Thailand plans to increase coal use in power generation - minister

[Stargeezr]

Gas fired power plants are expensive to operate and maintain, and do not last that

long without having to do expensive upgrades and replacement of many of the

systems in the plant. Coal fired plants, that have the modern tech maybe pollute

more, but have been proven over and over to be the best for production of electricity

to cost of operation and maintenance, just ask India or China. Nuke plants are very

expensive, and dangerous, and solar and wind power does not produce as much electricity.

Those that brand coal as the monster, are not telling the real truths of each power source.

Such as wind power killing thousands of birds, and take a lot of maintenance, and have a short

life span per windmill. Solar power good for the day time not much for the night time. Coal, Hydro

and Nuke power good for day or night. Using clean burning coal is much better than the dirty

stuff India uses in many of their plants, and I suspect that China does as well where they try

to get away with it. Just my opinion.

Geezer,

 

[VincentRJ]

If any country decides to build a new coal-fired power plant, the issues that should be of most concern relate to the efficiency of the emission controls that are used.

 

The extreme air pollution that we often associate with China and India is largely due to the use of old and cheap coal-fired power plants that do not use the best methods of emission control.

 

Carbon dioxide is a clear and odourless gas which is essential for all life in general because all plants need it and most plants thrive on elevated levels of CO2.

 

The problems with burning coal for fuel are the emissions of particulate carbon, which produces haze, whether the particles of carbon come from agricultural burn-off or from coal burning, and the emissions of other noxious chemicals such as Sulphur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides, and traces of heavy metals.

 

A combination of the latest, Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power plants, with the best emission controls, can reduce all toxic emissions to negligible amounts. The latest 'electrostatic precipitators' can remove up to 99.95% of all particulate matter from a coal-fired power plant.
Up to 98% of all Sulphur and Nitrogen oxides can also be removed using the latest technology.

 

However, I can understand that those of you who are already concerned about haze and PM2.5 levels from seasonal agricultural burn-off in Thailand, would think it is a backward step to add to that pollution by building new coal-fired power plants, but it is not necessarily so if the latest technology is used and emission controls are monitored.

 

I can also understand that those of you who are convinced that the clear and odourless gas called CO2 is actually a pollutant and is a danger to the environment and the climate, would not be too happy about the decision to build more coal-fired power plants. The emission controls for CO2 are too expensive to implement and would defeat the purpose of building the new coal plants, which is cheaper and more reliable energy supply to help Thailand's growing economy.

 

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/cleaned-coal-clean-air-facts-air-quality-coal-fired-power-plants/
 

[dickjones2018]

AGENDA 21... look it up .... sure they will not use expensive scrubbers to make it more clean ...there are too many thais, there are to many old people, there are too many of everything .. AGENDA 21, the big clean up of the world, brought to you by THE NEW WORLD ORDER,  7/11 is part of that agenda 21

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

the real truths of each power source.

Let's review as you seem to provide an intuitive opinion without any authority.

Unsurprisingly,  gas-combined cycle provides the lowest levelized cost of energy for a grid-based load. http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/

Thailand uses both lignite and coal. Neither is a "clean fuel" and rank the highest of all sources of electrical generation with regard to Green House Gas Emissions (GHG). As a fossil fuel natural gas ranks the lowest on average.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

[KiwiKiwi]

Angling for more foreign aid I suspect.

[wolfmuc]

Instead of words some pictures. Only interesting for those living in Northern Thailand!?

 

... and the wind blew it away, going back to Houston, ...

[Srikcir]

13 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/cleaned-coal-clean-air-facts-air-quality-coal-fired-power-plants/

 

 

The IER is financed by Koch family foundations owned by the Koch Brothers, and the group's president, Thomas Pyle is a former lobbyist for Koch industries. Koch Industries includes the coal, oil and gas holdings. Perhaps not the best source for independent scientific analysis for coal electrical generation.

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Carbon dioxide is a clear and odourless gas which is essential for all life in general

In very small volumes!

By volume, dry air contains only 0.04% CO2. For humans and other living creatures the 21% of O2 is vital for life. 

 

[Sir Dude]

Beyond stupid to even suggest coal is an idea in a country that has 365 days of sunshine....facepalm

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The IER is financed by Koch family foundations owned by the Koch Brothers, and the group's president, Thomas Pyle is a former lobbyist for Koch industries. Koch Industries includes the coal, oil and gas holdings. Perhaps not the best source for independent scientific analysis for coal electrical generation.

You might be right. I chose the article because it dealt with the issues of pollution control in a clear and precise manner. If you know of other sites that debunk those claims made in the article, then please link them.

 

As I understand, the advantages of the latest coal-fired power plants, such as the Ultra-Supercritical, is that they are significantly more efficient than the old-fashioned sub-critical. They burn the coal at much higher temperatures, use less coal to produce the same amount of energy, and therefore produce less pollution.

