Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
March 2012
Prepared for:
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Prepared by:
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Mitsubishi Corporation
Chiyoda Corporation
Reproduction Prohibited
Preface
This report summarizes the results of the "Study on Private-Initiative Infrastructure Projects in
Developing Countries" in FY 2011, entrusted to the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, Mitsubishi
Corporation, and Chiyoda Corporation by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
This study entitled "Study on the Coal Gasification and Power Generation Project in Mae Moh, the
Kingdom of Thailand" was carried out in order to assess the feasibility of the project to introduce
Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants at a cost of between 110 and 125 billion
yen. The project aims to make effective use of lignite produced in the Mae Moh Coal Mine, to improve
the power source structure heavily relying on gas-fired power generation (to diversify energy sources),
to solve problems inherent in Thailand, such as the opposition movement against the construction of
coal-fired power plants caused by the past air pollution problem (to further improve environmental
measures), and to take climate change measures.
We sincerely hope this report will contribute to the implementation of the aforementioned project and
provide practical information to parties concerned in Japan.
March 2012
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Mitsubishi Corporation
Chiyoda Corporation
Chiang Mai
Project Site
Bangkok
Abbreviations
AGR
ASU
B/C
Benefit/Cost
BOI
CCS
CCT
CDM
COD
COP17
CaO
Calcium Oxide
ECA
EGAT
EHIA
EIA
EIRR
EPC
EPRI
FEED
FIRR
FS
Feasibility Study
GDP
GTCC
HHV
HPS
HR
Heat Rate
HRSG
IGCC
IMF
IPP
ISO
JBIC
JBR
JETRO
JICA
LHV
LPG
LTGC
MDEA
Methyldiethanolamine
MHI
MPS
NEDO
NEPC
NETL
NGCC
NPV
O&M
ODA
PDP 2010
PPP
RWE
Rheinisch-Westfalisches Elektrizitatswerk
SC
Supercritical
SCGP
SGC
Syngas Cooler
SPP
SRU
SS
Suspended Solid
UNFCCC
USC
Ultra Supercritical
VSPP
WACC
WTA
toe
Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1
(1) Background, necessity, etc. of the project.......................................................................................2
(2) Basic policy concerning the determination of project contents.......................................................2
(3) Outline of the project ......................................................................................................................3
(4) Implementation schedule ................................................................................................................4
(5) Feasibility concerning operation.....................................................................................................6
(6) Technical advantages of Japanese companies.................................................................................6
(7) Concrete schedule for the project completion and risks that may prevent the completion .............6
(8) Map showing the project site in the country surveyed....................................................................8
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
b) Understanding and analysis of the problems required for considering and deciding the
details of the project......................................................................................................................50
c) Consideration of the technical methods .........................................................................................57
(3) Overview of the Project ................................................................................................................67
a) Basic policy for deciding the details of the project ........................................................................67
b) Conceptual design and specifications of the applicable facilities ..................................................67
c) Details of the proposed project (oxygen-blown gasification) ........................................................71
d) Details of the proposed project (air-blown gasification)................................................................95
e) Current Situation of Coal Mines and Coal Procurement Plan......................................................105
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
List of Figures
Figure S-1 FIRR calculation result ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure S-2 Overall schedule of the project ................................................................................................ 5
Figure S-3 Project Site Map....................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 1-1 Changes in real GDP growth rate of Thailand........................................................................ 13
Figure 1-2 GDP per capita by region in Thailand (2007-08 average)...................................................... 15
Figure 1-3 Changes in the balance between revenues and expenditures in Thailand............................... 16
Figure 1-4 Changes in primary energy supply......................................................................................... 18
Figure 1-5 Domestic production and exports and imports (2009) ........................................................... 18
Figure 1-6 Changes in final energy consumption .................................................................................... 19
Figure 1-7 Outlook of primary energy supply ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 1-8 Changes in generated electricity by fuel type......................................................................... 20
Figure 1-9 Changes in electric power demand by use ............................................................................. 20
Figure 1-10 Power demand and peak demand forecast (as of February 2010) ........................................ 21
Figure 1-11 Power Development Plan (2010-2030) ................................................................................ 22
Figure 1-12 Site Location ........................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 2-1 Study Framework ................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 2-2 Study Framework ................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3-1 EGAT Power Source Composition in 2010............................................................................ 36
Figure 3-2 Kingdom of Thailand ............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 3-3 Mae Moh District, Lampang .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3-4 Mae Moh Coal Mine and Power Plant ................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-5 Load Factor ............................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 3-6 Tendency of Plant efficiency (Total fuel: HHV) .................................................................... 44
Figure 3-7 Monthly Peak Output (MW) .................................................................................................. 48
Figure 3-8 Typical Daily Output (Max & Min) ....................................................................................... 49
Figure 3-9 Candidate Sites for New IGCC Power Plant.......................................................................... 51
Figure 3-10 Candidate Site for New IGCC Power Plant (Next to Unit 13) ............................................. 52
Figure 3-11 Candidate Site for New IGCC Power Plant (Outside Power Plant Area) ............................. 52
Figure 3-12 Candidate Site for New IGCC Power Plant (Backside, Option) .......................................... 53
Figure 3-13 Mechang Reservoir .............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 3-14 Regulating Pond................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 3-15 Electric Power System of Thailand ...................................................................................... 56
Figure 3-16 Anticipated Improvement of Steam Turbine Efficiency by Introducing the SC and USC
Coal-Fired Power Plants to the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant ......................................... 59
Figure 3-17 Boiler Design Examples Depending on Type of Coal Used for Coal-Fired Power Plant
(660 MW) ............................................................................................................................ 61
Figure 3-18 Temperature and Precipitation in Vicinity of Mae Moh District .......................................... 69
Figure 3-19 Facility Configuration Diagram of Coal-Fired IGCC Plant ................................................. 71
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Key Cabinet Ministers of Thailand (As of August 2011)......................................................... 11
Table 1-2 Major economic policies of the new administration of Thailand............................................. 17
Table 1-3 Power Generation Facilities of Mae Moh Power Plant............................................................ 24
Table 2-1 Members of Study Team.......................................................................................................... 29
Table 2-2 Counterpart .............................................................................................................................. 30
Table 2-3 First Field Study ...................................................................................................................... 32
Table 2-4 Second Field Study .................................................................................................................. 33
Table 2-5 Third Field Study (Scheduled)................................................................................................. 34
Table 3-1 Scope of Investigation for Construction Work in This Project ................................................ 39
Table 3-2 Specifications of Existing Power Generation Facilities........................................................... 40
Table 3-3 Operation Records of Existing Power Generation Facilities (2006 to 2010) ........................... 42
Table 3-4 Latest Performance Test (Typical Coal: HHV) ........................................................................ 44
Table 3-5 Anticipated Improvement of Boiler Efficiency by Introducing the SC and USC
Coal-Fired Power Plants to the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant ............................................. 58
Table 3-6 Anticipated Improvement of Plant Heat Efficiency ................................................................. 60
Table 3-7 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Technologies .......................................................... 65
Table 3-8 USC Coal-Fired Power Plants (Japan)..................................................................................... 66
Table 3-9 SC/USC Coal-Fired Power Plants (Overseas) ......................................................................... 66
Table 3-10 Design Conditions (For Performance Calculation in This Survey)........................................ 68
Table 3-11 Temperature and Humidity in Vicinity of Mae Moh District (1981 to 2010) ........................ 68
Table 3-12 Precipitation in Vicinity of Mae Moh District (1981 to 2010)............................................... 68
Table 3-13 Atmospheric Pressure in Vicinity of Mae Moh District (1981 to 2010) ................................ 69
Table 3-14 Design Load of Foundation of Existing Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant.............................. 70
Table 3-15 Coal Properties....................................................................................................................... 70
Table 3-16 Coal Ash Properties ............................................................................................................... 71
Table 3-17 Oxygen-Blown Gasification Processes in Operation ............................................................. 73
Table 3-18 Estimated Construction Cost of Power Generation Facilities ................................................ 93
Table 3-19 Comparison of Plant Cost and Electricity Unit Price of Power Generation Facilities ........... 93
Table 3-20 Major Equipment Specification ............................................................................................. 95
Table 3-21 Power Generation Performance of Air-blown IGCC ........................................................... 102
Table 3-22 Process Performance of Air-blown IGCC............................................................................ 102
Table 3-23 Auxiliary Power Consumption of Air-blown IGCC............................................................. 102
Table 3-24 Flue Gas Condition of Air-blown IGCC (@Stack Outlet) ................................................... 103
Table 3-25 Effluent Condition of Air-blown IGCC ............................................................................... 103
Table 3-26 Utility Consumption of Air-blown IGCC ............................................................................ 104
Table 3-27 Quality of Raw Coal at Mae Moh Coal Mine .......................................................................111
Table 3-28 Combinations of Equipments Used for Mining ....................................................................111
Executive Summary
-2-
FIRR%
Air Blown
Oxygen Blown
WACC: 7 .7%
(Intere st:6 .5 %)
WACC: 4.5 %
(In te re st:2.5 %)
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
Electricity selling priceUS$/kWh
0.11
0.12
-3-
NPV
B/C
Oxygen-blown IGCC
277 million US$
1.26
Air-blown IGCC
428 million US$
1.32
An alternative project (here this refers to ultra supercritical (USC) power plant that uses imported coals as
fuel and GTCC that use imported LNG as fuel) with the same power generation (net) as that of the
relevant project was selected for EIRR. The costs of the relevant project were set as expenditures and the
costs of the alternative project as benefits to derive the equivalent reduction rate of both costs. Then,
EGAT evaluated the economic efficiency of the project by comparing the equivalent reduction rate with
the discount rate (interest + 4 - 5%) used to review the power resources development. The following
results were derived from the comparison with oxygen-blown IGCC (with lower FIRR), which showed
that the IGCC economically surpasses the alternative project.
