Toxins from coal-fired stations can be treated, say Thai academics

[webfact]

ENERGY
Toxins from coal-fired stations can be treated, say academics
Pichaya Changsorn
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Potential pollutant releases from coal-fired power plants can be treated and prevented, engineering lecturers from Chulalongkorn University said yesterday.

Amid a fierce protest by some environmental and activist groups against the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand's plan to build a coal-fired power station in Krabi province, members of Chulalongkorn's faculty of engineering held a press conference to express their academic viewpoint on the country's fuel-options policy.

Chaiyapron Puprasert, head of the environmental engineering department at the university, said that while the faculty would not jump to any conclusions on the contentious issue, from the technical angle, pollutants from coal-fired power plants could be treated.

"We won't cover the social and tourism aspects, because they are not the areas in which we have expertise," he said.

"Technically, the pollutants can be treated, but that is only half of the picture, the other half being the monitoring of the procedures and operations. This means that local communities and citizens must take more of a role in monitoring the operations of power plants," he stressed.

Pinyo Meechumna, a lecturer at the university's mining and petroleum engineering department, said renewables such as wind, biomass and solar still could be only "supplementary" sources of energy, and most countries still had to depend on nuclear, coal or natural gas as the major fuel choices for their power stations.

In the case of Thailand, the country already relies too much on natural gas, which currently runs power plants satisfying about 70 per cent of total electricity consumption, while a major accident at a nuclear power plant could cause wide-ranging impacts, as happened at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, in 1986 and Fukushima, in Japan, in 2011, he said.

"Coal is good in that it is cheap and non-volatile, and there are coal reserves in 100 countries that can last for more than 200 years at the current rate of consumption. It is also a fuel that is not bound to geopolitical factors like oil, the main reserves of which are concentrated in the Middle East.

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained.

Bundhit Eua-arporn, dean of Chula's engineering faculty, said it was time for Thailand to set the guidelines for ensuring a fine balance in its energy policy, which had to take into account the "3Es+1S" aspects, namely environment, energy security and economic, plus social acceptance.

"The 'S' is subjective since each group [within society] can take a different view, but I'm confident that if society has awareness, each will consider the data and facts and revisit their beliefs," he said.

The dean added that Thailand's choices would not necessarily be the same as those in other countries, and that the optimum overall position would not necessarily satisfy all parties.

Sirima Panyametheekul, a lecturer at the university's environmental engineering department, said that even if Thailand did not build any more power plants and had to import more electricity from neighbouring countries, it still could not escape potential environmental impacts.

"If you don't take any power from plants within this country, and you want to buy electricity from other countries, you would still have to breathe any air flowing in from Malaysia [for example]," she said.

Malaysia's power tariff is cheaper than Thailand's because most of its new power plants are coal-fired stations, said Pinyo from the mining and petroleum engineering department.

Germany or Denmark, meanwhile, can use a great deal of renewable power since their charges are more than three times those in the Kingdom.

"If Thais paid the same power prices as in Germany, we could do the same as them," said Pinyo.

Renewable is like a supplementary food; it's not a main course and it's usually more expensive."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Toxins-from-coal-fired-stations-can-be-treated-say-30266391.html

-- The Nation 2015-08-12

[plachon]

What a surprise - academics paid to conduct feasibility or EIA studies come out in favour of the project and energy source it relies on. Never seen that before....

As the head of the environmental engineering dept at Chula argues: "This means that local communities and citizens must take more of a role in monitoring the operations of power plants", then by the same logic, perhaps it would be a good idea to first ascertain if that same community actually want a coal fired power station in their midst. Public participation and acceptance should surely start from the conceptual phase, not be introduced when the power station is already built.

The arguments of these academics are all so riddled in contradictions and logic gaps it beggars belief, but I don't doubt for a second that a few more coal-fired power stations will be built in Thailand, no doubt in the locations where the communities impacted are weakest, most marginalised and least able to resist against the project. It was ever thus, whether coal, hydro, gas or nuclear. Coal will eventually be consigned to the fossil fuel heap of history, as renewables become cheaper and more widely available, and the realities of climate change become ever more visible, sinking low-lying land areas like the Chao Phraya delta along the way. I'd give it another 50 years max.

[halloween]

"Renewable is like a supplementary food; it's not a main course and it's usually more expensive."

Expert engineers telling like it is, with no dog in the fight. If my electricity bill doubled, it wouldn't bother me at all, but for most Thai families it would be a serious problem.

[Lupatria]

Reminds me of another quote by one of these guys: "Asbestos is not harmful to the health of humans".

[EnglishJohn]

Why does Thailand have this obsession with academics ?.

THEY NEVER DID IT. THEY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE REAL WORLD.

