Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

EEC solar energy project gets the nod with goal of becoming zero-carbon area

Recommended Posts

EEC solar energy project gets the nod with goal of becoming zero-carbon area

By THE NATION

 

800_81d03c6e350377f.jpg?v=1579831457

 

The EEC development subcommittee chaired by Finance Minister Uttama Savanayana has approved the clean energy (solar) project in the Eastern Economic Corridor, EEC Policy Office secretary-general Kanit Sangsubhan said on Thursday (January 23).

 

“This project was proposed by Provincial Electricity Authority and aims to study, develop and invest in solar energy generation, distribution and storing in EEC areas,” he said. “It will also expand to other renewable energies in the future with the goal of making the EEC a low-carbon community and achieving the ratio between fossil fuel and clean energy usage of 70:30.”

 

1579784636_5.jpg

Kanit

 

Kanit said that in the first phase, the EEC will seek co-investment with the private and agricultural sectors to establish solar farms in EEC areas with capacity not less than 500 megawatts. “We will also work with Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organisation to plan and design a carbon-credit system to allow the trading of greenhouse gas quota in the voluntary carbon market among entrepreneurs in EEC areas.”

 

“We hope that this project will drive the EEC towards being a zero-carbon city, as well as promote the study and development of solar energy manufacturing and storage technology to be used in other communities nationwide,” added Kanit.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30380997

 

nation.jpg

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2020-01-24
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally a step in the right direction .

I use electricity provided by solar panels ( off grid ) for years ... never a problem or even an electricity bill ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the energy balance of any solar panel is negative it cannot be called sustainable !

But it surely is good for business ...

It's like calling an electric car environmentally friendly - it's such a joke and people fall for it.

But it surely is good for business ...

 

The agenda is on ... get rid of the past and change it for whatever makes no sense - on every level !!!

You can read the agenda on the UN home page - nothing secret about it.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a lot of trees have been cut down for that green energy.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scot123 said:

Why do they always ignore the carbon footprint of manufacturing these solar panels, windmills etc? They never ever recupe that in their life time. The white elephant in the room is that nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint. What a hoax this all is, the new religion where facts do not matter and the truth is screamed into silence. Fact is the word needs CO2 and we are so far from the optimum level (green houses have to pump in CO2). If CO2 production ended tomorrow the WORLD would be dead in a couple of years. The horror of the truth. If you think I'm an idiot just spend 20 mins and listen to a real expert on the subject, a real scientist and ex Green peace founder and director: Patrick Moore (a Canadian). 

One of the highest densities of mis-information I've ever encountered.

 

Yes the world needs SOME CO2 of course.  But there was no shortage before the Industrial Revolution, was there?  Nature when left alone produced a biosphere that was in balance.  Humans are the only species capable of destroying that balance.  We have done so in the pursuit of more leisure time and a higher(?) standard of living.

 

Your nonsensical scenario of CO2 production ending .... LOL!   Humans produce it...so production won't end until we're all dead.  I prefer that you go first.

 

Mr Moore's paycheck now comes from a pulp and paper company so it is hard to say that he is an unbiased commentator.  Oh yeah.... and he was not a founder of Greenpeace.  His first position was that of deck hand on their converted fishing boat the Phyllis Cormack.

Edited by gamb00ler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if solar are farms are the best idea for Thailand.  It seems to me that a very high percentage of relatively level land in Thailand is more suitable for agriculture.  I think solar generation is more useful in urban areas.  This would be more efficient because that is where the preponderance of electricity is used so there would be less loss due to transmission.

Edited by gamb00ler
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be impressed when the factory which produces solar panels is itself powered entirely by solar panels.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scot123 said:

Why do they always ignore the carbon footprint of manufacturing these solar panels, windmills etc? They never ever recupe that in their life time. The white elephant in the room is that nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint. What a hoax this all is, the new religion where facts do not matter and the truth is screamed into silence. Fact is the word needs CO2 and we are so far from the optimum level (green houses have to pump in CO2). If CO2 production ended tomorrow the WORLD would be dead in a couple of years. The horror of the truth. If you think I'm an idiot just spend 20 mins and listen to a real expert on the subject, a real scientist and ex Green peace founder and director: Patrick Moore (a Canadian). 

This is correct....They should be thinking of ways to create more carbon not less.....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

One of the highest densities of mis-information I've ever encountered.

 

Yes the world needs SOME CO2 of course.  But there was no shortage before the Industrial Revolution, was there?  Nature when left alone produced a biosphere that was in balance.  Humans are the only species capable of destroying that balance.  We have done so in the pursuit of more leisure time and a higher(?) standard of living.

 

Your nonsensical scenario of CO2 production ending .... LOL!   Humans produce it...so production won't end until we're all dead.  I prefer that you go first.

 

Mr Moore's paycheck now comes from a pulp and paper company so it is hard to say that he is an unbiased commentator.  Oh yeah.... and he was not a founder of Greenpeace.  His first position was that of deck hand on their converted fishing boat the Phyllis Cormack.

Plants need more carbon to produce more oxygen and if humans have more oxygen humans are more healthy....Case Closed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of tosh being spouted here and perhaps some valid points. Everyone has an opinion, and rightly so. I have insufficient knowledge of the subject to form an informed opinion.

And 'case closed' is so patronising it's unreal. Like someone saying 'fact'. Doesn't necessarily make it so.

Please grow up.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fforest1 said:

Plants need more carbon to produce more oxygen and if humans have more oxygen humans are more healthy....Case Closed

Google plant respiration. They also expel CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 4:24 PM, Scot123 said:

Why do they always ignore the carbon footprint of manufacturing these solar panels, windmills etc?

Or the destruction of forests.

This project looks to be placed inside of a mature forest; thus, itself creating a large carbon footprint.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 5:13 PM, monkfish said:

Looks like a lot of trees have been cut down for that green energy.

Yep there goes alot of green space why aren't they installed on the factory roof tops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 2:55 AM, fforest1 said:

Plants need more carbon to produce more oxygen and if humans have more oxygen humans are more healthy....Case Closed

I believe you meant to say "carbon dioxide" instead of "carbon".  Nevertheless, it's a tad more complicated than you portray.  Your statement is akin to someone saying they can drive because they're able to start the car.

 

People make the false assumption that because adding CO2 to a sealed greenhouse is beneficial, the same would be true for the entire earth.  They are ignoring that the unintended consequences in a greenhouse operation are very minor and those for the planet's atmosphere are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...