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

[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.

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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

[halloween]

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

So you want to re-state the greeny crap that the engineers just explained is NOT the solution. This is a relatively poor country, many people cannot afford big energy bills. When the richer countries develop viable alternatives they may well be used, but at the moment there are none.

Edited August 12, 2015 by halloween

[Bluespunk]

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

So you want to re-state the greeny crap that the engineers just explained is NOT the solution. This is a relatively poor country, many people cannot afford big energy bills. When the richer countries develop viable alternatives they may well be used, but at the moment there are none.

Greeny crap?

Yeah, who needs the planet?

Heat it up, use it up, discard it when it's spoiled and just move next door eh?

Oh wait…...

[slapout]

Guess the rural folk will have to go back to using the after harvest pruning of trees dried buffalo or cow shit or purchase LPG to furnish fuel for cooking device in use. The rice required for the daytime meals (breakfast lunch and snacks) plus the, veggies and any meat avaliable. The evening meal fuel will use the same source of fuel and what they add to rice will be ''catch of the day'' plus what they ppick from veggie garden.

The local market provides chicken, some beef, and pork.if you have cash to pay or trade produce to make a deal . ""real subsistence farming /living.''

[metisdead]

An off topic baiting post has been removed.

[halloween]

Greeny crap?

Yeah, who needs the planet?

Heat it up, use it up, discard it when it's spoiled and just move next door eh?

Oh wait…...

Anything's possible if you don't know what your talking about. And everybody is entitled to an opinion, it's just that informed opinions are much more valuable.

Edited August 12, 2015 by halloween

[Bluespunk]

Greeny crap?

Yeah, who needs the planet?

Heat it up, use it up, discard it when it's spoiled and just move next door eh?

Oh wait...

Anything's possible if you don't know what your talking about. And everybody is entitled to an opinion, it's just that informed opinions are much more valuable.

So we do have an alternative planet do we? Where is it?

Or do you think the greenhouse effect is a false theory.

The current hearing of the planet is a disaster. To choose to use the worst possible alternative for a new power plant, the one that produces the most greenhouse gases is just stupid.

I made the point that change has to be made worldwide on how we produce power if we wish to avoid environmental disaster and you respond with "greeny crap", that isn't informed. Neither is just slagging off green alternatives.

[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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

[Soutpeel]

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

So you want to re-state the greeny crap that the engineers just explained is NOT the solution. This is a relatively poor country, many people cannot afford big energy bills. When the richer countries develop viable alternatives they may well be used, but at the moment there are none.

Greeny crap?

Yeah, who needs the planet?

Heat it up, use it up, discard it when it's spoiled and just move next door eh?

Oh wait…...

How about you do your bit and stop wasting electricity posting the greenie rubbish your posting ?

All talk, all rhetoric and no proper even remotely viable solutions

Hug a tree for me will you

Edited August 12, 2015 by Soutpeel

[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.

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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

Not yet and if it is ever to get there, there needs to be investment and development.

The current choices are damaging the planet.

We need to start taking the alternative, less polluting solutions seriously.

Short term, yes the polluting choices are the ones we have become dependent upon.

However to choose coal, the option that produces the most greenhouse gases, is just stupid.

[Bluespunk]

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

So you want to re-state the greeny crap that the engineers just explained is NOT the solution. This is a relatively poor country, many people cannot afford big energy bills. When the richer countries develop viable alternatives they may well be used, but at the moment there are none.

Greeny crap?

Yeah, who needs the planet?

Heat it up, use it up, discard it when it's spoiled and just move next door eh?

Oh wait…...

How about you do your bit and stop wasting electricity posting the greenie rubbish your posting ?

All talk, all rhetoric and no proper even remotely viable solutions

Hug a tree for me will you

I will if you can ensure that there are enough left to do so after the coal lobby has furthered heated and added to the destruction of the planet we live on.

[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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

Not yet and if it is ever to get there, there needs to be investment and development.

The current choices are damaging the planet.

We need to start taking the alternative, less polluting solutions seriously.

Short term, yes the polluting choices are the ones we have become dependent upon.

However to choose coal, the option that produces the most greenhouse gases, is just stupid.

Over to you then i have asked 3 times that you suggest some viable alternatives and you you keep coming up with is soap box rhetoric

Currently thailand consumes at peak demand over 20,000 MW (stand to be corrected) and over 70% of the fuel comes from natural gas, when this runs out how do you make up a short fall of so many MW using greenie power ?

Even building nukes its a difficult shortage to fill even building say 2000MW units give a typical PWR takes between 8 to 12 years to construct and commission

[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.

