The decision by Thailand’s military government last month to put on hold a controversial coal-fired power plant in the southern region renewed my concerns about the trustworthiness of government policy.
Certainly, the Krabi power plant is far from the first energy project to be delayed because of public protests. But the announcement came just days after the National Energy Policy Committee (NEPC), chaired by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, gave the green light for the project to go ahead.
The 800-megawatt power plant in the southern province best known for pristine beaches on the Andaman Sea had been shelved for more than two years already because of strong opposition from local residents and activists who fear possible environmental damage. The national Power Development Plan for 2015-36 says the plant is needed to address electricity shortages in the South.
Gen Prayut said on Feb 17 after the NEPC meeting that the Krabi plant was “beneficial for the people”, adding that it needed to be built despite the opposition. Energy Minister Anantaporn Kanjanarat raised the spectre of brownouts and blackouts if no plant was built.
But the following Monday, Gen Prayut stressed the need to restart the environmental health impact assessment (EHIA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the project from the beginning, as the protesters had demanded. The original assessments were conducted quietly and mainly for the benefit of officials, with minimal involvement from the community at large.
New studies will take two and a half years and the start of operations would be pushed back to 2024 from the original schedule of 2019.
In my view, the PM’s order to scrap the original studies and demand a more inclusive approach raises questions about the transparency of the original process and of the agencies charged with preparing such reports. How much do we know about whether the project is safe, as well as worthwhile for local companies and the country as a whole?
Of course I agree that Krabi needs to be kept as clean as possible for the sake of tourism which is an important part of the economy. However, the most suitable location for a power plant in the South should have been decided at the very start, and not now when the EHIA and EIA reports have already been made.
The facts certainly support the need for a new power plant in a region where electricity demand has grown by an average of 4.2% a year over the past decade, compared with 2-3% in the central region. As well, Thailand needs to diversify away from heavy reliance on natural gas to generate electricity. Coal is currently cheap and new technologies allow it to be burned more cleanly, though environmentalists remain unconvinced.
Take a look at Thailand’s neighbouring countries. Vietnam produces around 20% of its electricity from burning coal. It too was looking to diversify and was looking at nuclear power. But last November it abandoned plans to build two multi-billion-dollar nuclear plants, citing lower demand forecasts, rising costs and safety concerns.
When the Vietnamese government approved plans for the two plants in 2009, annual power demand growth was projected at 17-20%. But the figures have since been revised downward to 11% from 2016-20, and 7-8% through 2030. Meanwhile, the estimated investment cost of the plants has doubled since 2009 to nearly US$18 billion.
Hanoi’s decision is a further setback for the nuclear industry as countries from Germany to Indonesia either pull out of nuclear energy or cancel development plans in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.
But I certainly understand Vietnam’s decision in light of lower demand forecasts and soaring costs. Safety concerns, meanwhile, have also influenced the decision because the damage would be enormous if something occurs, including human error.
In the Philippines, which needs an additional 7,000 megawatts of capacity over the next five years to support its fast-growing economy, 34% of the electricity is currently generated by coal, with an equal share coming from oil and gas, and 32% from renewables. With a population of 100 million, the Philippines aims to double generation capacity by 2030 to avoid a return of frequent blackouts suffered during the 1990s.
Here in Thailand, additional power capacity is required for the southern region to avoid supply shortages after 2019. More importantly, uncertainty about government policies needs to be avoided given that energy projects are capital-intensive and need a long-term commitment, while energy security is critical for sustaining the country’s economic growth.