Scenarios on Power Generation in Thailand: Uncertainty of Nuclear and Coal Options

Authors

  • Weerin Wangjiraniran Chulalongkorn University
  • Raksanai Nidhiritdhikrai Chulalongkorn University
  • Bundhit Eua-Arporn Chulalongkorn University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4186/ej.2013.17.3.9

Keywords:

Energy scenario, power generation, public acceptance, generation cost.

Abstract

The objective of this study is to explore the possible scenarios under the constraint of nuclear and coal-fired power development. In addition, the consequence on the overall cost, greenhouse gas and diversification index of Thailand power generation system is also investigated. The reference scenario has been created on the basis of the recent power development plan (PDP2010). Three alternative scenarios with the repeal of nuclear power plant (NPP), coal-fired power and their combination have been comparatively simulated. The results show that the overall cost for the worst case without NPP and coal-fired power will increase significantly the overall cost up to 33.8 percent in 2030 compared to the reference scenario. It is caused by the replacement with higher price technology of natural gas combine cycle together with the higher fuel price due to the LNG import. In addition, diversification index will be double in this case. In term of the environmental concern, the GHG emission will possibly increase by 25.1 percent for the case of coal replacing NPP.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Weerin Wangjiraniran

Energy Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Raksanai Nidhiritdhikrai

Energy Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Bundhit Eua-Arporn

Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Published

Vol 17 No 3, Jan 2, 2013

How to Cite

[1]
W. Wangjiraniran, R. Nidhiritdhikrai, and B. Eua-Arporn, “Scenarios on Power Generation in Thailand: Uncertainty of Nuclear and Coal Options”, Eng. J., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 9-16, Jan. 2013.