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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

Not yet and if it is ever to get there, there needs to be investment and development.

The current choices are damaging the planet.

We need to start taking the alternative, less polluting solutions seriously.

Short term, yes the polluting choices are the ones we have become dependent upon.

However to choose coal, the option that produces the most greenhouse gases, is just stupid.

Over to you then i have asked 3 times that you suggest some viable alternatives and you you keep coming up with is soap box rhetoric

Currently thailand consumes at peak demand over 20,000 MW (stand to be corrected) and over 70% of the fuel comes from natural gas, when this runs out how do you make up a short fall of so many MW using greenie power ?

Even building nukes its a difficult shortage to fill even building say 2000MW units give a typical PWR takes between 8 to 12 years to construct and commission

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

[halloween]

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

You have repeatedly said that coal is the worst possible solution. To make that decision, you must know of a better solution. Which would be.......?

[dickyknee]

"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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

Not yet and if it is ever to get there, there needs to be investment and development.

The current choices are damaging the planet.

We need to start taking the alternative, less polluting solutions seriously.

Short term, yes the polluting choices are the ones we have become dependent upon.

However to choose coal, the option that produces the most greenhouse gases, is just stupid.

Over to you then i have asked 3 times that you suggest some viable alternatives and you you keep coming up with is soap box rhetoric

Currently thailand consumes at peak demand over 20,000 MW (stand to be corrected) and over 70% of the fuel comes from natural gas, when this runs out how do you make up a short fall of so many MW using greenie power ?

Even building nukes its a difficult shortage to fill even building say 2000MW units give a typical PWR takes between 8 to 12 years to construct and commission

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

unfortunately (because I wish sustainables could do it) it's apples and oranges. base-load supply on demand vs power on availability sustainables.

Curious to know if sustainables could fill the gap, or they need more base load supply. If the second is the case, a bunch of wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to do it atm.

[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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

Not yet and if it is ever to get there, there needs to be investment and development.

The current choices are damaging the planet.

We need to start taking the alternative, less polluting solutions seriously.

Short term, yes the polluting choices are the ones we have become dependent upon.

However to choose coal, the option that produces the most greenhouse gases, is just stupid.

Over to you then i have asked 3 times that you suggest some viable alternatives and you you keep coming up with is soap box rhetoric

Currently thailand consumes at peak demand over 20,000 MW (stand to be corrected) and over 70% of the fuel comes from natural gas, when this runs out how do you make up a short fall of so many MW using greenie power ?

Even building nukes its a difficult shortage to fill even building say 2000MW units give a typical PWR takes between 8 to 12 years to construct and commission

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

I have read every post and havent seen any tangible suggestions other that buzz words , rhetoric, and boo hoo the world is dying, quick hug a tree and eat lentils

just admit it you dont have a clue

[Bluespunk]

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

You have repeatedly said that coal is the worst possible solution. To make that decision, you must know of a better solution. Which would be.......?

Me? Guess I'd go along the import more LNG from other sources such as in the report here.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/singapore/thailands-ptt-could-double-lng-imports-to-3-mil-27000087

For me anything is better than coal and would like to see the investment be made in alternative green energy options.

All said and done fact is I hate coal and the impact it has in the environment.

[h90]

"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.

yes and like supplementary food it has its place.

Solar energy would produce exactly at that time everyone turns on the airconditions. Having large areas on shopping malls or government buildings wouldn't solve Thailands energy problems but it would ease the peak demand a bit.

Driving at the highway in the night without traffic in day like light made with sodium steam bulbs makes me think there could be still some energy saved as well.

But for the rest it is coal or nuclear. While I really don't like coal it might be still the better option for Thailand.

[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.

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.

Got to start looking at green technologies and investing in them.

Going to take a long time and may be expensive but the alternative of further heating the planet is not sustainable.

Not just Thailand that needs to do this. Has to be worldwide and has to be a genuine commitment made towards changing how we obtain and use power.

Will it happen?

I doubt it, long term thinking does not seem to be something countries think about when it comes to energy.

Cost in terms of finance they understand, cost in that they are destroying the only planet we have is not an issue.

Such as ? which techologies which would provide the amounts of MW needed to power a country such as Thailand

Solar power to cook lentils doesnt quite cut it i am afraid

Not yet and if it is ever to get there, there needs to be investment and development.

The current choices are damaging the planet.

We need to start taking the alternative, less polluting solutions seriously.

Short term, yes the polluting choices are the ones we have become dependent upon.

