Energy security has long been a serious concern for Thai governments, power producers, small to large companies and even individuals, drawing debate over many decades.
Greenpeace supporters stage the Greenpeace Mini Marathon in May to oppose the coal-fired power plant and coal sea port project in Krabi province. The opposition group has gained even further support from villagers and tourism business operators since the event was held.
Better late than never. It is probably about time for all parties to sit down and discuss sustainable solutions that will create long-term energy security while maintaining Thailand's competitiveness without increasing living costs or sacrificing the environment.
The Mineral Fuels Department in June alerted the public that energy supply was approaching a critical point, given current proven natural gas reserves of 8.4 trillion cubic fleet and crude oil of 450 million barrels, equal to six years of power production. This scenario assumes no new gas resources will be found.
Chen Namchaisiri, vice-chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries (FTI), says the depletion of resources may be even sooner if all sectors continue to consume power at a high rate.
Thailand will need to move away from a heavy dependency on natural gas as a major power production source, as high as 68% now, to other resources — but what and how?
Most energy experts and industrialists lean towards an increase in the use of coal in power generation from 19% to the same level of developed countries. With more advanced technology today, they are confident the use of coal will not destroy the environment or the lives of local residents like before.
However, many people including environmentalists prefer renewable energy sources such as solar, water and wind, as they believe these are harmless and hold fewer externality costs than coal and other sources.
Yet many argue renewable energy is not entirely reliable, while costs are too high and will strongly affect the country's competitiveness. Many continue to float the idea of a nuclear power plant. However, after the catastrophic accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine, Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, it may be hard to convince Thais to buy this idea.
Power background
In 1990, gas started to become a major fuel for power production following its discovery in the Gulf of Thailand, feeding rapid economic growth of more than 9% a year during that decade.
Demand for gas continued to rise rapidly, and Thailand eventually decided to import it from Myanmar while starting to develop gas resources in the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area (JDA) in the Gulf of Thailand.
Energy policymakers planned to diversify into hydropower and coal. However, the hydropower plan received strong protests from several groups concerned it would encourage forest encroachment.
In 1992, the Mae Moh coal-fired power plant in Lampang province was developed by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat). The plant was later the subject of protests after claims it made a harmful impact on the local community and agricultural area due to sulphur dioxide emissions. In 1998, the plant installed a desulphurisation unit.
A few years later, the government decided to import clean coal for two new coal-fired plants in Prachuap Khiri Khan province under the independent power producer programme, with total capacity of almost 2,100 megawatts. But the project turned out to be a failure due to strong protests by local residents and environmentalists.
In 2004, the Thaksin Shinawatra government decided to move the facilities to Saraburi and Ratchaburi provinces, but this time using natural gas instead. The two plants can generate almost 2,100 MW. Since then, the country has depended on natural gas to produce power.
As of the end of last year, 76% of natural gas used to generate power came from within the country and the Malaysia-Thailand JDA, while 20% was imported from Myanmar and 4% in the form of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Signs of energy insecurity
Indications of insecure gas supply began to emerge in August 2009 when gas supply from Myanmar was disrupted by an accident that forced Egat to speed up its power generation from all hydropower plants in western Thailand.
The move caused damage to rafts along a river in Kanchanaburi province as water levels rose too high.
Disruptions to supply continued to arise more frequently, particularly in 2012 and 2013, with the most serious incident in April 2013, when demand for electricity reached its annual peak and production in Myanmar was shut down for maintenance for nine days. The government had to urge business operators and state agencies to shift their work days and manufacturers to cut down or stop their production to prevent blackouts.
Natural gas accounts for 68% of Thailand's power generation, followed by lignite (11%), imported coal (8%), renewable energy (6%), imports from Laos (6%) and bunker oil (1%).
Reduce dependence on gas
Energy experts and industrialists agree the country should diversify its fuel use, as dependence on natural gas threatens energy security.
Siri Jirapongphan, executive director of the Petroleum Institute of Thailand, warns gas reserves are likely to last for only six more years, as new exploration was suspended in 2011 due to protests by environmental activists.
"If domestic gas is completely depleted while other fuels cannot be developed, we'll have to import LNG to replace gas demand. By doing that, the cost would certainly double," Mr Siri says.
The use of LNG as a fuel would double the cost of electricity generation to an average of 5.50 to six baht per kilowatt-hour from 3.90 baht now. Such a rise would definitely dampen national competitiveness in terms of production and service costs.
"We'd not only lose business competitiveness but also new investment and jobs in the long term," Mr Siri says.
He suggests the country reduce its dependency on gas and increase the proportion of coal like many other developed countries that rely on coal for 30-40% of power generation.
