The debate over the planned construction of a 800-megawatt coal-fired power plant in the tourist province of Krabi reveals the dilemma over Thailand’s energy policy direction. Despite activists’ protests against the construction of the coal-fired power plant due to environmental concerns, it is undeniable that the southern tourist provinces need an additional source of power to cater to rising demand.
The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) has long planned the construction of the power plant. The bidding for its construction has already been carried out. But some activist groups are not ready to give up. They have asked the power agency to move the power plant somewhere else.
During a recent debate on the planned power plant organised by the Economic Reporters Association, representatives from Egat as well as opponents and supporters of the plant shared their different perspectives to back up their arguments.
For instance, some opponents claimed the coal-fired power plant is likely to discharge lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic residue at 48kg/day, 240g/day, 1.2kg/day and 12kg/day respectively.
But the Egat people said thanks to new technology, the power plant will discharge the same substances at only 21g/day, 3g/day, 24g/day and 10g/day respectively — significantly smaller amounts.
Those for and against the project also debated the significance of the distance between the tourist destinations in Krabi and the route of the coal barges. The route for the coal barges was likely to be about 10 kilometres from Ko Lanta Yai, a popular island that tourists visit. The opponents said that distance would be too close and the sight of the barges could spoil the tourist scene. But supporters of the plant said the route was far enough away.
Supporters of the project also showed pictures of coal barges for the GKM Mannheim coal-fired power station sailing along the Rhine River in Germany. Opponents returned fire, saying the Rhine does not have high waves like the Andaman Sea sometimes does, which can lead to accidents.
Representatives of the local tourism industry said they wished to see Krabi increase the use of alternative energy from about 30% now to 100% over the next three years. But supporters of the plant argued that other alternative sources of energy such as solar farms might not be enough to produce enough energy because of the tropical climate in the south — sunlight can be unpredictable in the
monsoon-prone area in the south.
So it is not surprising that the controversy over the plant continues as each side has used information that is not accepted by all.
One point of agreement was that the southern provinces are facing a surge in demand for power in response to the rapidly growing tourism industry. This is despite the argument from opponents that the amount of power reserves from the existing power plants would enable the Krabi project to be delayed for a while.
One fact all participants agree on is that by the year 2032, Thailand is estimated to receive more than 100 million tourists, 40% of which would go to Phuket and nearby locations. The surge of tourists will certainly drive up the demand for power as, on average, the power consumption of a tourist is four times higher than a local resident. Even without the new power plant, the environment has already been gradually polluted by irresponsible consumers and uncontrolled tourism activities.
In summary, these tourist provinces on the Andaman coast will need a bigger supply of electricity. The question is, if not a coal-fired power plant, what would be the options?
And even if there are no better options, would the new power plant be equipped with a risk management system? The opponents cannot be blamed for being paranoid. The related agencies have to assure the surrounding residents that an environmental disaster like the one they saw in Mae Moh would not happen in their town.
The argument requires scientific evidence and facts to ensure agreement from all parties. Projects without effective risk management will certainly fail to gain any confidence from the people.
The current level of power reserves may be enough for the present level of consumption, for a while. But the current level of power reserves may not be enough to serve the rise in tourists in the future.
These are the dilemmas that all sides have to address with open minds by using facts and practical solutions.