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

[rametindallas]

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 don't know your source(s) but when I did a Google search, this is what I found;

China’s Growing Coal Use Is World’s Growing Problem

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Yeah But China Builds a New Coal Plant Every Two Weeks

http://quiet-environmentalist.com/yeah-but-china-builds-a-new-coal-plant-every-two-weeks/

Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 12.9 percent of the domestically produced electricity in 2013 (a far cry from 75%)

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

Thailand's contribution to so-called 'greenhouse gases' of the world is the equivalent of a fart in a whirlwind i.e. inconsequential.

In any case, Human caused global warming is a hoax as CO2 levels have never been higher and temperature rise has been on hold for 18 plus years.

[rametindallas]

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.

Yes, follow the money. Coal makes the cheapest electricity. If you were talking about overpriced to build and overpriced to dismantle nuclear, I would believe the 'bribe' part. Maybe your name having the word 'Herbal' betrayed your natural bias.

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

[marcusd]

Has he heard of global warming?

No need to discuss global warming because its already hot in Thailand...lol

[marcusd]

Can I ask why they don't look at at THERMAL energy here?

[rametindallas]

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

The future: Safe nuclear energy

LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

Thorium: Kirk Sorensen at TEDxYYC (long version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_925595&feature=iv&src_vid=P9M__yYbsZ4&v=N2vzotsvvkw

Thorium: An energy solution (longer version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

These reactors can be built the size of a container and buried (unattended) for twenty years and each will power 5,000 US homes or 15,000 Thai homes with abundant, cheap, less radioactive thorium. Thorium is 97% used up in the process.

The main reason this technology is not used is because General Electric Corp. owns the technology for expensive uranium reactors.

Edited October 29, 2014 by rametindallas

[Soutpeel]

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.

Not lots, if the story is true Thailand only has enough gas for the next 10-15 years based on current comsumption

[727Sky]

I am rather surprised to hear the need for coal fired power plants due to all the natural gas discoveries Thailand is sitting on..

Maybe I do not have the big picture but some of my Expat friends who work in oil and gas exploration, say Thailand has one of the largest known gas deposits in the whole area..

Just seems piping gas via gas lines would be easier than trucks with coal and the infrastructure that is needed to supply said coal to the plants....

Unless the pipelines would have to cross in areas where the religion of peace can blow them up... Then I can understand coal might be the way to go..

[RigPig]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am rather surprised to hear the need for coal fired power plants due to all the natural gas discoveries Thailand is sitting on..

Maybe I do not have the big picture but some of my Expat friends who work in oil and gas exploration, say Thailand has one of the largest known gas deposits in the whole area..

Just seems piping gas via gas lines would be easier than trucks with coal and the infrastructure that is needed to supply said coal to the plants....

Unless the pipelines would have to cross in areas where the religion of peace can blow them up... Then I can understand coal might be the way to go..

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.

Not lots, if the story is true Thailand only has enough gas for the next 10-15 years based on current comsumption

But it will have to import all of it's coal. It's dirty too as we know. Gas can be trucked or transported by sea. They were converting their coal fired stations to gas years ago, now it's no good?

This article is interesting :

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thailand_and_coal

The amount of gas I have seen wasted, literally burned off, because it is the oil they want because it is worth more is criminal, it's mind blowing. It's cheap, clean burning (and they burn it off anyway so why not use it?), it just beggars belief, just shear waste for the maximum profit NOW!!

Edited to add.

Edited October 29, 2014 by RigPig

[manarak]

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,

Solar energy is very expensive.

Germany and Switzerland are crushing their citizens with the growing costs of energy.

It currently stands at roughly 23 to 25 US cents per KWh and is still growing. That is the cost for the current mix of energy sources.

The cost of a Kwh from Solar Energy is currently approx 70 US cents, and this is for an energy efficient home installation, if such energy was centrally produced, grid losses would have to be added as well as a profit margin.

The number of adequate sites for hydro power are limited, it's not likely to ever produce more than 5 to 10% of global energy.

From my point of view, the development of safe nuclear power is the most promising.

[Soutpeel]

I am rather surprised to hear the need for coal fired power plants due to all the natural gas discoveries Thailand is sitting on..

Maybe I do not have the big picture but some of my Expat friends who work in oil and gas exploration, say Thailand has one of the largest known gas deposits in the whole area..

Just seems piping gas via gas lines would be easier than trucks with coal and the infrastructure that is needed to supply said coal to the plants....

Unless the pipelines would have to cross in areas where the religion of peace can blow them up... Then I can understand coal might be the way to go..