EIRR of the relevant project compared to USC:
EIRR of the relevant project compared to GTCC:
10.0%
19.3%
Although the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant has been improving its environmental performance, its
facilities are becoming old-fashioned. They meet the current environmental standard, but from the view of
predicted future, the facility investment utilizing the clean coal technology is required for continually
environmental improvement.
Implementation of this project will bring much effect in environment improvement. More effect in
environment improvement will be expected for the air quality, the water quality, Waste (coal ash), or the
like.
We have already obtained some proper information about EHIA upon completion of this investigation.
Because the current members of consultation with EGAT will be wholly stakeholders of this project, they
should subsequently cooperate with the EGAT Investigation Team.
-4-
-5-
(7) Concrete schedule for the project completion and risks that
may prevent the completion
a) Utilization of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scheme
A great amount of fund is necessary in order to start the operation of IGCC plant, from the stage of
detailed project feasibility investigation to detailed design and construction. The initial costs for this
project are very high compared to those of other power generation projects. Therefore, it has fallen into
the vicious cycle: feasibility of the project decreases significantly due to the payment of interest, etc. and it
is unable to make a final decision to invest in the project unable to accumulate know-how on a
commercial basis no progress in the development of competitive IGCC plants.
-6-
In order to improve the economic efficiency of the project and for the operating bodies of IGCC projects
to make a final decision to invest in a project, financial support to alleviate a heavy burden of initial
investment costs of the operating bodies is necessary under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) scheme,
from the stage of detailed project feasibility investigation to detailed design and construction.
On the other hand, operating bodies need to request contractors of IGCC plant construction (Japanese
makers, engineering companies, etc.) to present competitive construction costs, while IGCC plant makers
should try to reduce costs continuously.
b) Utilization of the low-interest loan system
As stated in (3) b) "Outline of results of the preliminary analysis for finance and economy," it is difficult to
carry out the project with the interest of a city bank and the project needs to prepare to receive a
low-interest loan such as JICA overseas loans, etc.
c) Necessity of shortening the period of approval process
In Thailand, approval of EGAT and the government is required for the establishment of a power plant, and
it is necessary to estimate the time for the procedure.
The Pollution Control Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental holds jurisdiction over the legal
basis of the current procedures, and the name of the act is Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental
Quality Act B.E. 2535 (abbreviated as NEQA1992) (Chapter 4, (4) Overview of Related Laws and Regulations for
Environmental and Social Considerations in Host Country).
-7-
Chiang Mai
Project Site
Bangkok
(Source) Prepared by Study Team based on Website of the Global Internet Partner Utopia Co., Ltd.
-8-
Chapter 1
- 10 -
Name
Prime Minister
Yingluck Shinawatra
Deputy Prime
Minister
Deputy Prime
Minister
Deputy Prime
Minister
Yongyuth Wichaidit
Deputy Prime
Minister
Deputy Prime
Minister
Minister of Finance
Kittirat na Ranong
Minister of Defense
Minister of Foreign
Affairs
Minister of
Commerce
Minister of Justice
Chalerm Yoobamrung
Kowit Watana
Chumpol Silpa-archa
Thirachai
Phuvanatnaranubala
Yuthasak Sasiprapha
Surapong
Towichukchaikul
Kittirat na Ranong
Minister of Industry
Preecha
Rengsomboonsuk
Wannarat Charnnukul
Minister of Energy
Pichai Naripthaphan
Career
Former president of SC Asset Corporation and
Advance Info Service (AIS)
Chairman of the Pheu Thai Party
Police Captain, Former Minister of Interior, Former
Minister of Justice
Police General, Former Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Interior, Former Police Commissioner
General
President of Shinawatra University, Former managing
director of the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET)
Minister of Tourism and Sports, Former President of
the Senate
Secretary-General of the Securities and Exchange
Commission of Thailand
Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai
Army
Deputy Chairman of the Pheu Thai Party
President of Shinawatra University, Former managing
director of the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET)
Former Minister of Industry, Former Police
Commissioner General
Former Minister of Energy, Former Advisor of
Deputy Prime Minister, Former Advisor of Minister
of Labor
Former Deputy Minister of Finance, Former owner of
a jewelry company
- 11 -
administration conferred with the former Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, the leader of the opposition
party, Democrats, who competed with Yingluck for political power in the general election in July, and
started to implement assistance measures. In October 2011, Thailand Board of Investment (BOI)
announced that it would permit the immediate transfer of the machinery and raw materials in factories and
other places without prior BOI approval. In the same month, the government announced that it decided to
establish three special committees to facilitate restoration and showed its willingness to accelerate efforts
toward an early settlement of this problem.
In the meantime, while the flood problem is moving toward resolution with its peak in November 2011, it
has been discussed who should be held responsible for the escalation of the problem. Especially Theera
Wongsamut, Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, is increasingly accused of since the Royal
Irrigation Department is thought to be largely responsible for this problem. In addition to this problem,
opposition parties strongly opposed that the current administration has paved the way for Thaksin's return,
because in December 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued Thailand's passport to the former prime
minister, living in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). There is a possibility that Thailand will
continue to be in political turmoil.
b) Economic conditions
1) General economic conditions in Thailand
Thailand has generally maintained high economic growth rate over the past 30 years, despite the
economic crisis in the late 1990s (Figure 1-1). Thailand, whose industrial structure originally relied on
agriculture, started to achieve high growth rate due to growing industrialization in the 1980s2. One reason
behind this was that many Japanese companies found their way into Thailand since they are forced to
move production overseas due to the appreciation of the yen against the dollar after the Plaza Accord. Thai
government took a policy to strongly attract such investments and increase imports to achieve high
economic growth rate. Owing to this policy taken by Thai government, Thailand could achieve economic
growth rate of above 5%/y from the 1980s to the mid-1990s.
