New PDP and PDP-MG Vincent Ngundi Interim AfriNIC PDP-MG Co-chair.
Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP)
description
Transcript of Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP)
Thailand’s Power Development Plan (PDP)
... ... Steps involved to deliver Steps involved to deliver electricity to end-userselectricity to end-users
PowerGeneration
DistributionRetail, MeterReading, Billing &settlement
Fuel procurement
Transmission
Centralized generation
Cogenerationโรงไฟฟ�าสายสงไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง
สถานี�ไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง
หม้�อแปลงจำ�าหนีาย
สายจำ�าหนีาย
แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บส�ง
แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บกลาง
Problem analysisof current unsustainable
energy practices
Problems of “Development”• “Growth” ≠ “Prosperity”• GDP ≠ well-being• Economic vs Environmental & Social goals• Boundless economic expansion with no
heeds to natural limits and violence against fellow human beings
• Lack of democratic political processes• Lack of local access and control of
resources
Need paradigm change, political reform
Problems of Current Power Systems• Decision making process
– Centralized planning – Not participatory (affected communities have no say, no right/access to local resources)– Lack of information, transparency
• Industry structure– Centralized, monopoly (central planners have power and force to appropriate resources nation-wide and beyond to serve the urban, industrial and commercial consumers)– Consumers are captive customers but have no say– Bound to expand (financial criteria such as SFR, ROIC tie profits to boundless expansion)– Lack of proper checks and balances (weak regulatory framework)
• Planning objectives– Narrow objectives (energy security, least-cost), environmental and social goals not considered
– Role of electricity/energy poorly defined (shifting from a public service (serving basic needs) to a commodity) – and this gets worse when utilities are corporatized and privatized
• Over-consumption of electricity and energy– Excessive consumption not addressed and even subsidized through lack of proper pricing structure (generation cost subsidized, marginal costing not used for new gas)
– Out of sight, out of mind (consumers are disconnected and removed from impacts of their own consumption)
• Demand forecast (over projections)– Linking of power demand and GDP growth– Deterministic model (top-down), politically driven– Distorted incentives to over-forecast– Lack of accountability– Annual peak = basis for planning but no sufficient incentives/measures to cut peak
• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on large-scale, capital intensive supply options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, discentralized generation not considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale, non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions
Cost structure – Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards set by commercial and industrial consumers– Cost used in planning not reflective of cost of serving new demand (use of avg gas cost instead of marginal costs)– Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)– Externality costs not considered– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE
• Governance– Conflict of interests – Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy firms) not accountable to local people
Problems of current power systems (1)
• Decision making process– Centralized planning – Not participatory (affected communities have no say, no
right/access to local resources)– Lack of information, transparency
• Industry structure– Centralized, monopoly (central planners have power and force to
appropriate resources nation-wide and beyond to serve the urban, industrial and commercial consumers)
– Consumers are captive customers but have no say– Lack of proper checks and balances (weak regulatory
framework)– Bound to expand (financial criteria such as SFR, ROIC tie profits
to boundless expansion)
Current Electricity Supply IndustryR
E
G
U
L
A
T
O
R
SPPsSPPs
EGAT Power Plants
IPPsIPPs
Power Purchase System Operation Transmission Bulk Power Supply
PEAPEA MEAMEA
DirectDirectCustomersCustomers
DirectDirectCustomersCustomers
End UsersEnd Users
Generation
End UsersEnd Users
Power Purchaser,System Operation,and Transmission
EGATEGAT
Distribution/Retail Supply
EEPPPPOO
Power Grid & Pipelines
are analogous to a monster’s
arms reaching and
grabbing resources to
feed its bottomless appetite.
Cross-border exploitation
is often facilitated by IFIs such as
ADB.
Problems of current power systems (1)
• Decision making process– Centralized planning – Not participatory (affected communities have no say, no
right/access to local resources)– Lack of information, transparency
• Industry structure– Centralized, monopoly (central planners have power and force to
appropriate resources nation-wide and beyond to serve the urban, industrial and commercial consumers)
– Consumers are captive customers but have no say– Lack of proper checks and balances (weak regulatory
framework)
– Bound to expand (financial criteria such as SFR, ROIC tie profits to boundless expansion)
• Financial criteria for utilities link profits to investments– Thailand uses outdated
return-based regulation– WB’s promoted financial
criteria such as self financing ratio (SFR) also have similar effects
• ROIC (Return on Invested Capital means: the more you invest, the more profits
Incentive structure for utilities:the more expansion, the more
profits
ROIC = Net profit after tax Invested capital EGAT 84. %
MEA PEA
48.%
Result : Demand forecast have systemic bias toward over-
projections Too many expensive power projects get built
Cycle of over-expansion under the centralized monopoly system
Power demand (over-)projections
Deterministic planning basedon demand forecast leads
to over-investmentin capital-intensive
power projects
Tariff structure that allows pass-through of unnecessary investments
Utilities’
Profits
11
22
33
Problems of current power systems (2)
• Planning objectives
– Narrow objectives (energy security, least-cost), environmental
and social goals not considered
– Role of electricity/energy poorly defined (shifting from a public
service (serving basic needs) to a commodity) – and this gets
worse when utilities are corporatized and privatized
• Over-consumption of electricity and energy
– Excessive consumption not addressed and even subsidized
through lack of proper pricing structure (generation cost
subsidized, marginal costing not used for new gas)
– Out of sight, out of mind (consumers are disconnected and
removed from impacts of their own consumption)
The Champagne Glass
UNDP, Human Development Report, 1998
http://www.soho-properties.com/condobangkok-leraffine31/
Unlimited living?