Actually believe its Indonesia and Burma which are sitting on the largest reserves and as stated, I am led to believe there is only 10-15 gas left offshore in the Gulf and the land based production doesnt produce that much any way

Ask yourself this question, if Thailand is so abundent with natural gas, why are they importing from Burma, ie Yetagun and a couple of other fields, if they are self sufficient in gas why import, bearing in mind natural gas production has been on the go in Thailand for over 50 years..

[727Sky]

I am rather surprised to hear the need for coal fired power plants due to all the natural gas discoveries Thailand is sitting on..

Maybe I do not have the big picture but some of my Expat friends who work in oil and gas exploration, say Thailand has one of the largest known gas deposits in the whole area..

Just seems piping gas via gas lines would be easier than trucks with coal and the infrastructure that is needed to supply said coal to the plants....

Unless the pipelines would have to cross in areas where the religion of peace can blow them up... Then I can understand coal might be the way to go..

Actually believe its Indonesia and Burma which are sitting on the largest reserves and as stated, I am led to believe there is only 10-15 gas left offshore in the Gulf and the land based production doesnt produce that much any way

Ask yourself this question, if Thailand is so abundent with natural gas, why are they importing from Burma, ie Yetagun and a couple of other fields, if they are self sufficient in gas why import, bearing in mind natural gas production has been on the go in Thailand for over 50 years..

Like I said in the original post.. I am going by what a friend of mine said who works in the field.. I saw him this week and asked him how his job was going.. He has worked off shore for 6 years and presently sees no end in sight. He made the comment about all the discoveries... So that is my only reference to supply and demand..

My electricity goes out about once every week for a couple of hours... sometimes longer sometimes shorter.. I wish them well in whatever direction they go so the electricity is supplied and more consistent without the outages... Coal and mercury pollution has been a problem for many countries... Let us hope the new scrubbers for the plants live up to the billing... At least someone is thinking about the future energy needs of the country... right or wrong..

[Pesche]

May I suggest to you to google "no coal krabi" and you will see how big the opposition is !

The locals don't want it!!

Nobody want it!

[halloween]

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)

Solar power stations in deserts usually run at less than 20% of rated capacity, and that is using solar tracking mounts.

[halloween]

May I suggest to you to google "no coal krabi" and you will see how big the opposition is !

The locals don't want it!!

Nobody want it!

The industry term is NIMBY's as in Not In My Back Yard. Of course they still want their energy, and at the same price as everybody else, just not produced locally, and would scream blue murder if their supply was restricted.

[RigPig]

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

The future: Safe nuclear energy

LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

Thorium: Kirk Sorensen at TEDxYYC (long version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_925595&feature=iv&src_vid=P9M__yYbsZ4&v=N2vzotsvvkw

Thorium: An energy solution (longer version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

These reactors can be built the size of a container and buried (unattended) for twenty years and each will power 5,000 US homes or 15,000 Thai homes with abundant, cheap, less radioactive thorium. Thorium is 97% used up in the process.

The main reason this technology is not used is because General Electric Corp. owns the technology for expensive uranium reactors.

WOW!!!

I watched the longer version which was pretty intense but was worth it, that's amazing, you sold me!!!

Not sure Thailand is ready yet though, but they will be able to buy it from the Chinese soon by the look of it...

Thank for that

[Gonsalviz]

Has he heard of global warming?

What's that?

[Soutpeel]

WOW!!!

I watched the longer version which was pretty intense but was worth it, that's amazing, you sold me!!!

Not sure Thailand is ready yet though, but they will be able to buy it from the Chinese soon by the look of it...

Thank for that

just for the tin foil hatters and conspriacy theorists, some cases against thorium reactors

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype,4919

The hype around Thorium is similar to the hype around pebble bed reactors and other than a pilot plant, that never got off the ground either

[Tep]

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.

Gas comprises about 70% of the fuel for power production in Thailand. I have the figures for 2012 and it is 67%. This is not a good situation and the Thai government has long been concerned about fuel diversity. The planned revision to the Power Development Plan 2010 Rev 3 has not been released but some information is available and coal is a key feature.

There are two main sources of gas for Thailand. Around 20% comes from Myanmar. All that gas goes to Ratchaburi, which is Thailands largest gas power plant. Most of the other 80% comes from domestic sources in the gulf. The latest information I have is that the current concessions are expected to be depleted in 8 - 10 years. A new round of concessions has been awarded.

The remainder of the gas supply is LNG, currently from Qatar but PTT only has contracts to use about 20% of the capacity of the LNG terminal even though they are proceeding with the investment to expand from 5 Mtpa to 10 Mtpa. Besides, LNG is more expensive than Gulf Gas, which is sold on a pooled price basis. Most people expect that LNG will replace Gulf and Myanmar gas as those sources diminish in the medium term.

Using gs for power production is also not making the best use of its value. Gas is more valuable in the petrochemical industry since there is value added there. I forget the figures but I think the petrochem industry consumes around 20% of all gas produced.