Energy Minister Narongchai Akrasanee says imported coal is sub-bituminous grade, which is cleaner than domestic lignite.
"The black colour of coal does not mean it's dirty or a dangerous waste," he says.
Mr Narongchai says the new development of a coal-fired power plant in Krabi province is suitable for power demand in the South.
Deputy energy permanent secretary Kurujit Nakornthap says developed countries such as South Korea, Japan and European nations are highly concerned about environmental issues and use coal for 40% of power production.
Malaysia is the world's top exporter of LNG and crude oil but had diversified into coal from zero to 22% by the end of last year due mainly to the price of coal being more stable and cheaper than that of gas, which depends on the global market.
The FTI's Mr Chen says the use of coal is no longer a threat to the environment and local communities since advanced technology can treat dust particles before they are emitted into the air.
"Imported coal is cleaner coal," he says. "We cannot really continue on this road, as power supply will not be sustainable. And whenever there is energy insecurity, the price will skyrocket, and that will turn away investors."
Mr Chen says Thailand should increase the use of imported coal to about 30% of power production from 8% now.
Renewable energy and others
Mr Chen says most renewable energy remains expensive and its supply less reliable, as it is limited by nature in the case of solar and wind power, so it should not be used for mainstream power generation.
"The sun does not come out at night, nor does it in the rainy season. And the country does not have as strong winds as neighbouring countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam or Cambodia. So these sources are seasonal and unreliable," he says.
The plant factor — the ratio of the average power load of a plant to its rated capacity — is about 15% for solar power and 11% for wind compared with 90% for fossil fuels.
Mr Chen agrees the government should encourage the use of biomass and waste energy.
"But some materials such as rice husk and rice straw are byproducts based on seasonal production, while most waste belongs to companies. It's difficult to solve these problems," he explains.
Biogas is another interesting option. It is derived from animal waste mixed with grass.
"The government should certainly support the production and use of biogas, particularly in communities," Mr Chen says.
Praipol Koomsup, an adviser to the energy minister, says it is essential to educate the public about energy. Protesters always say biomass and biogas are better options than coal, but there are important points they have to realise.
"They need to understand that greener energy is pricey, while lower-cost energy may bring more carbon dioxide," he says. "They should also realise security of the energy supply is crucial and that renewable energy depends largely on seasons, an unstable practice."
Coal resources are more secure than oil and gas due to resources nationwide, he says.
Mr Praipol believes a nuclear power plant should remain in the national power development plan since nuclear energy is likely to play a significant role in the global energy market.
Mr Kurujit says several countries are stepping up their development of nuclear power due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.
As of the end of 2011, nuclear power plants worldwide generated a combined 367 gigawatts. Sixty-three more units are under construction with additional capacity of 61 GW.
Other dimensions, other thoughts
Greenpeace country director Thara Buakamsri believes there are several dimensions other than resources and prices when talking about energy security. "I think that's a misleading concept," he says.
Increased efficiency in energy consumption and caring for the environment and communities are always excluded from the scenario, he says.
Mr Thara questions whether all sectors have used power efficiently. "I believe our energy consumption outpaces the country's GDP growth, so why not try to increase efficiency in energy use for all sectors?" he asks.
He is against the idea of increasing reliance on coal, saying: "The country also has to import coal from others. How can that be a secure energy supply?"
The use of coal has posed serious risks to the environment and lives of residents in the areas of the Mae Moh power plant and Map Ta Phut industrial estate in Rayong province, Mr Thara says.
"People have already lost trust in the government. How can it convince them to settle on coal-fired power plants? It's the same for nuclear power plants, which people won't accept any more," he says.
Since the government is seeking energy reform, Mr Thara believes it is time to look forward, not backwards.
"To create security of energy supply, we need to look ahead by not repeating the old, unacceptable path of coal-fired plants but better options such as renewable energy, which is greener and more just to the people," Mr Thara says.
As for the lack of continuity of solar and wind energy, he argues a hybrid system allows plants to store the energy and use it when needed.
"The arguments that the sun doesn't come out at night and the wind doesn't blow at noon should be dropped. With a hybrid system, renewable energy can be used interchangeably with other resources," he says.
The cost of renewable energy has
gradually come down, in line with increasing availability in the market, Mr Thara argues.
"And when we add externality costs such as pollution, health costs and environmental damage caused by the use of coal and nuclear, the costs of renewable energy are not at all higher and the costs of coal and nuclear plants not at all cheaper."
Mr Thara says the nuclear industry is contracting, as it is increasingly unacceptable to most people following several disasters.
"So many developed countries are moving forward with renewable energy, biogas and biomass. Why does Thailand want to move backwards — and how can we call this security?" he says.