Electricity productionand consumption(GWh)
1700 families relocated
Loss of livelihood for > 6200 families
Loss of 116
fish species 44( %)
Fishery yield down 80%
65MaeHongSong
Sou
rce: M
EA
, EG
AT, S
earin
, Gra
ph
ic: Gre
en
World
Fou
nd
atio
n
Dams Malls Province
Pak
Mun
Impacts of Pak Mun Dam alone
MBK
123
81
75
Siam Paragon
Central World
Nam Theun 2• 1000 MW• Mainly to serve Thailand• 6,200 people in Laos resettled• Dam will dry Nam Theun
River and swell Xe Bung Fai River
• Endangered species, elephant habitat to be flooded
Problems of current power systems (3)
• Demand forecast (over projections)– Linking of power demand and GDP growth– Deterministic model (top-down), politically
driven– Distorted incentives to over-forecast– Lack of accountability– Annual peak = basis for planning but no
sufficient incentives/measures to cut peak
International Comparison of Power Generation per GDP
Electric Power Generation per GDP
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1971 1973 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
kWh/
US$
, 199
5 P
rice
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Germany
Taiwan
Singapore
Thailand
Australia
Malaysia
South Korea
Japan
Peru
Gov’t gives subsidy to polluting industries with low value added to economy and low
competitiveness
กล�ม้อ�ตสาหกรรม้ High Energy, Low VA, Low RCA
ส�ดัสวนีความ้เข้�ม้ข้�นีข้อง
การใ ช้�พล�งงานี
ส�ดัสวนีม้�ลคาเพ&'ม้ตอผลผล&ต
ดั�ช้ นี�ความ้ไ ดั�เปร�ยบ
ทางการแข้งข้�นี(RCA)
อ�ตสาหกรรม้เหล*กและ เหล*กกล�า 0.331 0.151 0.19 การผลิ�ตสีทา น้ำ �ามั�น้ำชั�กเงา 0.183 0.323 0.25
การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� พลิาสีต�ก 0.18 0.3 0.91 การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� อโ ลิหะอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.178 0.336 0.5
การฟอก การพ�มัพ� การย้"อมั 0.177 0.27 0การผลิ�ตเคร��องย้น้ำต�แลิะก�งห�น้ำ 0.15 0.24 0.21การผลิ�ตเคร��องเร�อน้ำท�ท า ด้"วย้โ ลิหะ 0.146 0.253 0.56แบตเตอร�แลิะหมั"อเก(บประจุ+ไ ฟฟ-า 0.142 0.264 0.59การผลิ�ตเคร��องจุ�กรแลิะอ+ปกรณ�ทางเกษตร 0.131 0.33 0.08การผลิ�ตอ+ปกรณ�รถไ ฟ 0.126 0.276 0.01
เคร��องมั�อเคร��องใ ชั"ไ ฟฟ-าอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.125 0.313 0.95 การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� ทางเคมัอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.122 0.319 0.41
การผลิ�ตเคร��องจุ�กรแลิะอ+ปกรณ�พ�เศษ 0.116 0.246 0.27การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� จุากกระด้าษ 0.115 0.172 0.72
การผลิ�ตสี�น้ำค"าอ+ตสีาหกรรมัอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.101 0.346 1.24การผลิ�ตน้ำาฬิ�กา 0.085 0.415 1.74การผลิ�ตเคร��องด้น้ำตรแลิะ เคร��องกฬา 0.078 0.345 1.87
การบรรจุ+กระป4อง แลิะการเก(บร�กษาผ�ก ผลิไ มั" น้ำ �าผลิไ มั" 0.074 0.341 2.26การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� จุากไ มั"แลิะ ไ มั"ก5อก 0.074 0.358 2.83
การผลิ�ตรองเท" า ย้กเว"น้ำรองเท" าย้าง 0.072 0.388 1.94การผลิ�ตเคร��องเร�อน้ำเคร��องตกแต6งท�ท า ด้"วย้ไ มั" 0.072 0.507 1.82
การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� อาหารอ��น้ำ ๆ 0.071 0.478 1.85การผลิ�ตอ+ปกรณ�การถ6าย้ภัาพแลิะสีาย้ตา 0.071 0.428 1.52การท า เน้ำ��อกระป4อง 0.064 0.392 1.02การผลิ�ตผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� หน้ำ�งสี�ตว� 0.064 0.445 2.57
การอบ การบ6มัใ บย้าสี7บ 0.061 0.404 1.22 อ+ตสีาหกรรมัเคร��องด้��มัท� ไ มั6มัแอลิกอฮอลิ� แลิะน้ำ �าอ�ด้ลิมั 0.059 0.426 1.08
อ+ตสีาหกรรมัเก�ย้วก�บผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� เชั�อก 0.051 0.418 1.11 โ รงงาน้ำท า น้ำ �าตาลิ แลิะผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� อ��น้ำ ๆ 0.045 0.383 6.07
อ�ตสาหกรรม้ ถานีห&นี นี�+า ม้�นี ก,าซ ไ ฟฟ�า รวม้อาหารแลิะ เคร��องด้��มั 17 683 76 857 1,633 9.1%สี��งทอ 8 266 4 665 943 5.3%ไ มั"แลิะ เคร��องเร�อน้ำ - 33 - 135 168 0.9%กระด้าษ 424 191 - 187 802 4.5%เคมั 592 465 504 806 2,367 13.2%อโ ลิหะ 5,062 310 1,243 605 7,220 40.4%โลหะข้�+นีม้�ลฐานี 408 324 - 555 1,287 7.2%ผลิ�ตภั�ณฑ์� โ ลิหะ - 137 325 1,095 1,557 8.7%อ��น้ำ 978 869 - 48 1,895 10.6%รวมั 7,489 3,278 2,152 4,953 17,872 100.0%
BOI investment privileges
