PM Prayut stresses need for coal power amid opposition

[turgid]

In the speech he said about 70% of Thai power currently comes from Oil and Gas. Where does that oil and gas come from? If it's pretty much single sourced through countries or business owners that are not aligned with the current administrations objectives then this may be a strategy to send a message or reduce leverage.

[Praematura]

Maybe dear leader should see the massive coastal flooding in Pattaya/Jomtien and make a connection to global warming...

Disgusting beaches and now air pollution but I suspect the Chinese will still come here. I'm glad I've a few months left.

[banglassie]

I don't know about climate change in the sense that we have created a global warming. Not saying that isn't the case, but it's not the first time in history temperatures have changed on Earth. Our contribution is simply not that hardcore compared with natural sources of Co2, like the oceans etc.

Anyhow, regarding the statement that it "would put no risk to environment", sure, and Beijing is sunny 24/7...

Even better, build it in Krabi, and a few more around the south. I think one impact on environment would be a decrease in tourists. Burma might as well use the opportunity and create some nice but not too expensive tourist havens on their andaman west-coast.

But perhaps they will thrive exclusively on Chinese tourists. Cause no matter they build a few coal plants around Siam, it will not get as bad as northern China..

[aussieinthailand]

"......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?

Schools factory roves, gov buildings domestic homes could supplement power with solar power, those close to coast could use tidal tech.

Yu'p got an answer for the aluminum production mining Bauxite (Alcoa) In W.A has a very large area of land and could use both sola and wind as well as thermal,

Power storage technology is improving all the time, take a look at the tesla wall for improved power storage, love to have one on my wall.

[eliotness]

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).

Good quote, but you only refer to CO2 and have not considered other factors such as NOx, SOx and ash etc which do effect the earth's climate. Earth scientists have stated (check google for ref) that the emissions from volcanoes have a cooling effect which "may" be counteracting the warming effect of increased CO2. Coal fired power stations do emit substantial amounts of these other pollutants (actually CO2 is not a pollutant as such as it is essential for life on earth), the quantity being dependant on the quality of the coal burnt. There has been much mentioned recently about "super" volcanoes, calderas (eg Yellowstone in USA) and the possibility of one erupting and putting the world through a nuclear winter lasting decades. So I don't think the poster to whom you refer was "very, very, very wrong" just lacked a few facts to back-up his statement. Just google super volcanoes if you are desperate for references.

[halloween]

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?

Schools factory roves, gov buildings domestic homes could supplement power with solar power, those close to coast could use tidal tech.

Yu'p got an answer for the aluminum production mining Bauxite (Alcoa) In W.A has a very large area of land and could use both sola and wind as well as thermal,

Power storage technology is improving all the time, take a look at the tesla wall for improved power storage, love to have one on my wall.

Yes, solar power can be used to supplement. Tidal tech requires very specific parameters, found in very few places.

I really don't how to express my contempt (within forum rules) of the concept of an aluminium refinery run on solar/wind power. It is almost as inane as GK's claims re iron and aluminium production.

[halloween]

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).

Good quote, but you only refer to CO2 and have not considered other factors such as NOx, SOx and ash etc which do effect the earth's climate. Earth scientists have stated (check google for ref) that the emissions from volcanoes have a cooling effect which "may" be counteracting the warming effect of increased CO2. Coal fired power stations do emit substantial amounts of these other pollutants (actually CO2 is not a pollutant as such as it is essential for life on earth), the quantity being dependant on the quality of the coal burnt. There has been much mentioned recently about "super" volcanoes, calderas (eg Yellowstone in USA) and the possibility of one erupting and putting the world through a nuclear winter lasting decades. So I don't think the poster to whom you refer was "very, very, very wrong" just lacked a few facts to back-up his statement. Just google super volcanoes if you are desperate for references.

I believe the original inaccurate is based on a report which said that the Iceland volcanic eruption put as much CO₂ into the atmosphere as had been saved by reductions in the previous 10 years (or similar).

[eliotness]

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...

Do you think man has more power than mother nature ? There has always been changes in the earth's climate, from the beginning of time. The debate is what is mankind doing to effect or enhance natural climate changes.

The advancement of civilisation was on the back of clearing most of Europe's forests and the industrial revolution was based on massive coal and mineral extraction.

So unless you want to go back to living in straw huts, wearing furs, ditching your computer, mobile phone, electric cooker, fridge, TV, aircon, car, air flights etc etc, then it's better to say "how can we adapt to the changes ?".

But, and this is THE BIG BUT, if we don't address the growth of the human population, then everything else is "just pissing in the wind".

[brucec64]

"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.

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

Maybe an indication of how long the NCPO intends to remain in power?

[rametindallas]

"......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.

In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.

From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.

At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.

And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.

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

Each Coal Plant Lasts 40 Years. Thailand's contribution to AGL/pollution is a 'fart in a whirlwind' compared to China.

.

Edited July 14, 2015 by rametindallas

[eliotness]

"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.

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

Maybe an indication of how long the NCPO intends to remain in power?

6

As stated many many times on many many topics the General PM needs some decent PR/advisers desperately. I do not and can not believe the General PM is that daft. I suspect one of his "advisers" said the world's coal resources are equivalent to a million years of Thai usage. However he/she forgot to mention that the rest of the world uses coal as well. The poor man is so very busy with solving Thailand's problems that he must have just read verbatim what was put in front of him or possibly the person who did the translation messed up on the decimal places.

All men/women in power rely on advisers, just seems the General PM has landed with a bunch of idiots.

[brucec64]

"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.

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

Maybe an indication of how long the NCPO intends to remain in power?

6

As stated many many times on many many topics the General PM needs some decent PR/advisers desperately. I do not and can not believe the General PM is that daft. I suspect one of his "advisers" said the world's coal resources are equivalent to a million years of Thai usage. However he/she forgot to mention that the rest of the world uses coal as well. The poor man is so very busy with solving Thailand's problems that he must have just read verbatim what was put in front of him or possibly the person who did the translation messed up on the decimal places.

All men/women in power rely on advisers, just seems the General PM has landed with a bunch of idiots.

Yes, poor man is so busy violating human rights that he doesn't have time to properly vet his speeches. He has my utmost sympathy...