In the 1990s, Thai economy continued to grow steadily partly due to increasing foreign investment
associated with financial deregulation in Thailand, but it gradually began to show signs of a bubble
because of excessive capital investment and booming real estate prices. Under these circumstances, there
has been a movement to instead withdraw investment from Thailand since around 1995, and the
downward pressure has increased on Thai baht, which was under a fixed exchange rate system at the time.
In response, in July 1997, Thai government switched to a managed floating exchange rate system. As a
result, the exchange rate of the baht against the US dollar in 1996 was about 25 baht to the dollar and
plunged to 50 baht in the beginning of 1998. Because of this plunge of the baht, most financial institutions
in Thailand were placed in a predicament, which accepted deposits denominated in foreign currencies and
provided long term loans to domestic companies, and liquidity shortage occurred in the financial market
in Thailand. Consequently, Thai economy had to suffer a negative growth in 1997 and 1998.
Note that agriculture is still the biggest industry, employing 40% of the labor force. (From the website of the Ministry of the
Foreign Affairs)
- 12 -
2014
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
-15.0%
(Note)
Values for 2009 and 2010 are estimates. Values for 2011 and after are projections by the
International Monetary Fund (IMF).
(Source) International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Outlook Database
After that, Thai government received emergency assistance from the international community, including
the IMF, and pursued economic reconstruction such as the disposal of nonperforming loans. Owing to this,
Thai economy began to recover again in 2000. The Thaksin administration, which took office in 2001,
shifted from its traditional economic management with the emphasis on exports to one aiming to expand
domestic consumption along with exports, and provided support to rural areas and small and
medium-sized enterprises. Thanks to expansion of domestic demand along with exports, Thai economy
has again achieved economic growth rate as high as 5% until 2007.
When the Lehman Shock occurred in 2008, the global economic downturn hit hard Thailand's exports,
which had been supporting the country's economy, leading to a fall in the income level. Thailand's
economic growth slowed to 2.5% in 2008 and -2.3% in 2009. In response, Thai government implemented
stimulus measures through increasing public spending, including reduction of the policy interest rate by
the Bank of Thailand and reduction of the price of electricity to the poor. As external demand recovers,
Thai economy is turning up again. Thai government projects the growth rate at 7.9% in 2010 and
3.5-4.5% in 20113, and the IMF projects the growth rate at 7.8% in 2010 and 4.0% in 2011.
Foreign investment in Thailand has increased steadily. Foreign direct investment in Thailand in 2009
decreased by 224 (26.7%) to 614 in terms of number of projects and by 59.5% to 142,077.4 million baht
in terms of monetary value from the previous year (on approval basis, projects with foreign capital of at
least 10%) partly due to the Lehman Shock. However, projects submitted (the number of projects
submitted is a leading indicator of investments) in 2009 increased by 17.9% to 350,755.4 million baht in
terms of monetary value from the previous year, despite a slight decrease to 788 in terms of number of
projects4. Thailand is thought to remain attractive as an investment destination because of the advantage of
the concentration of a wide range of industries and its potentiality as a market of finished products, though
there is an investment risk associated with uncertain political conditions and anti-government
demonstrations.
3
- 13 -
JETRO Global Trade and Investment Report: Thailand from the website of JETRO
(http://www.jetro.go.jp/world/gtir/2010/pdf/2010-th.pdf) Access date: August 15, 2011
- 14 -
these measures, tensions between people from different regions and walks of life will be eased, and
actually, a fierce anti-government movement, as happened before, has not arisen at the time of writing (as
of February 2012).
Figure 1-2 GDP per capita by region in Thailand (2007-08 average)
In Thailand, it is stipulated by the law that government borrowing is reduced to not more than 20% of the total
expenditures.
- 15 -
Figure 1-3 Changes in the balance between revenues and expenditures in Thailand
Unit: Billion baht
Revenues - Expenditures
200
100
10%
6%
5%
-2%
0%
-2%
-2%
-5%
-100
-7%
-10%
-200
-11%
-300
-400
-20%
-22%
-22%
2010/2011
2009/2010
-25%
2008/2009
2007/2008
2006/2007
2005/2006
2004/2005
2003/2004
-500
-15%
Nikkei Newspaper (September 24, 2011) Note that the decline of domestic prices is thought to have been significantly
contributed by the decline of international crude oil prices in early August.
8
Nikkei Newspaper (September 24, 2011)
- 16 -
Implementation status
Implemented on August 27
Implemented on September 16
Implemented on September 22
To be implemented on October 7
- 17 -
2000
2001
Coal
2002
Oil
2003
2004
2005
Natural gas
2006
2007
2008
2009
60
50
42.8
41.2
40
16.2
30
19.2
13.6
5.2
20
0.6
10
13.8
0.0
10.6
0
Oil
Natural
gas
Domestic production
0.1
7.5
Coal
Export
0.2
Others
- 18 -
Import
Total
The final energy consumption was 76 Mtoe in 2009, and has increased by an average 4 %/y in the decade
from 1999 to 2009. By sector, in 2009, the industrial sector comes first with 32 percent, followed by the
transportation sector with 25 percent, the consumer sector with 20 percent (Figure 1-6).
Figure 1-6 Changes in final energy consumption
Mtoe
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
Industrial sector
2003
2004
Transportation sector
2005
2006
2007
Consumer sector
2008
2009
Others
200
150
100
50
0
2008
2020
Coal
Oil
2030
Natural gas
2035
(Source) The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ), Asia/World Energy Outlook 2011
- 19 -
2000
2001
Coal
2002
Oil
2003
2004
Natural gas
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2000
2001
Industrial use
2002
2003
2004
Commercial use
- 20 -
2005
2006
Residential use
2007
Others
2008
2009
According to Summary of Thailand Power Development Plan 2010-2030 (PDP 2010), as of December
2009, the total contract capacity was 29,212 megawatt (MW) comprising 14,328.1 MW (49 percent) of
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT)'s power plants, 14,243.9 MW (49 percent) of IPPs
and SPPs9 and 640 MW (2 percent) of power purchase from Laos or Malaysia.
According to the power demand forecast in PDP 2010, an average growth rate of the forecasted energy
demand during 2010 - 2030 is 4%/y, and the forecasted peak demand in 2030 is 52,890 MW, 2.4 times
higher than that in 2009. Power demand is expected to increase by 4%/y from 146 TWh in 2009, reaching
348 TWh in 2030, 2.4 times higher than that in 2009 (Figure 1-10).
Figure 1-10 Power demand and peak demand forecast (as of February 2010)
400
350
80
Peak dmand
Power demand (left axis)
300
60
250
50
200
40
150
30
100
20
50
10
Peak demand GW
70
0
2007 2009 2011
Small Power Producers. They are intended to encourage power generation harnessing renewable or non-conventional
resources such as hydropower, biomass and cogeneration. They sell electricity to EGAT or consumers near power plants.
10
Very Small Power Producers. They are defined as power producers with generating capacity of less than 10 MW. Like
SPPs, they sell electricity to EGAT or consumers near power plants.
11
In 1999, the government decided in a cabinet meeting to replace other fuels with natural gas in the power sector. After that,
the construction of oil fired power plants is basically prohibited.
- 21 -
was as high as 71 percent as of 2009, dependence on imports of natural gas is expected to increase. Since
"Thailand's Energy Policy" announced by Thailand's Ex-Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in December
2008 includes the policy that the share of natural gas should not exceed 70 percent, there are questions
about the increased dependence on natural gas from the standpoint of energy security.
Under these circumstances, EGAT is amending PDP 2010, which is scheduled to be issued in the spring
of 2012.