should take into account energy and
environmental considerations
High energy intensity
Low value added
Low competitiveness
Steel industry
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
55,000
2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564
MW
2550 – 25 54 average
increase 1,38 6MW
2555 – 255 9 average
increase 1,877 MW
2560 – 25 64 average
increase 2,315 MW
1,4441,268
1,410
1,361
1,629
1,759
1,832
2,035
2,131
2,178
2,235
2,287
2,399
2,477
Demand increase per year
1,449
27,996 27,996 MWMW
37,382 37,382 MWMW
48,958 48,958 MWMW
Economic Development Plan
(years)
Average GDP growth rate/year
Average demand growth rate/year
10th plan -2550255(
4 )5.0 5.86
11th plan -2555255
9
5.6 5.95
1 2th plan -2560256
4)5.6 5.54
แผนีพ�ฒนีาฯ ฉบ�บท�' 10 แผนีพ�ฒนีาฯ ฉบ�บท�' 11 แผนีพ�ฒนีาฯ ฉบ�บท�' 12
Power demand projection Sep 2007(PDP 2007 revision 1)
ท�มัา กฟผ.
Why assume exponential growth?Linear vs. exponential extrapolation
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
Pea
k d
eman
d (
MW
)
2007 Forecast Historic peak demand trend
24 power plants
Power Demand: Projections vs. Actual 1992 – 2008If no systemic bias, the
chance of over-projecting demand 12 times in a row
should be 1/4096!!
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
28,000
32,000
36,000
40,000
44,000
48,000
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
มั�.ย้.-93
ธ.ค.-94
ต.ค.-95
เมั.ย้.-96
ต.ค.-96
มั�.ย้.-97
ก.ย้.-97
Sep-98(MER)
ก.พ.-01
สี.ค.-02
Jan-04(LEG)
Jan-04(MEG)
Apr-06 (MEG)
มั.ค.-07
ACTUAL
ธ.ค.-08
MW
Cycle of over-expansion under the centralized system with return-based
regulation
Power demand (over-)projections
Deterministic planning basedon demand forecast leads
to over-investmentin capital-intensive
power projects
Tariff structure that allows pass-through of unnecessary investments
Utilities’
Profits
11
22
33
• ROIC (Return on Invested Capital means: the more you invest, the more profits
Lack of accountability in demand over-projection and over-investment made of possible by guaranteed rate of return for
utilities
ROIC = Net profit after tax Invested capital EGAT 84. %
MEA PEA
48.%
Guaranteed rate of return means central planners are rewarded, not held accountable, for their
repeated errors in demand forecast
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000hours
MW
2001 PEAK = 16,126 MW
A look at load duration curve:Only the absolute peak of the year
is used as the basis for planning
15100
15300
15500
15700
15900
16100
16300
0
12
24
36
48
60
> 1,000 MW in 66 hours
Problems of current power systems (4)
• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning
criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on large-scale, capital intensive supply
options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not
considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale,
non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions
Planning of capacity additions(Total capacity requirement = peak demand 15+ % reserve margin)
Loss of Load Probability (LOLP)
• LOLP is the probability that generation will be insufficient to meet demand at some point over some specific time window.
• It is a method to calculate power system (electrical network) reliability. It combines the probability that certain load could occur with the probability that certain amount of generation could deliver it.
• Thailand: LOLP < 24 hours in a year (0.27%)• India (Andra Pradesh 2002): LOLP < 1.14%• USA (Texas): LOLP < 1 day in 10 yrs (0.03%)
A Few Definitions
• EUE – Expected Unserved Energy – the expected number of megawatt-hours of load that will not be served in a given year
• LOLP – Loss of Load Probability – the probability that there will be a loss of load event in a given year
• LOLE – Loss of Load Events – the number of events in which some system load is not served in a given year. A Loss of Load Event can last for one hour or for several contiguous hours, and can involve the loss of one megawatt of load or several hundred megawatts of load.
