PM Prayut stresses need for coal power amid opposition

[webfact]

PM stresses need for coal power amid opposition

BANGKOK, 29 May 2015 (NNT) – In response to criticism from those opposed to the construction of a coal-fired power plant, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha has stressed the country’s need for cheap power to meet its rapidly growing demand, while urging critics to more reasonable.

To counter opponents of the planned coal-fired electricity generating plant, PM Prayut reiterated that coal was the cheapest source of power which can be tapped for at least a million years. Gen Prayut insisted that the government’s plan to build the coal power plant was intended to reduce the country’s reliance on electricity imports and to ensure sufficient supply for the future.

The leader of the National Council of Peace and Order (NCPO) answered critics’ doubts about the government’s preference for a less eco-friendly choice, saying that wind power was not enough for consumption and production costs of solar power were still high and thus affordable for the poor.

Gen. Prayut also confirmed that clean technologies would be applied to the production of coal power, which would pose no risk to the environment, adding that the government would be observing the operation of a new coal power plant in Laos.


-- NNT 2015-05-29

[DNPBC0]

"......would pose no risk to the environment" - apart from another major ongoing contribution to increased CO₂ emissions and the present consequences of that for continued global warming? Of course, he could easily assert that global warming is not happening or that, if it is, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic C0₂ levels, or even that continued global warning poses no important threat to us all. You want to do that Prayut? Be my quest - give it a go, but you won't because you know that this will most certainly not improve your already low international credibility.

[halloween]

"......would pose no risk to the environment" - apart from another major ongoing contribution to increased CO₂ emissions and the present consequences of that for continued global warming? Of course, he could easily assert that global warming is not happening or that, if it is, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic C0₂ levels, or even that continued global warning poses no important threat to us all. You want to do that Prayut? Be my quest - give it a go, but you won't because you know that this will most certainly not improve your already low international credibility.

He's probably more concerned over the current problems (sorry for the pun).

BTW have you environmentalists got a plan for steel production (a major user of coal) or aluminium ( a major user of electricity)? Are we all going back to wood?

[Muirton]

Considering it's July 13, 1789 in the LOS, coal as a power source is very contemporary.

[Srikcir]

"PM Prayut reiterated that coal was the cheapest source of power which can be tapped for at least a million years."

I'd like to see the reference on this statement.

BP: World proved coal reserves in 2013 were sufficient to meet 113 years of global production. China, Russian and the USA have the largest reserves.

But -

World Energy Council 2013: China alone now uses as much coal as the rest of the world.

Stick to being a General Prayut. Article 44 can't give you an education.

[Nuddy]

The climate change created by burning coal is probably very bad.

However while we have volcanos on earth it is pretty difficult to say that burning coal is going to make any difference to things in the climate.

Sure I reckon you are right coal burning is not going to help much except provide non nuclear generated energy.

Thailand has many problems but starting a new coal burning electricity generator will improve things in Thailand rather than make it worse.

Let us forget all this expensive chat about the environment and just ask that Thailand filter all the smoke from the chimneys produced by burning coal.

Other wise you force Thailand into the nuclear option as happened in Japan and thats a much greater polluter than coal burning with the filters fitted will ever be.

I recommend pushing for clean coal burning to produce electricity in Thailand.

Regards

[h90]

"......would pose no risk to the environment" - apart from another major ongoing contribution to increased CO₂ emissions and the present consequences of that for continued global warming? Of course, he could easily assert that global warming is not happening or that, if it is, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic C0₂ levels, or even that continued global warning poses no important threat to us all. You want to do that Prayut? Be my quest - give it a go, but you won't because you know that this will most certainly not improve your already low international credibility.

There is no evidence of climate change. But coal power is dirty enough even without the CO2 hoax and should be avoided.

China is building a lot nuclear power stations now to get rid of the dirty coal.

That is the way to go after all the sources for hydro power are used.

[elgordo38]

"......would pose no risk to the environment" - apart from another major ongoing contribution to increased CO₂ emissions and the present consequences of that for continued global warming? Of course, he could easily assert that global warming is not happening or that, if it is, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic C0₂ levels, or even that continued global warning poses no important threat to us all. You want to do that Prayut? Be my quest - give it a go, but you won't because you know that this will most certainly not improve your already low international credibility.

Forget the extra electricity General we will not need it we will all be dead from the increase in pollution from burning coal. Pose no risk to the environment hmm I doubt that after viewing the pictures of that abandoned garbage burning plant I think in Phuket or somewhere in the south. You could hardly see the plant for the mounds of garbage as there were no funds to keep it running and I doubt if it was possible to run it in a clean and efficient manner. Yes there are ways to clean up coaling burning electricity generation but Thailand is not famous for going that extra mile.

