Let's go renewable to solve our power crises

Let's go renewable to solve our power crises

Eventually, the country's much-feared power crisis came to pass without the major blackouts predicted in February by Energy Minister Pongsak Raktapongpaisal.

Monks walk at the new Sai Sena Solar Park for the handover ceremony of the new green energy venture in Ayutthaya province. Solar energy provides a clean source of electricity, yet state regulations pose obstacles to its development. EPA/BARBARA WALTON

The false alarm has triggered public suspicion of whether the crisis was real or just a ploy with a hidden agenda _ a push for a new coal-fired power plant.

Whether the crisis is real or not, there are many lessons for us to learn.

The first lesson involves the false accusation against our neighbour, Myanmar. Initially, Myanmar took all the blame when the minister linked the crisis _ a shortage of some 6,000 megawatts of electricity _ to routine maintenance of the Yadana gas pipeline.

But it turned out that the suspension was ordered by Thai joint venture firm PTT Exploration and Production, a subsidiary of PTT, which is a 25% shareholder, while Myanmar's state enterprise holds only 10%.

Another lesson relates to PTT's responsibility.

Questions remain about the timing of the pipeline system maintenance, which took place during the Songkran holiday, when our electricity demand was low as most industrial plants closed for several days. It's not clear why the maintenance date was pushed up to the period when the country's electricity demand peaked.

PTT's attempt to negotiate for maintenance postponement was not successful since it could put off the suspension only for another day from April 4 to April 5.

In addition to panic over feared blackouts, people were frustrated with a plan by PTT and PTTEP to burden them with the cost of switching to more expensive bunker oil and diesel through the fuel adjustment tariff (Ft) mechanism.

However, in a bid to appease public anger, the Energy Regulatory Commission eventually decided to freeze the Ft cost until the end of the year.

The decision is bizarre given that the electricity production cost for the next eight months remain unknown.

The positive side of this crisis is that it proves demand-side management is not a myth.

The 6,000MW shortfall from the maintenance work was offset by the use of other power sources, which provided 4,500MW.

An increase in purchases from independent power producers and small power producers accounted for another 500MW, while the remaining 1,000MW was not needed thanks to nationwide energy-saving campaigns.

This 1,000-MW saving shows the government's 20-year national energy conservation plan, which set this year's energy saving target at 1,590MW, is feasible.

The problem is that so far this is merely an idea _ there are no operation plans in place to actually achieve this goal.

The government solved this month's short-term crisis by asking major industrial plants to reschedule their operations to avoid the peak period, especially on April 5.

Other measures included promoting conventional energy-saving campaigns aimed at companies and households _ switching off electrical equipment and pulling out plugs when not in use, setting higher air-conditioner temperatures, and wearing cooler clothes.

As a result, electricity demand on the three critical days was lower than anticipated. Demand peaked on April 5 at 24,955.30MW, or 1,645MW below the estimate. The April 9 peak was reported at 25,226.30MW, 694MW lower than expected. On April 10 it was 24,688.38MW, 1,262 MW lower than estimated.

This shows that demand-side management is possible if relevant agencies are serious about it.

Certain sectors reducing or avoiding the use of electricity during the peak period proved to be an effective measure.

Now, it is important that the government devises operation plans for energy saving in the long term, and not just react in a knee-jerk fashion when a crisis looms.

The operation plans, with a goal to reduce energy use by 2,275MW next year, will enable us to do even better in time of crisis.

Finally, the energy crisis has highlighted state agencies' policy discrimination against renewable energy.

The extra power supplied to the government by independent and small producers during the shortfall exceeded the contracted amounts. So, there is no problem if the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) or the Provincial Electricity Authority increase their purchases from these small producers.

The Federation of Thai Industries estimates that these suppliers can contribute no less than 500MW of renewable energy to the national system during peak times.

During the April energy glitch, Egat opted to buy 200-300MW of electricity from these alternative energy producers.

The government should consider a more flexible purchase system and offer more incentives to alternative energy producers.

To achieve that, it requires a long-term plan and the need to do away with obstacles set by state agencies that limit the development of renewable energy.

Among them is the categorisation of electricity generation from wind and solar power (such as solar panels on a roof) as a power plant that requires a construction licence. Consequently, renewable energy sources are prohibited from being located in residential and agricultural zones, even if they are "clean".

Former energy minister Piyasvasti Amranand deserves credit for publicly pointing out these policy barriers against solar energy.

Without these barriers, we could easily have an additional 1,000MW from solar energy to feed into the system, instead of the current 500MW.

With this extra energy, any energy crisis in the future could be tackled with ease.

But this cannot happen without political will from those in power.


Decharut Sukkumnoed, PhD, is a lecturer at Kasetsart University's Economics Faculty. He is an advocate of health impact assessments and an expert on renewable energy and climate change.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (3)