• Generally-accepted criteria: a target reserve margin that results in an agreed level/number of LOLP or LOLE
Reserve Margin Simulation Results
Reserve Margin
Average Loss of Load
Events in 10 Years
Average MWhs of ENS in 10
Years
Average Hours of
ENS in 10 Years
Loss of Load
Probability (%)
10.00% 5.1 9,020 9 0.011%
12.00% 1.4 2,570 2.6 0.003%
14.00% 0.5 515 0.9 0.001%
16.00% 0 0 0 0.000%
18.00% 0 0 0 0.000%
20.00% 0 0 0 0.000%
* ENS = Energy not served Data from ERCOT (Texas, USA)
Reserve Margin Simulation Results
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10 11 12 13 14 15
Reserve Margin (%)
# o
f LO
L Events
in 1
0 Y
ears
Generic Gas Additions Generic Coal AdditionsSeries2
LOL = Loss of Load Data from ERCOT (Texas, USA)
Problems of current power systems (4)
• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning
criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on large-scale, capital intensive supply
options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not
considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale,
non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions
Choice of supply options considered in the PDP by EGAT
700 MW Coal-fired power plant
700 MW gas-fired combined cycle plant
230 MW gas-fired open cycle plant
1,000 MW nuclear plant
Hydro imports are politically negotiated outside of PDP processDSM/EE, RE, Distributed generation not considered as supply options
Centralized & decentralized generation
โรงไฟฟ�าสายสงไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง
สถานี�ไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง
หม้�อแปลงจำ�าหนีาย
สายจำ�าหนีาย
แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บส�ง
แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บกลาง
Gasifier
Cogeneration
Centralized & decentralized generation
โรงไฟฟ�าสายสงไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง
สถานี�ไฟฟ�าแรงส�ง
หม้�อแปลงจำ�าหนีาย
สายจำ�าหนีาย
แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บส�ง
แรงดั�นีไฟฟ�าระดั�บกลาง
Gasifier
Cogeneration
Many questions for PDP 2007
• Why only 1700 MW of distributed generation allowed?
• Why 4000 MW of nuclear in all options?
• Why DSM/energy efficiency not considered as an option?
L = low case B = base case H = high case1=“lowest cost” 2=“as much coal as acceptable” 3=“LNG +imports”
ก�าล�งการผล&ตใ หม้ท�'ถ�กบรรจำ�ใ นีแผนี PDP2007 (MW)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
L1 B1 H1 L2 B2 H2 L3 B3 H3
SPP Nuclear Gas Coal Gas Turbine Import
New capacity added to the PDP 2007
Centralized energy is also more costly
Thailand
PDP 2007 requires 2 trillion baht to implement, comprising: million B
• generation 1 ,482000,
• transmission 595000,
Transmission adds 4 0% to generation
costs
Decentralized generation brings down costs
Ireland – retail costs for new capacity to 2021
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
100% Central / 0% DE 75% / 25% 50% / 50% 25% / 75% 0% Central / 100% DE
% DE of Total Generation
Eu
ro C
en
ts /
KW
h
O&M of New Capacity Fuel
Capital Amorization + Profit On New Capacity T&D Amorization on New T&D
Source: World Alliance for Decentralized Energy, April 2005
Loss in conversion process 61%
Station use (in power plants) 1%
Loss in transmission 3%
Loss in distribution 5-8%
Useful electricity to end-users <30%
Centralized generation wastes a lot of energy
(~70% of heat value is lost & adds to climate change problem )
Combined cycle13,540 MW47 .5 %
Hydro3,424.2 MW
12.0 %
Thermal9,666.6 MW33 .9 %
Gas turbines, diesel971.4 MW
3.4 %
Hydro import1.2 %
Renewables288.1 MW
1.0 %
Import from Malaysia1.0 %
Total at end of 2007 28,5303.
MW Installed capacity by types of generation in 2007
Problems of current power systems (4)
• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning
criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on centralized, large-scale, capital intensive
supply options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not
considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale,
non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions
Energy waste in a typical pumping system
Fuel/ technology NumberInstalled capacity
Capacity export to grid
Number Installed capacity
Capacity export to grid
Number Installed capacity
Capacity export to grid
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
Commercial fuel
coal 6 159.57 41.00 4 130.07 26.00 2 19.00 6.00
natural gas 4 30.05 14.60 3 26.69 12.40 0 - -
sub-total 10 189.62 55.60 7 156.76 38.40 2 19 6
Alternative fuels
1 Solar 355 1,755.55 1,681.62 116 365.26 362.82 45 1.83 1.75
2 Biogas 78 163.36 143.20 60 96.21 79.90 18 20.29 12.52
3 Biomass 175 1,716.93 1,050.10 140 1,369.36 808.85 47 533.29 216.15
4 Waste 24 137.71 121.76 16 96.68 84.86 2 2.04 1.60
5 Hydro 9 6.90 6.86 4 5.160 5.130 2 0.08 0.06
6 Wind 89 796.34 791.13 7 11.23 10.93 1 0.08 0.08
7 Used cooking oil* 1 0.03 0.03 1 0.03 0.03 1 0.03 0.03
sub-total alternative fuels 731 4,576.80 3,794.69 344 1,943.92 1,352.51 116 557.63 232.18
TOTAL 741 4,766.42 3,850.29 351 2,100.68 1,390.91 118 576.63 238.18
Very Small Power Producers (VSPP)
(Status as of December 2008)
Applications submitted Accepted applications Projects already selling electricity
Source: www.eppo.go.th/power.html
Source: The 5th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan
Supply options in NW USA
Source: The 5th NW Electric Power and ConservationPlan
Supply options in NW USA
Supply curve of Pacific NW
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
245 514 1598 2202 2560 3444 4934 6735 8945
Cumulative Resource Potential (Average Megawatts)
Real Le
veliz
ed C
ost
(C
ents
/kW
h -
2000$) EE
Renewables
Coal
Gas turbines
Combined cycle
Resource potential for generic coal, gas & wind resources shown for typical unit size. Additional potential is available at comparable costs.