I remember as a new starter as a software engineer with British Aerospace, we got sent to the local university for training on 'software testing'. Looking back after many years of experience, I know now that if those guys had been let loose on a real project, it would have been a disaster.

Get some industry professionals in and see what they say. Oh - I forgot. Thailand does not have any. All technology is imported because the government steals the education budgets.

[little mary sunshine]

No coal fired power plant should be allowed to

Operate unless fitted with scrubbers as ha been

The case on the West for the past 30years..."For

The safety of the Thai People and environment

Get with the program"!!!

[phoenixdoglover]

As a Civil Engineer in the water/power sector, I don't have too many problems with this article, if we accept it as the usual superficial reporting by the Thai media.

People generally don't like coal fired power plants nearby, because they are ugly, pollute the air (more or less) produce dust, and generate extra road and rail traffic.

The pollution aspect is multi-faceted. The most significant coal plant pollutant is mercury, a recognized toxin. Particulates impact air quality and lung function. Sulfur and nitrogen oxides cause acid rain a long range down wind. And then there is CO2, the greenhouse gas.

All of these can be controlled to some extent, but not eliminated. I think the key question for any Thai plant is not whether they could reduce pollutants (they could), but whether they will be required to do so.

The suggestion by the academics that local people "monitor" the plant is almost laughable. Other than judging the color of the exhaust plume, it is not possible to judge the presence or absence of most pollutants by observation. Monitoring has to be done using instruments, sampling, and laboratory analyses.

If the Thai government required a high level of pollution control for their coal-fired plants, than the cost of electricity would rise. This is a trade-off all developed countries make.

If the prices rise, renewables will be more competitive. So I think the academics are being short-sighted in relegating renewables to a minor role.

However, the academics are correct that a typical energy strategy requires a base generating capacity that is reliable, and either coal or nuclear plants are the most common types for this purpose. I can see the Thais running a coal plant; not so much a nuclear plant.

[halloween]

While I fully agree that coal-fired power stations are the cheapest way to produce 24/7 electricity, I'm not so sure about the headline. The last station where I was employed used bag filters to reduce flue gas particulates to near zero, but SO_x and NO_x emission limits were expressed as ppm. If the blend of coal being burnt at any one time caused those limits to be reached, the simple solution was to increase the flue flow by further opening the bag filter temperature control dampers. the ID fan worked a little harder, the flow increased and the ppm came back within limits.

There are also heavy metal toxins in the ash and dust, concentrated over background level when the coal is burnt off. The metals and ratio vary with the coal source, but Zn, Cu, Pb, Cr and Cd are typical ranging down from ~100ppm for Zn to low single digit ppm for Cadmium. The ash and dust are normally pumped as a slurry to a sealed base storage dam and the slurry fluids recovered and re-used, or mine voids are filled if available. Either way, proper handling and monitoring is desirable.

[halloween]

No coal fired power plant should be allowed to

Operate unless fitted with scrubbers as ha been

The case on the West for the past 30years..."For

The safety of the Thai People and environment

Get with the program"!!!

Power stations in NSW and Queensland are not fitted with scrubbers for very logical reasons which apply equally well for Thailand. The overwhelming major reason is that Oz anthracite is very low Sulphur content, and it's likely that will be Thailand's source. Secondly there is no huge concentration of coal-fired stations as there is in Europe. And the most obvious is that the very low level of emissions will not blow over somebody's farmland, but fall into the vast Pacific.

Edited August 12, 2015 by halloween

[slapout]

Thailand quotes a lot of people who claim to be experts and educated up to the nines in a given field and even spout titles that they use on their resume/letterhead.

In many cases they are just quoting information avaliable to anyone with internet access. This is not original info but a collection of other peoples, companies, counties findings that have been put in print for everyones review.

Go to a coal fired plant of any kind and look at the delivery and unloading facilities for the fuel (coal) itself before talking about scrubbers, and the anti pollution equipment avaliable today. You might want to stand back a good distance and wear protective gear.

[DrTuner]

Yes, you filter them through brown envelopes and like magic, all toxins gone.

[phoenixdoglover]

While I fully agree that coal-fired power stations are the cheapest way to produce 24/7 electricity, I'm not so sure about the headline. The last station where I was employed used bag filters to reduce flue gas particulates to near zero, but SO_x and NO_x emission limits were expressed as ppm. If the blend of coal being burnt at any one time caused those limits to be reached, the simple solution was to increase the flue flow by further opening the bag filter temperature control dampers. the ID fan worked a little harder, the flow increased and the ppm came back within limits.