Figure 1-11 Power Development Plan (2010-2030)
GW
70
Others
60
Imports
Nuclear power
50
Renewable energy
40
Natural gas
(including cogeneration)
Coal (including lignite)
30
Oil
Hydropower
10
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
- 22 -
Mae Moh
- 23 -
Capacity (MW)
Rated Capacity
Current Output
75
retired
75
retired
1979
75
retired
1981
150
150
1984
2000
150
150
1984
2000
150
150
1985
1999
150
150
1985
1999
300
300
1989
1997
300
300
1990
1997
10
300
300
1991
1998
11
300
300
1992
1998
12
300
300
1995
1995
13
300
300
1995
1995
2,625
2,400
Total
- 24 -
Chapter 2
Study Methodology
1) Since Thailand is in a precarious position where it relies on natural gas for above 70 percent
of its power sources, there is an urgent need to diversify energy sources including coal-fired
power generation from the standpoint of energy security.
2) It is necessary to make an effective use of lignite, precious domestic resources, produced in
the Mae Moh Coal Mine, in addition to the introduction of LNG based on an assumption that
the domestic production of natural gas will peak out around 2015.
3) The promotion of cooperation to international efforts for greenhouse gas reduction.
4) The situation where the construction of coal-fired power plants is difficult because of public
aversion to coal-fired power plants.
It is also considered that the existing and aging Mae Moh subcritical pressure, lignite-fired power plant
13
- 26 -
- 27 -
Chiyoda Corporation
- 28 -
Tetsuo Morikawa
Makoto Akimoto
Yoshikazu Kobayashi
Reiko Takeuchi
Masaru Murata
Michio Nakajima
Keisuke Tanaka
Takuya Inoue
Kazuhiro Watanabe
Krit Tangvisutthijit
Lalintip Tantadprasert
Saowarat Techamaneerat
Ryouzo watari
Noboru Takei
Kazuhito Ichihara
Hideyuki Okano
Takehiko Inagaki
Company
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Director, Charge of Electric Power & Coal Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Coal Group, Electric Power & Coal Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Coal Group, Electric Power & Coal Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Electric Power Group, Electric Power & Coal
Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Gas Group, Oil & Gas Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Gas Group, Oil & Gas Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Oil Group, Oil & Gas Unit
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Electric Power & Coal Unit
Mitsubishi Corporation
Shared Service Office
Mitsubishi Corporation
Shared Service Office
Mitsubishi Corporation
Power System Internatonal Unit
Mitsubishi Corporation
Power System Internatonal Unit
Thai-MC Company Limited
Machinery Dept. A
Thai-MC Company Limited
Machinery Dept. A
Thai-MC Company Limited
Machinery Dept. A
Thai-MC Company Limited
Machinery Dept. A
Chiyoda Corporation
CSR Divisio
Chiyoda Corporation
Senior Group Leader, Energy & Environmental
Project Dept.
Chiyoda Corporation
Process Engineer, Energy & Environmental
Project Dept.
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd.
Overseas Thermal Power Enginieering Dept.
Mechanical Group
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd.
Overseas Thermal Power Enginieering Dept.
- 29 -
Role assigned
Project manager
Economic and financial analysis
(overall)
Coal procurement, bilateral carbon
crediting
General affairs (socio-economy)
General affairs (electricity and
energy), feasibility projection
Effectiveness of syngas production
options
General affairs (electricity and
energy)
Assistance in data reduction and
table creation etc.
Technical aspects, project cost
Technical aspects, project cost
Project cost, review for PPP
Local survey coordination, General
information of Thailand
Coordination with customers,
review for PPP
Local survey coordination, local
survey interpretation
Local survey coordination, local
survey interpretation
Local survey coordination, local
survey interpretation
Technical aspects: IGCC
specifications, conceptual design
Technical aspects: IGCC
specifications, conceptual design
Technical aspects: IGCC
specifications, conceptual design
Thermal power generation planning
Survey regarding environmental and
social considerations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Name
Mr. Paskorn Dangsmakr
Mr. Suwin Ajjimangkul
Mr. Surapan Chuensiri
Mrs. Montharee Suvatanadecha
Mrs. Sriwan Buranachokepisal
Mr. Charan Khumngeon
Mr. Ampon Kitichotkul
Mr. Wallop Rirksutthirat
Mr. Sivarak Mahitthiburin
Mr. Paramaet Payattapin
Miss Jiraporn Sirikum
Mr. Sompan Prakthong
Miss Weena Singhnil
Mr. Piriya Tongchiew
Miss Thanawadee Deetae
Mr. Worapoch Kamutavanich
Mr. Watchara Pinpetch
Position
Project Development and Planning Division
Planning and Quality Development Division
Civil and Hydro Power Engineering Division
Mechanical Engineering Division
Project Development and Planning Division
Mae Moh Power Plant Production Division
Mae Moh Mine Planning and Administration Division
Civil and Hydro Power Engineering Division
Environmental Division
Energy Resources Engineering Division
System Planning Division
Power Plant Development Planning Division
Power Plant Development Planning Division
Mae Moh Power Plant Production Division
System Planning Division
Project Development and Planning Division
Project Development and Planning Division
- 30 -
a) Domestic Study
In the preliminary study, in order to request the counterpart to provide information and data, we organized
existing information, and collected information and data necessary in deciding the specification of IGCC
plants and conceptual design, and conducting environmental and social considerations and profitability
assessment.
After the first field study, we investigated the specification of IGCC plants, conceptual design,
environmental and social considerations, economic analysis and general information.
After the second field study, based on the results of consultation with the counterpart and additional
information, we made the final decision on the specification of IGCC plants and construction costs,
conducted an economic analysis, and considered the feasibility of the project.
After the third field study, we brushed up the reports, including the results of consultation with parties
concerned in the partner country.
b) Field Study
The outline of field studies is as follows.
1) First Field Study
Term: From Sunday, August 14 to Saturday, August 20
Members:
Hirohito Morita
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Atsuo Sagawa
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
Keisuke Tanaka
Mitsubishi Corporation
Ryuzo Watari
Chiyoda Corporation
Takehiko Inagaki
Tokyo Electric Power Services Co., Ltd.
Krit Tangvisutthijit
Thai-MC Company Limited
Details:
Brief explanation of the project to EGAT Governor and Deputy Governor
Meeting with the EGAT project team (counterpart) (brief explanation of the project,
explanation of the study details, and request for data, etc.)
Site visit in Mae Moh (brief explanation of the project, explanation of the study details,
request for data, and site inspection, etc.)
Reports to the organizations concerned in Japan (brief explanation of the project, explanation
of the study details, etc.)
- 31 -
Accommodation
Sunday,
August 14
Bangkok
Monday,
August 15
Bangkok
Tuesday,
August 16
Wednesday,
August 17
Thursday,
August 18
Friday,
August 19
Saturday,
August 20
Lampang
Lampang
Bangkok
Flying overnight
(Note)
- 32 -
Accommodation
Monday,
December 12
Bangkok
Tuesday,
December 13
Chiang Mai
Wednesday,
December 14
Thursday,
December 15
Friday,
December 16
Saturday,
December 17
- 33 -
Lampang
Chiang Mai
Flying overnight
February 13
February 14
Wednesday,
February 15
Thursday,
February 16
Friday,
February 17
Saturday,
February 18
Destination / Details
Travel: Tokyo => Bangkok
Ministry of Energy / Reports of results of the study
Embassy of Japan, JICA / Reports of results of the
study
Accommodation
Bangkok
Bangkok
- 34 -
Chapter 3
Gas turbine
276 GWh
(0.48%)
Gas-fired
10,831 GWh
(18.79%)
Combined cycle
23,167 GWh
(40,20%)
Hydraulic
5,338 GWh
(9.26%)
- 36 -
Chiang Mai
Mae Moh
Bangkok
- 37 -
2400MW Sub-Critical
Power Plant at Mae Moh
2 km
- 38 -
facility situation.
Accordingly, this project will be considered, assuming its scope to be the 500 MW-class IGCC power
plant (one-on-one configuration).
The following table outlines the scope of construction of the IGCC power plant, or the target of this
project, at this point.