Source: Northwest Power and Conservation CouncilNorthwest Power and Conservation Council
Thai civil society created an alternative PDP that meets govt’ objectives, is more economic and
cleaner. But it was not considered by the government
24,755
8,117
3,424
14,804
2,254302
4,000
28,108
4,117
3,424
7,800
4,553
6,410
5,200
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
MW
PDP2007 PDP-Renewables
The Comparison of Installed Capacity in Two PDP Options
DSM
Nuclear
Renewable
Cogen-SPP
Import
Hydro
Oil
Coal
Natural gas
ท�มัา มั7ลิน้ำ�ธ�น้ำโย้บาย้สี+ขภัาวะ 2552
Superior benefits of “PDP Renewable”
over Govt’s PDP 2007
Source : Healthy public policy foundation 2009
Percentage
Percentage
Create more job (x 1000 position)
Decrease foreign import
Income generation
Decrease societal economic cost
Decrease commercial cost
Decrease environmental cost
Decrease mercury emission
Decrease SO2 emission
Decrease CO2 emission
Job creation per $1 million investment
Source: http://www.peri.umass.edu/green_recovery/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/green-job-creation-table
Problems of current power systems (4)
• PDP process– Use of Reserve Margin, not LOLP, as a main planning
criteria arbitrary, wasteful– Focusing on centralized, large-scale, capital intensive
supply options– Hydropower imports politically driven– DSM/EE, RE, decentralized generation not
considered as supply options– Alternative PDPs not considered, discussed– Arbitrary methodology with bias towards large-scale,
non-renewable options (unrealistically low fuet cost assumptions
Fuel price forecast (In current term)
year
200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
Natural gaspower plant average cost
Natural gas(Kanorm power plant)
Natural gas(Lankabuer power plant)
Natural gas(Nampong power plant)
Excess natural gasFor new power plant
Diesel oilFuel oil(2% of sulphur)
Lignite(Mae Moh power plant)
Nuclear Imported coal(Australia)
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
$ /million BTU
Baht /million BTU
Baht /million BTU
Baht /million BTU
Baht /million BTU
Baht /million BTU
Baht /million BTU
Baht (liters) Baht (liters) Baht (ton) Baht (ton)% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
% increase
year
Source: EGAT, PDP 2007
Problems of current power systems (5)
• Cost structure – Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource
options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)
– Externality costs not considered
– Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards caused by commercial and industrial consumers
– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE
• Governance– Conflict of interests
– Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy
firms) not accountable to local people
EGAT’s cost assumptions in PDP
• ไมั6มัท�มัาท�ไปของการค าน้ำวณ
• ต"น้ำท+น้ำน้ำ�วเคลิย้ร�ขาด้ความัน้ำ6าเชั��อถ�อแลิะไมั6สีอด้คลิ"องก�บข"อมั7ลิจุากต6างประเทศ
• ไมั6รวมัต"น้ำท+น้ำอ��น้ำๆ อกมัากมัาย้
Sources Cost (B/kWh)
Nuclear 2.08
Coal 2.12
Gas combined cycle 2.29
Fuel oil (thermal) 4.12
Gas open cycle 7.93
PV 20.20
Wind 5.98
Waste 4.63
Biomass 2.63
EGAT “Power Development Plan” presentation at public hearing at Military club, April 3 2007
Cost of delivery kWh (not including externalities)
ท�มัา AMORY B. LOVINS AND IMRAN SHEIKH “The Nuclear Illusion” 2008
หมัาย้เหต+ 1. ใชั"สีมัมัต�ฐาน้ำว6าต"น้ำท+น้ำร"อย้ลิะ 12.4 ของค6าไฟฟ-ามัาจุากธ+รก�จุสีาย้สี6ง 2. ใชั"สีมัมัต�ฐาน้ำว6าต"น้ำท+น้ำร"อย้ลิะ 14.5 ของค6าไฟฟ-ามัาจุากธ+รก�จุจุ าหน้ำ6าย้ 3. ค6า CO2 ท� 10 ย้7โร/ต�น้ำ
4. ค6า Externality ตามัการศ<กษา Extern E ของสีหภัาพย้+โรป แลิะน้ำ ามัาปร�บลิด้ตามัค6า GDP ต6อห�วของไทย้ 5. การศ<กษาของ World Bank 2005 6. ตามัระเบย้บ SPP 7. ท�มัา : กฟผ. 8. Cost of liability protection, Journal “Regulation” 2002 – 2003
Supply options
Cost estimate (Baht/kWh)
Generation
Transmission1
Distributio
n2
CO2 3 Other
envi impacts
4
Social impact
s
Total
DSM 0.50 – 1.505 - - - - - 0.50 -1.50
SPPcogeneration(PES > 10%)
2 .6 0 6 - 0.44 0.08 0.71 - 3.83
VSPP(Renewable)
Bulk supply tariff
(~ 3) +Adder
(0.3 – 8)
- 0.44 - 0 – 0.63 0 – low 3.3 – 11.0
gas CC 2257 0.37 0.44 0.09 0.79 low –