[elgordo38]

"PM Prayut reiterated that coal was the cheapest source of power which can be tapped for at least a million years."

I'd like to see the reference on this statement.

BP: World proved coal reserves in 2013 were sufficient to meet 113 years of global production. China, Russian and the USA have the largest reserves.

But -

World Energy Council 2013: China alone now uses as much coal as the rest of the world.

Stick to being a General Prayut. Article 44 can't give you an education.

Take your most conservative estimate mankind will not be around that long. I did not need a fortune teller to tell me that I just need to open my balcony door which even in this heat is not to often.

Edited May 29, 2015 by elgordo38

[elgordo38]

The climate change created by burning coal is probably very bad.

However while we have volcanos on earth it is pretty difficult to say that burning coal is going to make any difference to things in the climate.

Sure I reckon you are right coal burning is not going to help much except provide non nuclear generated energy.

Thailand has many problems but starting a new coal burning electricity generator will improve things in Thailand rather than make it worse.

Let us forget all this expensive chat about the environment and just ask that Thailand filter all the smoke from the chimneys produced by burning coal.

Other wise you force Thailand into the nuclear option as happened in Japan and thats a much greater polluter than coal burning with the filters fitted will ever be.

I recommend pushing for clean coal burning to produce electricity in Thailand.

Regards

Sorry I just could not in all good conciousness push the " I Like" button on this one. Neither has anyone else.

[meltingpot2015]

amid opposition

What opposition?

Edited May 29, 2015 by meltingpot2015

[Emster23]

"coal was the cheapest source of power which can be tapped for at least a million years." And when that runs out, then we'll hold elections. Is the general trying to snuggle up to US Republicans or something? No climate change? When 97%+ of world earth scientists say there is, shouldn't we pay attention?

[tonbridgebrit]

Go on Thailand, burn a load of coal. America's doing it. And Thailand, if you want loads of coal, you can import it from Australia. The Chinese import loads from Australia, but Australia has got enough for China and you as well.

[zappalot]

There is no evidence of climate change.

So the worldwide retreating glaciers are melting because of what, if not because of a warmer, changing climate? Or are the reports about melting glaciers a hoax as well, at least in your opinion? I lived in the alps, so better do not tell me that the glaciers are not melting... You must have a good explanation now...

[halloween]

Go on Thailand, burn a load of coal. America's doing it. And Thailand, if you want loads of coal, you can import it from Australia. The Chinese import loads from Australia, but Australia has got enough for China and you as well.

Correct, Oz will sell you as much coal as you can afford. OTOH in our own country we are building billion dollar solar plants that will produce very little of the most expensive electricity available (during certain hours only). You just gotta love hypocrisy.

[h90]

There is no evidence of climate change.

So the worldwide retreating glaciers are melting because of what, if not because of a warmer, changing climate? Or are the reports about melting glaciers a hoax as well, at least in your opinion? I lived in the alps, so better do not tell me that the glaciers are not melting... You must have a good explanation now...

The temperature measurements tells something different for the last 10 years. But anyway we are already all blind from the ozone hole.......And if there is a problem with CO2, the most obvious thing would be to plant trees everywhere, but in fact huge areas of forest are burned and no word from the climate hysterics.

IT does not need the climate change hoax to understand that burning coal is dirty. And burning oil is supporting crazy Arabs so we should find better technologies. Funny enough the climate change fanatics are often also against nuclear power which produces ZERO CO2.

[zappalot]

There is no evidence of climate change.

So the worldwide retreating glaciers are melting because of what, if not because of a warmer, changing climate? Or are the reports about melting glaciers a hoax as well, at least in your opinion? I lived in the alps, so better do not tell me that the glaciers are not melting... You must have a good explanation now...

The temperature measurements tells something different for the last 10 years.

Not true as well, 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred this century

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/24/warmest-years-record-un-global-warming

Where did you get your facts from? Any sources?

[tonbridgebrit]

Go on Thailand, burn a load of coal. America's doing it. And Thailand, if you want loads of coal, you can import it from Australia. The Chinese import loads from Australia, but Australia has got enough for China and you as well.

Correct, Oz will sell you as much coal as you can afford. OTOH in our own country we are building billion dollar solar plants that will produce very little of the most expensive electricity available (during certain hours only). You just gotta love hypocrisy.

Well, you don't actually love hypocrisy, no, you just got to sit back and have a giggle over it !