There are also heavy metal toxins in the ash and dust, concentrated over background level when the coal is burnt off. The metals and ratio vary with the coal source, but Zn, Cu, Pb, Cr and Cd are typical ranging down from ~100ppm for Zn to low single digit ppm for Cadmium. The ash and dust are normally pumped as a slurry to a sealed base storage dam and the slurry fluids recovered and re-used, or mine voids are filled if available. Either way, proper handling and monitoring is desirable.

Re: the method of reducing SOx/NOx you described...

"The solution to pollution is dilution."

(this was a common joke in my environmental engineering classes)

[robblok]

Thailand quotes a lot of people who claim to be experts and educated up to the nines in a given field and even spout titles that they use on their resume/letterhead.

In many cases they are just quoting information avaliable to anyone with internet access. This is not original info but a collection of other peoples, companies, counties findings that have been put in print for everyones review.

Go to a coal fired plant of any kind and look at the delivery and unloading facilities for the fuel (coal) itself before talking about scrubbers, and the anti pollution equipment avaliable today. You might want to stand back a good distance and wear protective gear.

Phoenixdoglover has it right.. its just the least dangerous choice. There is no real other choice what alternatives are there.

Of course the best anti pollution equipment should be used and checked, but this is a problem here with the corruption. But I rather they mess up a coal plant as a nuclear one.

Solar and wind are just not viable yet.

[halloween]

While I fully agree that coal-fired power stations are the cheapest way to produce 24/7 electricity, I'm not so sure about the headline. The last station where I was employed used bag filters to reduce flue gas particulates to near zero, but SO_x and NO_x emission limits were expressed as ppm. If the blend of coal being burnt at any one time caused those limits to be reached, the simple solution was to increase the flue flow by further opening the bag filter temperature control dampers. the ID fan worked a little harder, the flow increased and the ppm came back within limits.

There are also heavy metal toxins in the ash and dust, concentrated over background level when the coal is burnt off. The metals and ratio vary with the coal source, but Zn, Cu, Pb, Cr and Cd are typical ranging down from ~100ppm for Zn to low single digit ppm for Cadmium. The ash and dust are normally pumped as a slurry to a sealed base storage dam and the slurry fluids recovered and re-used, or mine voids are filled if available. Either way, proper handling and monitoring is desirable.

Re: the method of reducing SOx/NOx you described...

"The solution to pollution is dilution."

(this was a common joke in my environmental engineering classes)

It's also how they make low nicotine/tar cigarettes. Little holes are placed in front of the filter so that the testing machines suck in air to lower the concentration. OTOH smokers soon work out, perhaps even without realising it, that placing the holding fingers over the holes makes drawing easier and gives a better result.

[Doc46]

No coal fired power plant should be allowed to

Operate unless fitted with scrubbers as ha been

The case on the West for the past 30years..."For

The safety of the Thai People and environment

Get with the program"!!!

Why? This is Thailand they can do what they want,,,,Who is going to stop them?,,,

[elgordo38]

What a surprise - academics paid to conduct feasibility or EIA studies come out in favour of the project and energy source it relies on. Never seen that before....

As the head of the environmental engineering dept at Chula argues: "This means that local communities and citizens must take more of a role in monitoring the operations of power plants", then by the same logic, perhaps it would be a good idea to first ascertain if that same community actually want a coal fired power station in their midst. Public participation and acceptance should surely start from the conceptual phase, not be introduced when the power station is already built.

The arguments of these academics are all so riddled in contradictions and logic gaps it beggars belief, but I don't doubt for a second that a few more coal-fired power stations will be built in Thailand, no doubt in the locations where the communities impacted are weakest, most marginalised and least able to resist against the project. It was ever thus, whether coal, hydro, gas or nuclear. Coal will eventually be consigned to the fossil fuel heap of history, as renewables become cheaper and more widely available, and the realities of climate change become ever more visible, sinking low-lying land areas like the Chao Phraya delta along the way. I'd give it another 50 years max.

Yes pretty close I figure the human race will capitulate around the year 2050 give or take a bit. This article really is stupid. They are going to treat people with pollution related illnesses? Are they really saying that if your a casualty of coal produced electricity they have a plan to save you? What a crock of HS

[sammygood]

prevention : don't built it

threatment : can always claim the cancer / lung problem are not caused by them

oh, a filter on top of the chimney, just to expensive

everybody burns stuff right ? just on a little bigger scale ...

germany, they hardly have any good sun, but a lot of houses have solar pannels ....

thailand has plenty of free sun, no pollution after it is constructed, but how many solar farms you find here?

is there no way that a big solar farm could produce enough energy for the whole island ?

what will the attracking be for future tourists ? if clean air is out of the equation ?

cheap hotels ? NO

cheap food ? NO

any whoring around the island ?

thainess

Edited August 12, 2015 by sammygood

[sandrabbit]

The problem is how far do you want to go in cleaning up the exhaust gases, things like limestone etc have to be quarried and transported which then adds another layer of greenhouse gases. The exhaust gases can be almost completely cleaned but it's expensive and that's why China and India are still pumping out tonnes of pollutants from their power stations. It's not just nox or sox there are also a high amount of radioactive isotopes emitted into the atmosphere, much higher than from nuclear weapons testing.