medium
3.93
Coal 2117 0.37 0.44 0.15 2.76 High 5.82
Nuclear 208. 7 0.37 0.44 - 0.15 + 1.008
High –very high
4.04
Problems of current power systems (5)
• Cost structure – Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource
options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)
– Externality costs not considered
– Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards caused by commercial and industrial consumers
– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE
• Governance– Conflict of interests
– Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy
firms) not accountable to local people
Load profile on the day of annual highest consumption
Notice the rise of air-conditioning load
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
พล
�งไฟฟ
�า(เ
ม้กะว
�ตต4)
เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)
2532
25332534
25492550
2548
2551
1. 1 Load Profile บ"าน้ำอย้76อาศ�ย้ขน้ำาด้เลิ(กม้&.ย.51
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0:15
1:15
2:15
3:15
4:15
5:15
6:15
7:15
8:15
9:15
10:15
11:15
12:15
13:15
14:15
15:15
16:15
17:15
18:15
19:15
20:15
21:15
22:15
23:15
เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)
พล�งไฟฟ�า(MW)
ว�นีท�างานี ว�นีเสาร4 ว�นีอาท&ตย4 ว�นีท�'ม้�การใช้�ไฟส�งส�ดั
1. 2 Load Profile บ"าน้ำอย้76อาศ�ย้ขน้ำาด้ใหญ่6ม้&.ย.51
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0:15
1:15
2:15
3:15
4:15
5:15
6:15
7:15
8:15
9:15
10:15
11:15
12:15
13:15
14:15
15:15
16:15
17:15
18:15
19:15
20:15
21:15
22:15
23:15
เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)
พล�งไฟฟ�า(MW)
ว�นีท�างานี ว�นีเสาร4 ว�นีอาท&ตย4 ว�นีท�'ม้�การใช้�ไฟส�งส�ดั
3 Load Profile Medium-sized ม้&.ย.51
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
0:15
1:15
2:15
3:15
4:15
5:15
6:15
7:15
8:15
9:15
10:15
11:15
12:15
13:15
14:15
15:15
16:15
17:15
18:15
19:15
20:15
21:15
22:15
23:15
เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)
พล�งไฟฟ�า(MW)
ว�นีท�างานี ว�นีเสาร4 ว�นีอาท&ตย4 ว�นีท�'ม้�การใช้�ไฟส�งส�ดั
4 Load Profile Large Customersม้&.ย.51
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0:15
1:15
2:15
3:15
4:15
5:15
6:15
7:15
8:15
9:15
10:15
11:15
12:15
13:15
14:15
15:15
16:15
17:15
18:15
19:15
20:15
21:15
22:15
23:15
เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)
พล�งไฟฟ�า(MW)
ว�นีท�างานี ว�นีเสาร4 ว�นีอาท&ตย4 ว�นีท�'ม้�การใช้�ไฟส�งส�ดั
6 Load Profile Government offices, universities, etc.
ม้&.ย.51
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0:15
1:15
2:15
3:15
4:15
5:15
6:15
7:15
8:15
9:15
10:15
11:15
12:15
13:15
14:15
15:15
16:15
17:15
18:15
19:15
20:15
21:15
22:15
23:15
เวลา(ช้�'วโม้ง)
พล�งไฟฟ�า(MW)
ว�นีท�างานี ว�นีเสาร4 ว�นีอาท&ตย4 ว�นีท�'ม้�การใช้�ไฟส�งส�ดั
Problems of current power systems (5)
• Cost structure – Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource
options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)
– Externality costs not considered
– Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards caused by commercial and industrial consumers
– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE
• Governance– Conflict of interests
– Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy
firms) not accountable to local people
Problems of current power systems (5)
• Cost structure – Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource
options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)
– Externality costs not considered
– Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards caused by commercial and industrial consumers
– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE
• Governance– Conflict of interests
– Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy
firms) not accountable to local people
Energy policy and its impacts on share prices of energy companies in the stock
market• The coup-installed government announced its policy
on energy investment opportunities on 3 Oct 2006• Energy policy, PDP approval and IPP bidding resulted
in significant windfall benefits for selected companies
• 1 year later, the share prices of companies benefiting from the PDP jumped 66% (other companies had a 8.7% rise)
Index Market Cap.
