should say Arai krap?

The current 'in' scare climate thingy might be Climate Change but who knows. Politics changes so quickly and climate changes way too slowly to keep up.

[noodle]

The minister must have heard from the Australian government about the myth of "clean coal", at least he is not suggesting nuclear like some of his predecessors.

I would have thought that the Oz govt would have 'exported' the "clean coal" myth forever. It ain't called Oz for naught.

[noodle]

or the uk government back in the sixties a chap name of

Dr Bronowski perfected this for the smog ridden city of London

Dr Bronowski 'did' the TV series "The Ascent of Man". The guy was in love with the subject. Well worth the time of day.

[noodle]

It is simple.

You want electricity. Or no lights.

Coal makes carcinogenic smoke

Gas is somewhere between smoke and no smoke.

Hydro is kind of perfect but Greenies don't like it and it is not common.

Ditto Geothermal.

Nuclear (or, if you my buddy G, Nucular) in the current reactor sense is just GE scaled up bomb material production facility with electricity as a side benefit plus enduring radioactivity. Don't hold breath for a clean option.

[rubl]

Renewable energy is now the darling in the west , this guy is out of step with the world opinion of coal , even atmosphere filthy China is dropping coal , the best example is the US, their system handles up to 75% of total load with renewable energy, , Germany hope to be completely renewable in 30 years, so their energy Minister stated the other day.

I think lots of 'developing' countries rather spent money on cheap, well proven systems than on newfangled Western stuff which in many cases need an appropriate infrastructure as well.

BTW the 75% renewable in the USA seems a bit high especially since extraction of oil and gas (some through the controversial fracking method) has seen a real boom over the last few years.

[bobmac10]

The minister must have heard from the Australian government about the myth of "clean coal", at least he is not suggesting nuclear like some of his predecessors.

I would have thought that the Oz govt would have 'exported' the "clean coal" myth forever. It ain't called Oz for naught.

So, they can't think for themselves?

They don't do any research for themselves?

[HerbalEd]

That's just great. While many countries are outlawing the building of new coal-fired power plants and requiring they be wood-pellet fired, Thailand is expanding it's building and use of coal-fired plants. Wonder why? Follow the bribes money.

[stevehaigh]

maybe they admire Beijing's air quality and want to emulate it

[h90]

Thailand has plenty of sun and a peak consumption on the hottest days, because of the air conditions. Different than in Germany, Solar cells would make sense in Thailand.

Else, I really don't know what to prefer: Coal fired power plant, or Nuclear power in Thailand. Maybe coal is the better option.

[stevehaigh]

Hydro is kind of perfect but Greenies don't like it and it is not common.

actually building dams causes more greenhouse gasses, especially methane, than equivalent coal fire power, for the first 20-30 years anyhow

concentrated solar power could work well here since its so damn hot all the time

[stevehaigh]

Thailand has plenty of sun and a peak consumption on the hottest days, because of the air conditions. Different than in Germany, Solar cells would make sense in Thailand.

i think PV cells don't work well in very hot environments, they actually work better and last a lot longer in places like Germany. CSP, concentrated solar power likes it hot and unlike PV, the power can be stored in molten salt to even out supply and demand

[airconsult]

Renewable energy is now the darling in the west , this guy is out of step with the world opinion of coal , even atmosphere filthy China is dropping coal , the best example is the US, their system handles up to 75% of total load with renewable energy, , Germany hope to be completely renewable in 30 years, so their energy Minister stated the other day.

I think lots of 'developing' countries rather spent money on cheap, well proven systems than on newfangled Western stuff which in many cases need an appropriate infrastructure as well.

BTW the 75% renewable in the USA seems a bit high especially since extraction of oil and gas (some through the controversial fracking method) has seen a real boom over the last few years.

I also question the part about Germany - considering they are building 7 new coal plants (or has one already opened?)

[Cake Monster]

I can vaguely remember a certain person having a very large stake in a coal mining operation in Indonesia.

Does he still have that ? does anybody know ?

[aussieinthailand]

Well in my opinion going down the road to a coal fired power station facility with all its claimed drawbacks real or otherwise is a darn sight safer than a nuclear powered facility.

When one view the casual way in which the Thais and Thai business in general view safety matters and environmental issues coal is definitely better than a nuclear fuel.

Nuclear, NO just look at Chernobyl and fukushima, coal fired power plants, well not a good option either, just look at China, (pun intended) they have a great wall apparently, but no ones seen it for a few years due to smog,,,,,,,,,

With all the sun light here why not fix the power grid and have solar pumped back into the grid by those who install solar panels,

Tidal power, Geothermal power, radiant power, (Nikola Tesla had a few good idea's I heard), Biomass, there's a few choices here,

[stevehaigh]

Well in my opinion going down the road to a coal fired power station facility with all its claimed drawbacks real or otherwise is a darn sight safer than a nuclear powered facility.

When one view the casual way in which the Thais and Thai business in general view safety matters and environmental issues coal is definitely better than a nuclear fuel.

Nuclear, NO just look at Chernobyl and fukushima, coal fired power plants, well not a good option either, just look at China, (pun intended) they have a great wall apparently, but no ones seen it for a few years due to smog,,,,,,,,,

With all the sun light here why not fix the power grid and have solar pumped back into the grid by those who install solar panels,

Tidal power, Geothermal power, radiant power, (Nikola Tesla had a few good idea's I heard), Biomass, there's a few choices here,

Geothermal power only works in a few places on earth like Iceland where the crust is very thin. other places where they have tried it, like Oregon in the US have 'run dry' after a few years as the cooling effect of pumping the heat out hardens the rock.

Chernobyl and fukushima were old design reactors and clearly in the case of fukushima, built in the wrong place. modern reactor designs have fixed a lot of safety issues but i don't know i'd trust Thai's to manage one

[airconsult]

Well in my opinion going down the road to a coal fired power station facility with all its claimed drawbacks real or otherwise is a darn sight safer than a nuclear powered facility.

When one view the casual way in which the Thais and Thai business in general view safety matters and environmental issues coal is definitely better than a nuclear fuel.

Nuclear, NO just look at Chernobyl and fukushima, coal fired power plants, well not a good option either, just look at China, (pun intended) they have a great wall apparently, but no ones seen it for a few years due to smog,,,,,,,,,

With all the sun light here why not fix the power grid and have solar pumped back into the grid by those who install solar panels,

Tidal power, Geothermal power, radiant power, (Nikola Tesla had a few good idea's I heard), Biomass, there's a few choices here,

Got a magic new way to store the power?

As an example - NYC uses 11,000Mwh every day - consider night - solar is automatically at 50% of rated capacity (for the entire day - less really, but just as an quick and dirty point)

Ok - so if we take this careful consideration - http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/fission.html

We can see that the 20 kiloton hiroshima explosion was effectively 3,000Mwh - so to power NYC at night would require energy equivalent to 2 hiroshima bombs.

I leave it up to you to research energy density in hydro storage - but from the above - batteries is not the answer.

EDIT - I should also point out that EGAT did build a test solar plant in phuket - the cost of production works out to 12thb per Kwh (4 times more expensive than coal and gas) - highly inappropriate for a developing country with a large income gap. (you can google for their presentation on it from back when they wanted to build a production nuclear plant - the test nuclear plant has been running happily for years near Don Muang)

Edited October 29, 2014 by airconsult

[RigPig]

So what's wrong with staying with gas? It is relatively clean burning and there is an abundance of it and it should be relatively cheap. I actually thought Thailand had a lot of gas of it's own, onshore (cheap to access). I was a part of drilling for it here years ago.