Table 3-1 Scope of Investigation for Construction Work in This Project
Target plant
Target unit
Scope of
construction
work
Outside the
scope
- 39 -
Unit4
150
-
Unit5
150
-
Unit6
150
-
Unit7
150
-
Unit8
300
300
Unit9
300
300
Unit10
300
300
Unit11
300
300
Unit12
300
300
Unit13
300
300
2,375
2,375
2,375
2,375
2,400
2,400
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1984
1984
1985
12
2023
2024
2024
ABB
(Source) EGAT, Summary of Thailand Power Development Plan 2010-2030, April 2010 edition
- 40 -
In order to introduce a supercritical pressure (SC) coal-fired power plant in place of the Units 4 to 7, the
EGAT has just started a procedure for an environmental and health impact study. For the moment, it is
planned to stop the Units 4 to 7 and construct the new plant next to the Unit 13.
This is because the Units 4 to 7 supplies power and include monitoring device, etc. for the common
facilities of the power plant, it is unrealistic to remove them, while continuing to run the Units 8 to 13. To
make use of the space of the Units 4 to 7, various facility replacement and renovation are required in
advance such as relocation of the common power source facilities of the power plant, switching of the
plant internal power system, relocation of common facility piping, and remodeling of the control units for
common facilities. Because it is necessary to wait for the boilers and turbines to be removed after
relocation of the common facilities in addition to occurrence of these relocation and remodeling expenses,
the construction starting date of new facilities will be delayed. The existing turbine building cannot be
reused because the facilities will be enlarged, increasing the load conditions. Namely, it is unrealistic in
terms of both cost and construction period to carry out removal and construction work in a narrow space
surrounded by the existing facilities. Since there is a spacious site available for new construction, the
EGAT is currently planning to construct next to the Unit 13. In constructing the IGCC power plant in this
project, a similar situation is assumed if the existing facilities are not greatly remodeled.
The Units 4 to 7 and 8 to 13 have different outputs and operation start times. The Units 4 to 7 have power
generation output of 150 MW each and have been operating for about 30 years since their start of
operation. In view of the past background, the desulfurization equipments have been additionally installed
for all of them, fully considering environmental performance. At the time of survey, the typical
environmental performance values were SO2 = 118 ppm, NOx = 280 ppm, and PM = 9 mg/Nm3. With
their facilities properly inspected and maintained, there is no remarkable output fall or degradation of
environmental performance, indicating a sufficient management system being in place.
However, the installed technologies are old fashioned and gross heat rate is lower than the current
technologies. Furthermore, the quality of mined coal has been changing these years, partly becoming
incompatible with the current boiler design conditions from time to time. Particularly, a ratio of CaO in the
ash content has risen, becoming one of the factors causing slagging. Since a boring survey expects a
higher ratio of CaO in the future, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant has been studying a CaO
distribution in a coal bed (K and Q layers), mixing the coal with high and low ratios of CaO together so as
to be available for operation, conducting various combustion tests, thus making efforts to ensure stable
combustion.
As described later, a high load factor and high facility availability have been maintained in the operational
aspect.
Accordingly, operation upkeep work at the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant indicates the high technical
quality of each engineer. Even if the state-of-the-art power plant is introduced in this project, it can be
determined that implementation of technical guidance will allow the employees to operate it. On the other
hand, the existing boilers are becoming incompatible with the coal properties, indicating the responsive
limit of the facility capabilities. It is appropriate to considering replacement at this moment.
The table on the following page shows the latest operating condition of the Units 8 to 13 at the existing
- 41 -
Total Output
(MWh)
Operating hours
(h)
Maintenance
Outage (h)
Load Factor
(%)
2006
8
9
10
11
12
13
2,105,041
1,890,986
2,045,662
2,503,108
2,485,105
2,239,541
7,169
6,689
7,009
8,526
8,515
7,672
0
1,668
1,356
0
0
607
97.88
94.24
97.29
97.86
97.28
97.30
2007
8
9
10
11
12
13
2,349,074
1,948,576
2,452,434
2,236,268
2,402,299
2,484,510
7,960
7,360
8,374
7,672
8,427
8,518
0
0
0
0
0
0
98.37
88.25
97.62
97.16
95.03
97.23
2008
8
9
10
11
12
13
2,120,041
2,483,320
2,457,900
2,440,882
2,284,446
2,231,795
7,239
8,559
8,394
8,395
7,939
7,890
1,332
0
0
0
614
653
97.62
96.72
97.60
96.92
95.91
94.29
2009
8
9
10
11
12
13
2,409,990
2,242,270
2,061,881
2,027,446
2,357,840
2,388,224
8,316
7,850
7,083
7,105
8,254
8,316
0
641
1,416
1,361
0
0
96.60
95.21
97.03
95.12
95.22
95.72
2010
8
9
10
11
12
13
2,148,626
2,345,234
2,465,768
2,482,390
2,111,957
2,110,192
7,475
8,060
8,470
8,527
7,278
7,282
636
0
0
0
1,332
1,212
95.81
96.99
97.04
97.04
96.73
96.59
- 42 -
The second most distinctive is availability. With actual operating time reaching about 7,000 to 8,000 hours,
the number of operating days is high and inoperable time due to facility troubles is little.
Accurate availability cannot be calculated because operation standby time has to be added. Even if
operation standby time is assumed to be 0 hour as the toughest case, however, the average simple
availability of all the units over 5 years is higher than 85%.
In view of its long operating time and high load factor according to the operation records of the Mae Moh
Thermal Power Plant, it is understood why it is positioned as a significant power source running at full
load as much as possible as the EGATs base power source. Accomplishment of the high load factor
means actual implementation of excellent maintenance and inspection which allows constant exhibition of
full-load operation. It is assumed that a gradual decrease of availability is a result of the latest quality
change of coal, but the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant has been still accomplishing sufficiently high
values.
As a conclusion, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant has been acting as a significant power source
through excellent operation and maintenance, while including an indefinite risk called the quality change
of coal.
Figure 3-5 Load Factor
100.00%
98.00%
96.00%
94.00%
92.00%
Unit 8
Unit 9
Unit 10
Unit 11
Unit 12
Unit 13
90.00%
88.00%
86.00%
84.00%
82.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
- 43 -
= 860/HR (%)
Fuel data is managed by higher heating values (to be referred to asHHVs) and its values are the HHVs
unless otherwise specified.
Table 3-4 Latest Performance Test (Typical Coal: HHV)
Unit 8-11
Unit 12-13
2,375
2,400
36.21%
35.83%
38.00%
37.50%
37.00%
36.50%
36.00%
35.50%
35.00%
34.50%
34.00%
33.50%
33.00%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Given that the existing Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant has been running for 20 to 30 years from the start
of operation and burning lignite, Table 3-2 and Figure 3-5 show that it has been fully exhibiting its design
performance. Figure 3-6 also shows that it has been appropriately managed.
In the aspect of performance as shown in Table 3-4, however, it has been becoming obsolete increasingly,
compared with the up-to-date thermal power generation technologies. The performance test data in Table
3-4 is of the Units 8 to 13 which started operation 15 to 20 years ago; the values are not very high.
When the properties of coal used at the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant are applied to the up-to-date
thermal power generation technologies, the value is estimated to be 37.42% for the supercritical pressure
coal-fired power plant (SC), 38.35% for the ultra supercritical pressure coal-fired power plant (USC), and
about 41.5% (net: HHV) in case of the oxygen blown method for this IGCC power plant on an HHV
basis, respectively.
- 44 -
Some data in Figure 3-6 are greater than the data in Table 3-4, but this is because the data in Figure 3-6
has been calculated based on the calorific value of total fuel added with coal and all fuel oil for auxiliary
combustion at start-up time. This is because the coal and fuel oil for auxiliary combustion cannot be split
for generated electric power. Table 3-4 shows the performance values with coal only, and Figure 3-6 is
evaluated as tendency values showing the EGATs latest management condition.