There is an expectation that the new Power Development Plan will try to reduce gas to around the low 60% within the 15 year planning horizon. It would do this by increasing purchase from neighbouring countries and through coal, necessary now that nuclear is to be dropped.

There is no firm information on new domestic sources of gas.

[Tep]

May I suggest to you to google "no coal krabi" and you will see how big the opposition is !

The locals don't want it!!

Nobody want it!

The government wants it and this time the government may get it. The 1997 round of IPP's included 2 coal power plants around Prachuab Kiri Khan. As a result of protests, both were moved to different locations and one changed its fuel from coal to gas. EGAT does not currently have a coal plant, with the exception of Mae Moh in the North. They propose Krabi as one site because it is replacing an existing coal plant that has been retired. The opposition to that plant is strong.

The energy planners are extremely concerned over fuel diversity. This issue trumps all other concerns. It has come to a point where the government cannot delay the decision on coal and I think you will see more stronger moves and statements on this issue. EGAT is preparing a terms of reference to bid a Coal Supply Agreement next year. EGAT's corporate social responsibility division is handing the community relations aspect but the key problem is the protest against the landing of the imported coal. Once the government solves that issue, I think the 2 announced coal plants will proceed quite quickly.

[Tep]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am rather surprised to hear the need for coal fired power plants due to all the natural gas discoveries Thailand is sitting on..

Maybe I do not have the big picture but some of my Expat friends who work in oil and gas exploration, say Thailand has one of the largest known gas deposits in the whole area..

Just seems piping gas via gas lines would be easier than trucks with coal and the infrastructure that is needed to supply said coal to the plants....

Unless the pipelines would have to cross in areas where the religion of peace can blow them up... Then I can understand coal might be the way to go..

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.

Not lots, if the story is true Thailand only has enough gas for the next 10-15 years based on current comsumption

But it will have to import all of it's coal. It's dirty too as we know. Gas can be trucked or transported by sea. They were converting their coal fired stations to gas years ago, now it's no good?

This article is interesting :

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thailand_and_coal

The amount of gas I have seen wasted, literally burned off, because it is the oil they want because it is worth more is criminal, it's mind blowing. It's cheap, clean burning (and they burn it off anyway so why not use it?), it just beggars belief, just shear waste for the maximum profit NOW!!

Edited to add.

It is economics. There are places in the US where shale gas is flared (burned) because the cost of shipping it to markets exceeds the revenue from its sale. In 2012 US shale gas prices were down below $2/mmbtu. They have since gone up around double but some of the more remote shale gas sites could not build the pipelines to take their gas to market because of the low price.

We are told by some US gas shippers that they can land gas here in Thailand more cheaply that the current gas price which is based on long term oil linked contracts. Last time I looked the price set by the JCC (Japan Crude Cocktail) was around $15/mmbut and US suppliers were saying they can get it here for around $12.

I remember as a young lad in Australia going bush with the old man up around Lake Eyre and the Streskleki Track. We once went through Moomba and I could see the gas flaring from miles away. An impressive site. Now gas is a huge industry and they would be trying to sell that but it still depends on the economics and cost of supply.

[Tep]

Can I ask why they don't look at at THERMAL energy here?

Thailand has 1 geothermal power plant. It is up in Fang, which is in the North in Chiang Mai maybe half way between Chiang Rai city and Chiang Mai city. it has about 0.3 MW (300 kw) capacity. There are very few sites for geothermal but the Ministry of Energy would like to develop what potential there is. They target about 1MW for development. I understand there are some potential sites in the North East http://weben.dede.go.th/webmax/content/geothermal-energy-thailand

I am assuming you meant geothermal since thermal power plants are those that use heat produced by fossil fuels i.e. coal, gas, fuel oil/diesel etc.

[tbthailand]

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.

solar, wind, wave, geotherm and efficiency go a long way toward energy sufficiency.

nuclear is a ticking bomb - even in countries with good track records on safety.

[noodle]

'The main reason this technology is not used is because General Electric Corp. owns the technology for expensive uranium reactors'

Thorium reactors are of no assistance in producing nuclear weapons.

[Soutpeel]

'The main reason this technology is not used is because General Electric Corp. owns the technology for expensive uranium reactors'

Thorium reactors are of no assistance in producing nuclear weapons.

Currently Thorium reactors are of no commerical use to anybody, not withstanding the tin foil hat theories regarding GE...

[samran]

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.

Not lots, if the story is true Thailand only has enough gas for the next 10-15 years based on current comsumption

[/quote

After which it will over reliant on Myanmar piped gas and imported LNG which is four times more expensive that gulf of Thailand gas.

Not good for fuel security.