However to choose coal, the option that produces the most greenhouse gases, is just stupid.

Over to you then i have asked 3 times that you suggest some viable alternatives and you you keep coming up with is soap box rhetoric

Currently thailand consumes at peak demand over 20,000 MW (stand to be corrected) and over 70% of the fuel comes from natural gas, when this runs out how do you make up a short fall of so many MW using greenie power ?

Even building nukes its a difficult shortage to fill even building say 2000MW units give a typical PWR takes between 8 to 12 years to construct and commission

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

I have read every post and havent seen any tangible suggestions other that buzz words , rhetoric, and boo hoo the world is dying, quick hug a tree and eat lentils

just admit it you dont have a clue

You know what, I don't think I will.

[halloween]

You don't bother reading much of others posts do you?

I said I know that green energy is not yet ready, repeatedly.

I also said we are still dependent on polluting power sources and have to use them.

The choice being made here though to build a coal plant is stupid as it is the most dangerous option in that it produces the most greenhouse gases.

It's cheap but the cost in financial savings is at the expense of the planet.

It's the worst possible solution.

You have repeatedly said that coal is the worst possible solution. To make that decision, you must know of a better solution. Which would be.......?

Me? Guess I'd go along the import more LNG from other sources such as in the report here.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/singapore/thailands-ptt-could-double-lng-imports-to-3-mil-27000087

For me anything is better than coal and would like to see the investment be made in alternative green energy options.

All said and done fact is I hate coal and the impact it has in the environment.

I'd like to drive a Maserati, but I can't afford one so I'll have to stick with the Toyota. Have you ever lived close to a modern anthracite coal-fired power. station, or are you willing to believe what you read, mainly written by others with no such experience?

I lived near and worked at one for 20 years. 15 years later, no lung diseases or other health problems for me or my family. The towns either side are not hotspots for cancer or anything else despite having 2 large power stations in the area. The area is renown for wine, dairy and horse studs, just what you might expect in a highly polluted area, right?.

[Srikcir]

"Potential pollutant releases from coal-fired power plants can be treated and prevented"

Yes, because coal is not a clean fossil fuel. It requires extensive pollution and backfeed technologies. All of which drive the costs up.

In terms of operating capacity and cost per kWH, a nuclear power plant is more economical even when including the cost to dismantle the plant in 30 years. But nuclear power plants require up to eight years of planning and construction versus up to three years for a coal-fired power plant.

[Soutpeel]

"Potential pollutant releases from coal-fired power plants can be treated and prevented"

Yes, because coal is not a clean fossil fuel. It requires extensive pollution and backfeed technologies. All of which drive the costs up.

In terms of operating capacity and cost per kWH, a nuclear power plant is more economical even when including the cost to dismantle the plant in 30 years. But nuclear power plants require up to eight years of planning and construction versus up to three years for a coal-fired power plant.

Typical design life of a PWR nuke is 50 years not 30 and take a bit more than 8 years typically, the civils side alone can take 7 years if the nuclear island is built on sesmic bearings

[daiwill60]

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.

Personally I would have thought that logistically and economically, Chinese coal would be the first option for Thailand to import from, maybe another reason for the intended rail infrastructure proposals??

Additionally, Chinese coal is renowned as being a highly dirty coal , full of Sulphurs etc etc .

Bring back Welsh anthracite type coal and the problems are greatly reduced. Obviously the best is Welsh but again too expensive to import , and would also require a regeneration of the Welsh / UK mining industry, which will never happen, sadly.

Edited August 12, 2015 by daiwill60

[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.

Personally I would have thought that logistically and economically, Chinese coal would be the first option for Thailand to import from, maybe another reason for the intended rail infrastructure proposals??

Additionally, Chinese coal is renowned as being a highly dirty coal , full of Sulphurs etc etc .

Bring back Welsh anthracite type coal and the problems are greatly reduced. Obviously the best is Welsh but again too expensive to import , and would also require a regeneration of the Welsh / UK mining industry, which will never happen, sadly.

China imports coal. Has been stated that coal will be sourced from Oz (excellent quality low S anthracite), Indonesia or Africa.

[DeepInTheForest]

Many of the arguments put forth here beggar belief. "Try cooking your lentils with solar." Is that an argument? The Germans have been pointing toward 80% renewables by 2050, and they're well on their way. Think they can cook lentils with their power grid? I'm betting those soft-headed, tie-dyed, tree-hugging, lentil-sucking, granola-packing, nature-worshipping German eco-crazies can. What do they know about running an economy, or technology, anyway? I see articles saying that they've had record peaks of renewables of 50% of generation http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/50-percent-of-the-energy-produced-in-germany-is-solar-new-record/ , then 59% http://www.the9billion.com/2013/10/30/germany-59-percent-renewable-energy-peak/ , and now an astonishing 74% http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/ . Yes, that's only a peak. But it's clear they're onto something. And by the way, their grid didn't crash.