[eliotness]

To say nuclear power produces zero CO2 is not considering the life-cycle of nuclear fuel. First it has to be mined, then extracted, cooled while being stored, used, cooled again when the waste fuel is stored, reprocessed (maybe transported all the way to a facility capable of reprocessing, such as Sellafield in the UK) and finally the unwanted radioactive cocktail has to be stored "safely" for 10,000 years. Furthermore the amount of CO2 produced in the construction of a nuclear power station is vast - consider all the concrete and steel required for a safe build.

Also consider, when reprocessed who takes care of the Uranium and Plutonium extracted.

[eliotness]

To say nuclear power produces zero CO2 is not considering the life-cycle of nuclear fuel. First it has to be mined, then extracted, cooled while being stored, used, cooled again when the waste fuel is stored, reprocessed (maybe transported all the way to a facility capable of reprocessing, such as Sellafield in the UK) and finally the unwanted radioactive cocktail has to be stored "safely" for 10,000 years. Furthermore the amount of CO2 produced in the construction of a nuclear power station is vast - consider all the concrete and steel required for a safe build.

Also consider, when reprocessed who takes care of the Uranium and Plutonium extracted.

[phoenixdoglover]

Are you guys actually going to get into an argument with "h90" about climate change and the relative merits of different energy sources?

We only have one shot at life and each hour is a precious gift.

Don't waste it.

[Nuddy]

Volcanoes apparently create more climate change than humans.

[geriatrickid]

"......would pose no risk to the environment" - apart from another major ongoing contribution to increased CO₂ emissions and the present consequences of that for continued global warming? Of course, he could easily assert that global warming is not happening or that, if it is, it has nothing to do with anthropogenic C0₂ levels, or even that continued global warning poses no important threat to us all. You want to do that Prayut? Be my quest - give it a go, but you won't because you know that this will most certainly not improve your already low international credibility.

He's probably more concerned over the current problems (sorry for the pun).

BTW have you environmentalists got a plan for steel production (a major user of coal) or aluminium ( a major user of electricity)? Are we all going back to wood?

The largest producers of aluminum rely on hydro electric power.

In respect to steel production, the cheap producers (China and India) rely on coal. They are also two of the worst culprits when it comes to global warming damage.

This isn't about "environmentalists". Rather it is about honesty and doing the right thing. Thailand, like China relies on coal that when burned has high emissions of heavy metals and other toxins. As China has demonstrated, tens of thousands of its people die every year because of the cumulative impact of the contamination and poor air quality. Those big clouds of filth eventually fall and drop to the ground destroying the local fauna.

Coal power plants serve the vested interests of those who are in the that business segment, and it has been lobbying hard over the years for an expansion. There are other options, many of which are cost effective, including long term planning.

[geriatrickid]

Volcanoes apparently create more climate change than humans.

No.

Even if one were to correct your embarrassing mistake and refer to volcanic eruptions, you would still be very, very, very wrong.

I have plagiarized a summary for you that provides relevant citations. Can you provide any citations to support your claim?

The published estimates of the global CO₂ emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO₂ emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO₂ emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO₂ estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

[tonbridgebrit]

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

[tonbridgebrit]

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

Right, the above is a link from wikipedia about carbon dioxide emissions PER CAPITA, for a whole load of countries on planet earth.

You will notice that the USA and Canada are pretty high up on that list.

Countries like China, Thailand, and India are far lower down !!

Is it any wonder that countries like China and India get a bit annoyed when people start blaming them for all this global warming ? And Thailand as well. In China's case, they should be given a bigger allocation of carbon dioxide pollution because China is actually producing a lot of goods that are sold in the USA and the European Union. America's production of pollutants has fallen in the last two or three decades, that's because the factories have been re-located to China.

[ozzieovaseas]

DId anyone ask him to explain the context of his comment about coal having a million year sustainability?

Maybe something was lost in the translation? Surely if you said this in the western media you would be getting a few please explains?

Where is the Thai media when he comes out with this stuff? They rubbished him when he said he likes to eat bread in the morning, saying he wasnt being nationalistic ect, but these kind of comments dont warrant any scrutiny?

Or maybe it is this fracking? (that seems to be f-cking our planet). Maybe they think we can keep that up for a million years?

[expat888]

Have you ever been to China during the winter when they are burning coal?

Most people have to wear masks to avoid coughing fits.

[lostoday]

Have you ever been to China during the winter when they are burning coal?

Most people have to wear masks to avoid coughing fits.

Been to Kentucky in the winter when they were burning coal. Early morning stoking up the coal burning stoves left an impression on my young mind. I think I remember meeting a Thai girl there. Maybe that's where they got the idea?

Edited June 2, 2015 by lostoday

[BSJ]

"PM Prayut reiterated that coal was the cheapest source of power which can be tapped for at least a million years." Maybe a little optimistic! I am thinking maybe he got confused with solar energy and fossil fuel energy???