(M Baht) Index
Market Cap. (M Baht)
SET index 732.3 5,398,975 894.34 6,902,455 22.1%Energy - total 1,549,720 2,416,915 55.4% Energy - PDP-related 1,189,947 1,975,093 66.0% Energy- PTT-related* 1,178,612 1,946,230 65.1% Energy - PDP/PTT-related 1,379,886 2,259,729 63.8% Energy-non-PDP/PTT 25,212 22,126 -13.2%Non-energy SET index 3,849,255 4,485,540 8.7%
*"PTT-related" = PTT having more than 25% shares (voting rights) in the company
Share value increase in 1
year (%)
3-Nov-06 2-Nov-07
Security BusinessClose Price
Market Cap. 3/11/2006
Close Price
Market Cap. 2/11/2007 Price change
Mkt cap change
3/11/2006 (M Baht) 2/11/2007 (M Baht) % (M Baht)Related to PDP 1,189,947 1,975,093 66.0%
BANPU coal 161 43,751 428 116,308 165.8% 72,557 LANNA coal 11.9 4,165 20.6 7,210 73.1% 3,045 PTT gas 226 633,840 404 1,137,525 78.8% 503,685 PTTEP gas-PTT subsidiary 108 354,833 159 524,070 47.2% 169,237 EGCO power 89.5 47,119 119 62,649 33.0% 15,531 RATCH power 42.75 61,988 52 75,400 21.6% 13,413 GLOW power 30.25 44,252 35.5 51,932 17.4% 7,680 Unrelated to PDP 215,152 306,762 41.7%
RRC oil-refine PTT subsidiary 19.2 55,035 25.75 73,809 34.1% 18,775 BCP oil-refine/retail PTT subsidiary 9.35 10,464 14.3 16,004 52.9% 5,540 TOP oil-refine PTT subsidiary 61 124,442 95.5 194,823 56.6% 70,381 RPC oil-refine/retail 4.46 2,332 3.96 2,084 -11.2% 248- SUSCO oil-retail 0.48 571 0.45 536 -6.2% 36- AI other-insulator 9.5 4,750 7.1 3,550 -25.3% 1,200- BAFS other-plane fuel 11.2 4,760 11.1 5,661 -0.9% 901 AKR other- PV transformer 2.62 2,070 2.16 1,707 -17.6% 363- EASTW other-water 5.6 7,415 5 6,874 -10.7% 541- PICNI LPG-retail 0.38 1,123 0.29 857 -23.7% 266- SOLAR other- PV 7.3 2,190 2.86 858 -60.8% 1,332- UncomparableTPI oil-refine 7.2 140,400 - -IRPC oil-refine PTT subsidiary - - 6.6 128,700MDX power - 298 4.3 2,045STRD other - 180 - 132SCG power-SPP 3.92 3,744 - 4,183
Change in energy companie’s share prices within 1 yr
ช้5' อ ต�าแหนีง กรรม้การบร&ษั�ท ผลตอบแทนี ป7 2549 น้ำาย้พรชั�ย้ ร+จุ�ประภัา ปลิ�ด้กระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ ประธาน้ำกรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท .^ 219,863.01 *
ประธาน้ำกรรมัการ กฟผ.^ 37500 (เฉพาะ เบ�ย้ประชั+มั) กรรมัการ ปตท . เคมั�คอลิ 865,560
ประธาน้ำกรรมัการ บมัจุ. โ รงกลิ��น้ำน้ำ �ามั�น้ำระย้อง^ ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ น้ำาย้ณอค+ณ สี�ทธ�พงศ� รองปลิ�ด้กระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรการ บมัจุ. ไ ทย้ออย้ลิ� 85,000 ***
น้ำาย้ค+ร+จุ�ต น้ำาครทรรพ รองปลิ�ด้กระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+รโ ฮลิด้��ง^ ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (1,600,000
หากครบป?) น้ำาย้ไ กรฤทธ�A น้ำ�ลิค7หา อธ�บด้กรมัเชั�� อเพลิ�งธรรมัชัาต� กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท .สีผ. 2,289,344
น้ำาย้เมัตตา บ�น้ำเท�งสี+ข อธ�บด้กรมัธ+รก�จุพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท . 2,640,000
น้ำาย้พาน้ำ�ชั พงศ�พ�โ รด้มัอธ�บด้พ�ฒน้ำาพลิ�งงาน้ำทด้แทน้ำแลิะอน้ำ+ร�กษ�พลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+รโ ฮลิด้��ง
368,000 **** (~2,000,000 หากครบป?)
น้ำาย้วระพลิ จุ�รประด้�ษฐ�ก+ลิผ7"อ าน้ำวย้การสี าน้ำ�กงาน้ำน้ำโ ย้บาย้แลิะแผน้ำพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ปตท .สีผ.^
ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (~2,000,000 หากครบป?)
น้ำาย้สี+ชัาต� จุ�น้ำลิาวงศ�ห�วหน้ำ"าผ7"ตรวจุราชัการกระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. อะโ รเมัต�กสี�^
ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (~2,000,000 หากครบป?)