[sandrabbit]

prevention : don't built it

threatment : can always claim the cancer / lung problem are not caused by them

oh, a filter on top of the chimney, just to expensive

everybody burs stuff right ? just on a little bigger scale ...

thainess

on top of the chimney .............

how many of you would be willing to pay European prices for energy or having power cuts and going without air con.?.

[halloween]

Yes pretty close I figure the human race will capitulate around the year 2050 give or take a bit. This article really is stupid. They are going to treat people with pollution related illnesses? Are they really saying that if your a casualty of coal produced electricity they have a plan to save you? What a crock of HS

In a 50km radius circle around a modern anthracite power station built in Thailand, what would you consider the most likely causes of premature death?

Motor vehicle accident, smoking, murder, excessive alcohol consumption, suicide, accidental drowning, heart disease, falling from a height, diabetes, shark attack, lightning strike? Just how many cases of pollution related premature death are you anticipating?

Edited August 12, 2015 by halloween

[Bluespunk]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

[robblok]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

Do you want them to go nuclear then ? Its just the best of the bad options.

[Bluespunk]

"Renewable is like a supplementary food; it's not a main course and it's usually more expensive."

Wrong. Renewable energy sources is the only way forward, it is the only sustainable option. If its more expensive then subsidise it.

[khunken]

Even with all the technology to reduce health destroying pollution, it does not take into account three other factors.

The first is the EGAT factor and all one needs to do is to talk to the residents in the vicinity of the coal-fired plants in Lampang and Krabi. Suggesting that local people monitor the pollution is moronic - they have no power to rectify it. EGAT has a very bad reputation in dealing with affected locals.

The second is the transportation of coal which a group of activists in Samut Sakhon (or maybe Songkran - I forget which) had to take court action to stop the dust polluting everything along the route.

The third is that EGAT (again) refuses to even consider any alternatives. There is biomass, wind, solar and even much cheaper oil (not as cheap as coal), and coal, just like most oil needs to be imported. EGAT also continues to make it difficult for private solar users to feed any surplus into the grid. IMO the decision should be taken out of EGAT's hands and, NIMBY notwithstanding, local people allowed to have an input to any final decision.

Edited August 12, 2015 by khunken

[Bluespunk]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

Do you want them to go nuclear then ? Its just the best of the bad options.

Nope but just because nuclear isn't safe (in my view) that is no reason to speed up the environmental collapse that a runaway greenhouse effect will bring about by using more coal. Edited August 12, 2015 by Bluespunk

[robblok]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

Do you want them to go nuclear then ? Its just the best of the bad options.

Nope but just because nuclear isn't safe (in my view) that is no reason to speed up the environmental collapse that a runaway greenhouse effect will bring about by using more coal.

What other viable options are there then......... none

[Bluespunk]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

Do you want them to go nuclear then ? Its just the best of the bad options.

Nope but just because nuclear isn't safe (in my view) that is no reason to speed up the environmental collapse that a runaway greenhouse effect will bring about by using more coal.

What other viable options are there then......... none

Plenty of more environmentally friendly options…they just require a lot of investment.

[Soutpeel]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

Do you want them to go nuclear then ? Its just the best of the bad options.

Nope but just because nuclear isn't safe (in my view) that is no reason to speed up the environmental collapse that a runaway greenhouse effect will bring about by using more coal.

What other viable options are there then......... none

Plenty of more environmentally friendly options…they just require a lot of investment.

Such as ?

[halloween]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

As he explains that gas is being rapidly depleted, what do you suggest? Heavy fuel oil gives about the same CO₂ output as anthracite, with much more other toxins because the lighter elements have been refined off. Diesel is far more expensive.

[Soutpeel]

"On the negative side, coal releases more greenhouse gases. There is no fuel that is perfect," he explained."

No but the option that release the most greenhouse gases should not be the fuel of choice.

As he explains that gas is being rapidly depleted, what do you suggest? Heavy fuel oil gives about the same CO₂ output as anthracite, with much more other toxins because the lighter elements have been refined off. Diesel is far more expensive.

Another 10 years or so and Thailand will have vitually no local gas to use anyway

The tree huggers dont want nukes or coal burners so would be curious be see what their suggestions would be to supply the MW;s needed to cook their lentils

In the absence of coal burners the only logical solution is Nukes, PWR's of course not those crappy BWR's