2) Future prediction
According to the PDP 2010, the peak demand in Thailand is expected to increase by 1,000 MW or more
every year.
Currently generating about 31% of the EGATs power generation on a generated electricity basis and
being the EGATs only one coal-fired power plant, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant is an extremely
significant power source in terms of both fuel balance and electric energy.
According to the PDP 2010, the power source composition of the power plants will not change for the
time being and the operating condition of the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant seems to continue as it is.
Accordingly, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant, a main power plant, is significantly positioned in future
electric power supply and demand in Thailand, and the replacement plan has been already reflected in the
PDP 2010.
Given high environmental awareness in Thailand and the EGATs future plans based on the
above-mentioned, it is very significant to implement the construction of the IGCC power plant at the Mae
Moh Thermal Power Plant.
3) Problems anticipated when this project is not implemented
If this project is not implemented, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant will age further, requiring
replacement. Preparations for replacing the Units 4 to 7 with an SC coal-fired power plant are currently
under way, but recent problems such as aging of the subsequent Units 8 to 13 and deteriorated combustion
due to the change of coal properties are anticipated.
Particularly, there is a high possibility of more frequent slagging phenomenon due to a higher CaO ratio
resulting from the change of coal properties, the current old-design power plant may have difficulty
continuing to run in the future, having an enormous influence on power supply, when the significance of
the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant in the EGAT is taken into account.
c) Effects and impacts when this project is implemented
When this project is implemented, suppose the existing coal-fired power plant is suspended from
generating 425 MW worth of electric power, gross plant efficiency will be improved by 36.21 to 48.82%
and fuel consumption will be improved by about 35% (relative value on the ggross basis). Furthermore, a
combustion condition will become suitable for the IGCC power plant with respect to the change of coal
properties, allowing us to expect stable operation.
Also, the IGCC power plant brings about various major effects owing to its high plant efficiency. The
following list the minimum possible items.
- 45 -
When the same electric energy is generated, the resources in Thailand can be used more
effectively than before because fuel consumption can be inhibited.
Gas emissions will be reduced for an improved rate of plant efficiency.
Water consumption will be reduced, resulting in less environmental burdens, because
desulfurization is implemented in the high-pressure combustion gas condition on the
following wake side of the gasifier.
A total discharge amount of coal ashes will be reduced because of the improved plant
efficiency and a lower volume due to melting of the coal ashes.
The IGCC power plant has high operational adaptability to low-grade coal and is effective to
the future change of coal properties.
Furthermore, it is expected that introduction of the first IGCC coal-fired power plant in Thailand will
bring about incidental effects such as enhanced environmental awareness in Thailand, better coexistence
with the general public living in the vicinity, acquisition of knowledge on the cutting-edge environmental
technologies, and improved technical capabilities by this project.
d) Comparison with other options
There are the following possible alternatives to introduction of the IGCC power plant. The following
compares these alternatives. Alternative 2 is further subdivided into two because there are two possible
cases of using domestic fuel or imported fuel.
Alternative 1:
Fuel shift to imported natural gas
Construction of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) thermal power plant based on imported
LNG; construction site undetermined
Alternative 2:
Construction of an ultra supercritical pressure coal-fired thermal power plant.
2-(1): Construction of an ultra supercritical pressure coal-fired thermal power plant at the Mae
Moh Thermal Power Plant.
2-(2): Construction of an ultra supercritical pressure coal-fired thermal power plant based on
imported coal; construction site undetermined.
Alternative 1:
Construction of a natural gas combined cycle thermal power plant based on imported natural gas;
construction site undetermined
This is a possible option when an overall domestic power source development plan is considered. When
the construction site is left undetermined, all the problems peculiar to the construction site such as
securement of fuel, acquisition of land, power transmission lines, industrial water (cooling water included),
and environmental problems are excluded from consideration.
Given that imported natural gas combined cycle thermal power plants have been running as main power
generation facilities in each different countries, there is no problem resulting from the plant technologies.
Accordingly, this case contributes to determination of investment priority in the EGAT and needs to be
simply compared by economic calculation with all the construction site properties eliminated.
For the economic calculation according to the imported natural gas combined cycle thermal power plant,
- 46 -
given the necessity to construct infrastructure for this case, it is realistic to include the installation costs of
an LNG terminal as minimum infrastructure.
Alternative 2:
2-(1): Construction of an ultra supercritical pressure coal-fired power plant at the Mae Moh Thermal
Power Plant
Given the facility renewal of the current subcritical pressure coal-fired power plant, introduction of an
ultra supercritical pressure (to be referred to as the USC) coal-fired power plant is the most general
method. The USC refers to higher-temperature, higher-pressure boiler steam conditions and have been
developed as subcritical pressure, supercritical pressure (SC) and ultra supercritical pressure (USC) at
large-scale plant manufacturers; it is the improvement result of the existing boiler technologies. That is to
say, it is mostly reasonable for the EGAT to intend to replace the Units 4 to 7 with the supercritical
pressure (SC) coal-fired power plant.
When the technical aspect is purely considered, there are merits and demerits in the USC coal-fired power
plant and the proposed technology, IGCC power plant, and it cannot be said which one is absolutely
superior. They are options to combine optimum methods in line with the construction site properties.
However, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant faces the problem of the change of coal quality and has to
take its conditions into full account.
Technical details are considered in Chapter 3, (2), c).
2-(2): Construction of an ultra supercritical pressure coal-fired power plant based on imported coal;
construction site undetermined
When the construction site is left undetermined, the problem of fuel supply as implemented in the Mae
Moh district is solved, as with the case in 1-(2).
When the above-mentioned three alternatives are compared, introduction of the IGCC thermal power
plant proposed this time is believed to be a very effective project in order to realize the most efficient
power source composition within a limited period, because various conditions such as the construction
site, water resource, power transmission lines and fuel have been already settled.
Since introduction of the USC coal-fired power plant in Alternative 2-(1) is also effective, it is specifically
compared as to the differences in the technological characteristics combined with construction site
conditions in following Chapter 3, (2), c).
Alternatives 1 and 2-(2), which have the construction site properties excluded, are compared in the
financial and economic practicabilities because they contribute to determination of investment priority in
the EGAT.
- 47 -
25,000.00
20,000.00
15,000.00
10,000.00
5,000.00
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
2010
- 48 -
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
8-Oct-10
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
15
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
12
:0
0
11
:0
0
9:
00
10
:0
0
8:
00
7:
00
5:
00
6:
00
4:
00
3:
00
1:
00
2:
00
0:
00
Time
- 49 -
b) Understanding and analysis of the problems required for considering and deciding the details of
the project
This project consists of one block of the IGCC thermal power plant. Device configuration per block is
one-on-one, including one coal gasifier, one gas turbine, one heat recovery steam generator and one steam
turbine.
This project survey conducted the minimum checks and examinations as follows, imperative for planning
construction of a power plant as to a proposed construction site at the existing Mae Moh Thermal Power
Plant. As a result of considering from the viewpoints of the following five items 1) to 5), this proposed
construction site was found out to be suitable for construction of the thermal power plant from every
viewpoint.
Preparations for the replacement plan of the Units 4 to 7 are now under way as to a specific layout in the
premises, but they have just started, requiring technical cooperation in near future. Accordingly, this
survey will report the conditions such as required areas, layout, etc. so as to contribute to future adjustment
instead of deciding detailed locations.
Also, the following analyses assume the maximum reuse of the existing facilities in order to curb the
project implementation expenses.
1) Fuel supply
With an adjoining coal mine, the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant problems peculiar to the site. Firstly,
fuel consumption must be designed in line with a fuel supply capacity from the coal mine. Since the coal
produced from the coal mine is used, the fuel quality depends on the coal bed. In other words, it is difficult
to mix the coal with high degree of freedom such as imported coal and necessary to run the power plant,
while finding an operable coal-mixing range, using the produced coal.