น้ำาย้น้ำเรศ สี�ตย้าร�กษ�ผ7"ตรวจุราชัการกระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ กรรมัการ บมัจุ. บางจุาก 360,000
น้ำาย้พระพลิ สีาคร�น้ำทร� กรรมัการ บมัจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+รโ ฮลิด้��ง^ ย้�งไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ (1,600,000
หากครบป?) กรรมัการ บจุ. ผลิ�ตไ ฟฟ-าราชับ+ร ไ มั6มัข"อมั7ลิ
ท�มัา: ราย้งาน้ำประจุ าป? 2549 ^ เร��มัด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งชั6วง รมัต.พน้ำ. ปCย้สีว�สีด้�A* ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งกรรมัการ 31 ว�น้ำ *** ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งกรรมัการ 10 ว�น้ำ** ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งครบ 12 เด้�อน้ำ **** ด้ ารงต าแหน้ำ6งกรรมัการ 8 เด้�อน้ำ
ผ7"ตรวจุราชัการกระทรวงพลิ�งงาน้ำ
Conflict of interest : policy v business
Permanent secretary of ministry of energy
Board of directors
Chairman of PTTChairman of EGATBoard member of PTT chemicalChairman of Rayong refinery
Dep. permanent secretary Board member of Thai oil
Board member of RATCH
Board member of RATCH
Board member of Aromatics PLC
Board member of PTTEP
Director general,Energy fuel
Board member of PTTEP
Director general of energy business Board member of PTTDirector general of Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency energy
Director of Energy Policy and Planning official
Senior official of ministry of energy
Senior official of ministry of energy
Senior official of ministry of energy
Board member of RATCHBoard member of Ratchaburi generation company
Board member of Bang chak
Dep. permanent secretary
Dep. permanent secretary
Performance of high-level energy officials in serving the government vs.
PTT Plc. (Thai gas/oil utility, the largest list company in Thailand)Attendance of
PTT board meetings*
Attendance of Automatic tariff (Ft) mechanism
mtgs**
Permanent secretary
1313/ 4/6
Director of EPPO
8/9 5/6*จุากราย้งาน้ำประจุ าป?บมัจุ. ปตท. ป? 2546** ต��งแต6มัการปร�บองค�ประกอบคณะอน้ำ+กรรมัการ Ft โด้ย้แต6งต��งให"น้ำาย้เชั�ด้พงษ�เปDน้ำประธาน้ำ แลิะน้ำาย้เมัตตาเปDน้ำรอง
ประธาน้ำ ( ปลิาย้ป? 46)
Government officials serve energy companies better than the Thai public?
100%
90%
67%
83%
Problems of current power systems (5)
• Cost structure – Unlevel playing field for comparing costs of different resource
options (only generation cost considered but not T & D)
– Externality costs not considered
– Residential, rural customers forced to pay for same costs for high reliability standards caused by commercial and industrial consumers
– Favorable treatment of nuclear compared to RE
• Governance– Conflict of interests
– Trans-national private capital (e.g. powerful Chinese energy
firms) not accountable to local people
Marginal Generation Costs (cont.)
• Capacity cost* 36 US$/kW/Year (1,290 Baht/kW/Year)
• Energy cost 2.36 US cents/kWh ( 0.85 Baht/kWh)• Total 2.89 US cents/kWh ( 1.04 Baht/kWh)
* Capacity cost is low because of capacity surplus
US$ 1 = Baht 36
Marginal Transmission Costs(PwC, Jan. 2000)
LRAIC results Per kW per year Per kWh in peak hours*
Baht US$ Baht US cents
Generator to exit 500:230kV 939 26.10 0.36 0.99
Exit 500:230kV to exit 230:115/69kV 747 20.75 0.28 0.79
Exit 230:115 kV to end-115kV lines 1,173 32.59 0.45 1.24
End 115kV lines to exit 115: MV 573 15.91 0.22 0.61
*Ratio of kWh sales to kW peak demand Energy sales (GWh) during system peak (0900-2200 Mon-Fri) 34,271 Demand at system peak (GW) 13 Ratio of kW to kWh 0.000380
หากไม้ปร�บแผนี PDP2007 เราจำะม้�ไฟฟ�าส�ารองล�นีเก&นีในีระบบ
ร�อยละข้องก�า ล�งการผล&ตส�า รองหากไ ม้ม้�การปร�บแผนีพ�ฒนีาก�า ล�งการผล&ตไ ฟฟ�า
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
Yea
r
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
ป7
ReserveMargin
ภาระการลงท�นีสวนีเก&นี
400,000 ล�านีบาท
ท�มัา มั7ลิน้ำ�ธ�น้ำโย้บาย้สี+ขภัาวะ 2552
Levelized Cost of different options
Plant TypeCapacity Factor
(%)Levelized
Capital Cost Fixed O&MVariable O&M
(including fuel)Total Levelized
Generation Cost
Conventional Coal 85 64.5 3.7 23 91.2
Advanced Coal 85 75.6 5.2 19.3 100.1
Natural Gas-fired
- Conventional Combined Cycle 87 23 1.6 55.7 80.3
- Conventional Combustion Turbine 30 41.3 4.6 83.6 129.5
Advanced Nuclear 90 84.2 11.4 8.7 104.3
Wind 35.1 122.7 10.3 0 133
Solar PV 21.7 376.6 6.2 0 382.8
Solar Thermal 31.2 232.1 21.3 0 253.4
Geothermal 90 86 20.7 0 106.7
Biomass 83 71.7 8.9 23 103.6
Hydro 52 97.2 3.3 6.1 106.6
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2009 (revised), April 2009, SR-OIAF/2009-03, eia.doe.gov