 

However, without emission controls, these Ultra-Supercritical plants would still produce unacceptable levels of pollution. It's the combination of these efficient, high-technology plants, with the best emission controls that are available, that results in negligible emissions of noxious pollutants, except for Carbon Dioxide, which I don't consider a pollutant.

[wolfmuc]

2 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

In very small volumes!

By volume, dry air contains only 0.04% CO2. For humans and other living creatures the 21% of O2 is vital for life. 

 

Mai pen rai, dear Skrikcir, I think, we'll survive. - As my chemistry studies happened

more than  50 years ago I almost can't  follow the discussion, but for me it's a bad/big sign

having difficulties to breathe.

There is nowhere in the world any doubt about the problem of these coal mines/plants.

Help!

 

 

 

16/5000

 

Chemistry Class

 

 

 

16/5000

 

Chemistry Class

 

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, Srikcir said:

In very small volumes!

By volume, dry air contains only 0.04% CO2. For humans and other living creatures the 21% of O2 is vital for life. 

 

That's true. CO2 isn't the only compound essential for all life. For humans it's actually a waste product. The air we breathe in contains about 0.04% CO2. The air we breathe out contains about 4% CO2, which is 100 times greater.

 

However, CO2 is essential for all plant life, and we can't live without plants. The food we eat is dependent on plants. If we are meat eaters, the animals we eat depend upon plants. Our climate is also affected by plants.
If we were to cut down all the forests on the planet, the climate would change drastically. Fortunately, the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere help the existing forests to flourish.

[Srikcir]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Carbon Dioxide, which I don't consider a pollutant.

Clean Air Act regulates carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This designation was not changed by Trump deregulation, only to the degree to which standards apply below certain levels.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-clean-air-policy-trump-administration-fossil-fuel-companies/

In terms of pollution defined as particulates emitted into the atmosphere CO2 isn't - it's just a gas. In terms of Green House effect it is. https://gizmodo.com/this-is-why-carbon-is-now-called-pollution-1722078789

Take a look at the top CO2 Greenhouse Polluter - #1 Duke Energy

https://www.peri.umass.edu/greenhouse-100-polluters-index

 

 

[Xonax]

On 4/12/2018 at 4:44 PM, scotbeve said:

And what was it.... 2 years ago I believe, that there was to be an upsurge in solar power production. One of our land plots out in the sticks was earmarked for a 20 rai solar farm. 4verything was above board and paperwork was filled out, submitted, and stamped. Pre-approval was given and a downpayment was paid out. Then....... silence..... nothing but silence. The projects were shelved. No explanation - just shelved. Now??? Going back to coal... WTH????

Downpayments are hardly enough to fill the brown envelopes.

[Srikcir]

On 4/12/2018 at 2:59 PM, webfact said:

Increase coal’s share in power generation to ensure security

What if ensuring security for power generation by increasing electrical production, ie., by building more coal-fired power plants, is a falacy?

Under its PDP 2015 EGAT proposes increasing the power reserve margin to 39% compared to the global standard of 15%.¹ The PDP in effect promotes generation projects that maybe  unnecessary such as coal fire power plants. Critics have accused EGAT of putting "profits ahead of effective energy diversification and responsible energy governance."

https://earthrights.org/blog/improve-not-import-thailand-become-renewable-energy-tiger/

¹ The PDP2010 Rev. 3 approved June 2012 required a reserve margin to be not less than 15%.

https://www.egat.co.th/en/news-announcement/news-release/the-approval-of-thailand-power-development-plan

 

 

[VincentRJ]

23 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Clean Air Act regulates carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

That may be so. There's a lot of misrepresentation that occurs in politics.

 

We know as a scientific fact that CO2 is essential for all plant growth, because we can test the issue empirically in real time. We can also measure in real time the amount of increased growth that results from increased levels of CO2.

 

The vast majority of plants increase growth significantly from increased CO2 levels up to about 1200-1500 ppm, when increased growth begins to taper off. These plants are known as C3. About 85% of all species of plants are C3.
The other group of plants known as C4, which also includes some food crops such as corn, sorghum, sugarcane and millet, are able to utilize CO2 more efficiently so they don't increase their growth as much as C3 plants when exposed to elevated CO2 levels. However, both categories of plants reduce the size of their pores or stomata as a result of increased CO2 levels and are therefore able to flourish with less water because less evaporation takes place.

 

As regards any possible toxic effect on human health, which one would expect a pollutant to have, the levels of CO2 would have to be increased enormously, to about 3,000 ppm. Current levels are about 405 ppm.
Describing CO2 as a pollutant is scientific nonsense. However, just about everything can be described as a pollutant at extreme levels. Drinking too much water, after a marathon for example, can kill you.

 

http://principia-scientific.org/no-direct-human-health-risk-under-a-co2-exposure-of-3000-ppm/