Consider the fuel supply capacity. Because the reuse of the existing facilities is a precondition, the output
was set to the 500 MW class so as to be compatible with the current ancillary facilities.
The IGCC power plant planned in this project consumes less fuel than the existing power generation
facilities, and its fuel consumption is estimated to be not greatly different from fuel consumption of one
300 MW unit (or two 150 MW units) at the existing Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant. Given that the
existing facilities have been smoothly run year after year, it is not specially difficult in terms of fuel supply
capacity to stop these units and use the IGCC power plant.
Consider the fuel quality. There are growing concerns about quality degradation of recently mined coal
due to an increasing component ratio of CaO in the ash content. Currently, the Mae Moh Thermal Power
Plant has been continuously running, while mixing the coal based on the CaO distribution in the surveyed
coal bed, but the existing boilers have experiences of forced outage due to slagging to remove the coal
ashes. Taking the CaO issue seriously, the EGAT has predicted future quality degradation of coal
properties based on boring data. In carrying out this project, it is necessary to consider the future prospect
of coal properties in designing.
- 50 -
Candidate 2
- 51 -
The candidate site slightly distant from the premises of the existing power plant can easily take the water
because it is adjacent to the reservoir, but requires fuel facilities, common facilities and renovation of
transmission lines, installation of a switching station, and collaborative control with a transmission system.
Furthermore, it is necessary to consider an office building and various maintenance spaces, resulting in
higher costs.
As a conclusion, since both this project and the replacement plan of the Units 4 to 7 are to be implemented
by the EGAT, the use of the land in the premises of the existing power plant can be planned in a
collaborative manner, and there is no problem in securing the power plant construction site at this moment
because of availability of many candidate sites.
Figure 3-10 Candidate Site for New IGCC Power Plant (Next to Unit 13)
- 52 -
Figure 3-12 Candidate Site for New IGCC Power Plant (Backside, Option)
- 53 -
- 54 -
following wake side of the gasifier, resulting in higher reactivity. When the output is the same, average
industrial water consumption is cut down. Because the gas purification facility has several options,
quantitative values cannot be set for the moment. Considering together with reduced consumption of plant
water, however, water consumption is greatly reduced with respect to the existing facilities, and as a result,
there will be an spare capacity in the capabilities of water treatment system, posing no special problem.
4) Power transmission plan
A connecting voltage and connecting point to the transmission lines will be planned, considering a tidal
current and transmission line capacity in the phase of making a future detailed plan.
As shown in Figure 3-15, however, the Mae Moh Substation, one of key substations, is high-capacity
facilities taking charge of key systems such as 115 kV, 230 kV and 500 kV key systems, and local supply
system. Based on the above, there still remains a need to consider in collaboration with other power
source projects, there will hardly be any problems.
Fig. 3-15 shows an overall layout of the EGATs electric power supply facilities such as power
transmission lines, substations, power plants. Full lines denote the existing facilities, dotted ones denote
the facilities under construction, and broken ones the facilities on the drawing board. Color-coding
indicates different voltage classes. The types of facilities are indicated by using different graphic figures.
- 55 -
- 56 -
- 57 -
As qualitative comparison of the technical aspect, Figure 3-17 shows boiler design examples depending
on the quality of coal properties.
Based on the above considerations, the Table 3-7 summarizes the performance features, qualitative
comparison results of the technical aspect, and those of the environmental aspect.
2) Comparison of the performance aspect
Consider comparison of the performance aspect.
The following describes selection of the main steam pressure, main steam temperature and reheat steam
temperature. For the subcritical pressure boiler serving as a base case, the values of the current Mae Moh
Thermal Power Plant were used as they are.
For the supercritical pressure boiler and ultra supercritical pressure boiler, given the creep properties and
economic efficiency of the material, it is necessary to turn the performance to either the pressure or
temperature. As shown in Tables 3-8 and 3-9, the overseas plants tend to have higher maximum operating
pressure and Japanese ones tend to have higher maximum operating temperature. To enhance plant
efficiency, it is generally more effective to improve the temperature than the pressure. Accordingly,
versatile values were employed for comparison in this survey, taking into account the track records of the
Japanese and overseas plants.
Since the IGCC power plant uses the heat recovery steam generator, exclusive design values are assumed
because the furnace internal temperature is lower and it is not so effective to apply the SC or USC.
Table 3-5 shows anticipated improvement of boiler efficiency by improving the pressure and temperature,
and Figure 3-16 shows anticipated improvement of steam turbine efficiency.
The plant heat efficiency can be calculated by Boiler efficiency x Turbine efficiency.
Table 3-5 Anticipated Improvement of Boiler Efficiency by Introducing the SC and USC Coal-Fired
Power Plants to the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant
Subcritical
Supercritical (SC)
80.47
80.58
80.67
- 58 -
is clear that the efficiency is improved only slightly with the boiler alone. Namely, it is understood that
introduction of the SC and USC should be evaluated with comprehensive values added with the improved
turbine efficiency. On the other hand, the boiler efficiency depends more on the coal properties than the
performance of the boiler in a way.
Figure 3-16 shows the calculation results of steam turbine efficiency improvement rate. As with Table 3-5,
the base steam turbine efficiency is the value calculated by dividing the actual plant efficiency according
to the weather conditions.
The calculation results are +3.18% (relative value) for the supercritical pressure plant and +5.64%
(relative value) for the ultra supercritical pressure plant with respect to the steam turbine efficiency base
value. According to these results, the turbine efficiency increases as the temperature and pressure become
higher. Figure 3-16 indicates that the effect of temperature rise is high. Since there is the problem of
creep properties of the material, however, it is difficult to use at extremely high temperature when it is
particularly necessary to take combustion into account such as low-grade coal.
Figure 3-16 Anticipated Improvement of Steam Turbine Efficiency by Introducing the SC and USC
Coal-Fired Power Plants to the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant
7.0
600/600
593/593
566/593
566/566
538/566
538/538
Mae Moh 400MW (Sub C)
6.0
5.0
600/600
593/593
5.64
566/593
566/566
4.0
538/566
3.18
538/538
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0.00
-1.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Rated Main Steam Pressure (MPag)
- 59 -
30.0
Plant efficiency
(%;Gross, HHV
Subcritical pressure
Supercritical
pressureSC
Ultra supercritical
pressureUSC
Abs. value
36.21
37.42
38.35
Rel. value
Base
3.33
5.91
- 60 -
The following illustrations (a) to (c) exemplify horizontally opposed burners. In order to simplify their
comparison, the burner arrangement direction (depth direction in the figure) is assumed to be of the same
width. Generally, the lignite-fired boiler is designed extended in the height direction as shown in (c). For
example, the width and height of its furnace are 1.2 times wider and 1.4 times higher, respectively, as
shown in (a) to (c).
Figure 3-17 Boiler Design Examples Depending on Type of Coal Used for
Coal-Fired Power Plant (660 MW)
(Source) Steam its generation and use, Edition:41, The Babcock & Willcox Company
What counts here is that the design differences among (a), (b) and (c) depend on the design requirements
on the part of the furnace, considering the combustion properties. Selection of the subcritical pressure,
supercritical pressure and ultra supercritical pressure boilers depends on the design of the boiler water feed
condition after a furnace layout has been decided. The boiler tube material and structure are reflected on
the design, adding the furnace structure and water feed conditions.
Generally, when designing the ultra supercritical pressure boiler, it is necessary to set the higher water feed
pressure and higher flow rate. On the contrary, since the tensile strength of the boiler tube has been
decided depending on the material, the pressure is designed with economic efficiency taken into account
without selecting the extremely high pressure. On the other hand, if the boiler volume increases because
of the conditions on the furnace side, so does a flow passage area, resulting in the lower mass velocity of
the boiler water. The lower mass velocity causes metal temperature rising on the surface of the boiler tube,
requiring design considerations. The large ultra supercritical pressure coal boilers have generally
employed a spiral structure having the slanted boiler tube, designing a tube internal flow rate at an
appropriate level. This is, however, effective for bituminous coal whose ash fusion temperature is high,
and not always suitable for lignite because the adhered ashes in the slanted boiler tube cannot be easily
removed. When the boiler tube is designed vertical, use of a rifled tube has been also developed, but the
manufactures are limited.