Will renewable energy be expensive to install? Yes, more so than coal. But costs are falling, and at any rate, it will be cheaper in the long run when health costs and absolutely untenable global warming costs are factored in. How much have the floods cost Myanmar this month? Already, Italy and Germany have demonstrated price parity with conventional generation. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/24/3418145/solar-grid-parity-italy-germany/ And we haven't even mentioned energy efficiency, which is never considered by EGAT, because of their business model. They encourage profligacy. Not to mention the fact that much of this energy is being used to produce the junk of modern life for the export market, with all the usual downfalls that a consumption economy presents.

Soutpeel and halloween, whose livelihoods may depend on it, can cling to their coal and nuclear all they want. (I was particularly fond of the "I worked in a coal plant for 20 years, and I'm completely healthy" remark, since it reminded me of the old lies of the tobacco industry.) Mercury emissions can be controlled somewhat-- the latest push in the U.S. is to lower them by 90%-- but any emission of mercury is murderous because once it's loose in the environment, you can't retrieve it. It's a neurotoxin. It affects mental development, and even behavior. It also bioaccumulates, so that over time it works its way up the food chain. And we're at the top of the chain. Burning coal is just a bad idea, to be avoided if at all possible.

Lastly, readers should be aware that EGAT has a history of vastly overstating its anticipated energy "needs", again because of its business model. It would be a joke if the consequences weren't so dire. For example, EGAT plans on doubling electrical capacity in the next 20 years. That's crazy talk, particularly because it includes a "reserve capacity" (usually 15%), of up to, in some cases, a whopping 39%. http://www.internationalrivers.org/blogs/254-0

The writing is on the wall. The danger is that we will believe the "there is no alternative" nonsense proffered.

Edited August 13, 2015 by DeepInTheForest

[daiwill60]

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.

Personally I would have thought that logistically and economically, Chinese coal would be the first option for Thailand to import from, maybe another reason for the intended rail infrastructure proposals??

Additionally, Chinese coal is renowned as being a highly dirty coal , full of Sulphurs etc etc .

Bring back Welsh anthracite type coal and the problems are greatly reduced. Obviously the best is Welsh but again too expensive to import , and would also require a regeneration of the Welsh / UK mining industry, which will never happen, sadly.

China imports coal. Has been stated that coal will be sourced from Oz (excellent quality low S anthracite), Indonesia or Africa.

I stand corrected.

I knew China was a high producer of coal, but was unaware that most of it is almost exclusively for its own market consumption, with marginal amounts being exported, which also now have dwindled to zero being exported in 2014.

My statement was based upon that I seem to remember there being a lot of debate in the UK some 15- 20 years ago about using dirty quality Chinese coal in lieu of the virtual loss of the UK Coal mining industry and the cleaner anthracite it produced.

[Soutpeel]

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.

Personally I would have thought that logistically and economically, Chinese coal would be the first option for Thailand to import from, maybe another reason for the intended rail infrastructure proposals??

Additionally, Chinese coal is renowned as being a highly dirty coal , full of Sulphurs etc etc .

Bring back Welsh anthracite type coal and the problems are greatly reduced. Obviously the best is Welsh but again too expensive to import , and would also require a regeneration of the Welsh / UK mining industry, which will never happen, sadly.

China imports coal. Has been stated that coal will be sourced from Oz (excellent quality low S anthracite), Indonesia or Africa.

I stand corrected.

I knew China was a high producer of coal, but was unaware that most of it is almost exclusively for its own market consumption, with marginal amounts being exported, which also now have dwindled to zero being exported in 2014.

My statement was based upon that I seem to remember there being a lot of debate in the UK some 15- 20 years ago about using dirty quality Chinese coal in lieu of the virtual loss of the UK Coal mining industry and the cleaner anthracite it produced.

All things considered Nuclear is clearly the best option for Thsiland once gas supplies start dropping, but they would need to start construction right now, so when the gas runs out the transition will be seamless without interuption

Due to the scale of these sorts of construction, local employment will be increased, opportunites for local business's

Some of the local skills would already in place via the existing O&G industry which will go into decline over the next 10 years or so

Everybody wins