In view of the above, the ultra supercritical pressure boiler using the lignite requires the furnace to have a
high capacity based on the combustion condition, but on the other hand, it requires a high-pressure,
- 61 -
high-capacity water feed system which does not result in the lower mass velocity of the boiler feed water.
Given economic efficiency, it is awkward to say that this is the optimum boiler type. This type has few
track records and is technically possible. Given difficult handling of lignite combustion, etc., the
subcritical pressure boiler is usually chosen for low-grade coal worldwide.
On the contrary, the gasifier for the IGCC power plant consists of a standard gasifier and has less
custom-made design than the pulverized coal-fired boiler. A difference in combustion due to combustion
properties is controlled by adjusting an added amount of fluxant. When a required amount of gas increases,
it can be solved by installing multiple gasifier. Generally, the gasifier is deemed more applicable to
combustion of the low-grade coal than the pulverized coal-fired boiler.
Thirdly, there are various considerations for the facilities other than the volume issue when using the
low-grade coal. The most characteristic one of them is the need for an exclusive fuel supply facility.
Standard roller mills with bituminous coal are not available because of the coal properties. Since it
contains particularly high moisture, the exclusive fuel supply facility having the drying performance is
necessary when burning the lignite. The pulverized coal-fired boiler already has a proven track record, but
the high-performance models are marketed by limited manufacturers. In Japan, the gasifier currently
available for the IGCC power plant are only those using the bituminous coal and subbituminous coal, and
it is necessary to study construction of an exclusive fuel supply system having the drying performance.
Since it has already been manufactured for the pulverized coal-fired boiler, however, it is necessary to
study the design, but this issue can be solvable.
4) Qualitative comparison of the environmental aspect
Consider qualitatively the environmental performance based on the ultra supercritical boiler and the IGCC
power plant properties.
The environmental performance generally evaluates air quality, water quality, noise, vibrations and waste
materials as main items. Although the environmental and social aspects of the IGCC power plant are
considered in details in the next chapter, the following compares qualitatively the differences attributable
to the plant properties among the general matters in the environmental aspect of the plant performance.
a. Air quality
The air quality is evaluated based by diffusion of emission matters, types of emission matters and
emission amounts. The emission matters mainly attribute to the coal components, and the power
plant currently keeps running within the environmental criteria. Since the ground concentration
of each emission matter differs depending on the type of the selected gasifier, an emission
simulation should be conducted at detailed investigation time. Given that the IGCC power plant
generally has higher desulfurization performance than the current subcritical pressure boiler,
environmental degradation is prevented. Because the plant efficiency is improved in addition, an
exhaust gas emission amount is reduced by the difference of the plant efficiency, producing an
environment improvement effect, when the same power energy is generated. There is no sufficient
track record of the ultra supercritical pressure boiler which uses lignite equivalent to Mae Moh coal,
but when the supercritical pressure boiler is taken as an example, the typical values are assumed to
be SO2 = 100 ppm, NOx = 120 ppm, and PM = 50 mg/Nm3. On the other hand, the IGCC power
plant expects those values to be SO2 = 12 ppm, NOx = 50 ppm, and PM = 4.8 mg/Nm3 without
- 62 -
- 63 -
For recycling of the waste materials, part of fly ashes and part of gypsum discharged from the
desulfurization equipment are currently taken back as valuable substances to be continually
recycled such as using the clinker for backfill. The glassy slag is expected to be taken back as a
valuable substance as before to be used as a cement raw material, making no big difference in
terms of recycling.
5) Conclusion
Table 3-7 summarizes the above consideration results.
As a result of comparing the proposed technology, the IGCC power plant, and alternative technology, ultra
supercritical pressure boiler, it can be determined that the IGCC power plant is comprehensively more
suitable in the performance, technical and environmental aspects.
Particularly, given the current situation that the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant has been doing different
kinds of things for its operation because of the varying coal quality resulting from a higher ratio of CaO in
the ash content, it is preferable to select the IGCC power plant suitable for the low-grade fuel.
Furthermore, the IGCC power plant is superior to the alternative technology in all the considerations of
the performance and environmental aspects, and the Japanese technologies are expected to make
significant contributions.
As shown in Table 3-7, these consideration results do not deny the pulverized coal-fired power plants
(subcritical pressure, supercritical pressure and ultra supercritical pressure boilers). Particularly, the
subcritical pressure boiler has been the standard type so far as the lignite-fired power plant and is a
possible option when emphasizing the elements except for the performance, technical and environmental
aspects. However, the lignite-fired ultra supercritical pressure boiler does not have a sufficient proven
track record, causes concerns about the occurrence of facility failures in future operation, having a slight
inherent risk.
- 64 -
Comparison
of
performance
aspect
Qualitative
comparison
of technical
aspect
Qualitative
comparison
of
environment
al aspect
IGCC
16.1/538/538
24.5/600/600
10.0/550/550
10.0/550/550
36.21% (Gross)
38.35% (Gross)
Base
5.91% improved
(relative value)
48.82% (Gross),
41.5% (Net)
34.82% improved
(relative value)
49.06% (Gross),
43.4% (Net)
35.49% improved
(relative value)
Coal consumption
(t/hour @ 425 MW)
337.5
318.6
250.3
240.0
Slagging properties
Boiler furnace /
Gasifier design features
Base
Base
Base
Noise
Base
No particular matter
No particular matter
Vibrations
Base
No particular matter
No particular matter
Waste materials
Overall evaluation
Base
Better
Best
- 65 -
Unit Name
Unit
No.
Capacit
y (MW)
Steam condition
(MPa/ Main steam deg
C / RH steam deg C)
Start up
year
Type of Coal
CEPCO
Hekinan
700
1993
Bituminous
J Power
Tachibanawa
n
1, 2
1,050
2000
Bituminous
CEPCO
Hekinan
4, 5
1,000
2001
Bituminous
TEPCO
Hitachinaka
1,000
2003
Bituminous
TEPCO
Hirono
600
2004
Bituminous
J Power
Isogo
600
2009
Bituminous
(Source) Preparatory Survey for Indramayu Coal-fired Power Plant Project in Indonesia, JICA
Table 3-9 SC/USC Coal-Fired Power Plants (Overseas)
Company
Unit Name
Schkopau
A&B
Schw.
Pumpe A, B
Lippendorf
R&S
Unit
No.
Capacit
y (MW)
Steam condition
(MPa/ Main steam deg
C / RH steam deg C)
Start up
year
Type of Coal
492
1996
Lignite
800
19971998
Lignite
934
1999
Lignite
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Boxberg Q
915
2000
Lignite
Germany
Niederaussen
975
2003
Lignite
Canada
Genesee
495
2005
Sub-bituminous
USA
853
2007
Sub-bituminous
Germany
1,100
2010
Lignite
Canada
Keep hills
495
2011
Sub-bituminous
10
Germany
Boxberg R
670
- / 600/ 610
2011
Lignite
11
Indonesia
Paiton III
815
2012
Sub-bituminous
Walter Scott,
Jr. Energy
Center
Neurath
F&G
(Source) Preparatory Survey for Indramayu Coal-fired Power Plant Project in Indonesia, JICA
- 66 -
- 67 -
Item
Design temperature
Design condition
15 deg C
15 deg C
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Atmospheric pressure
Design relative humidity
Min./max. relative humidity
Cooling water temperature (inlet, outlet)
Annual precipitation
Max. daily precipitation
Earthquake resistance standards
Snow load
Calorific value
1.013 hPa
60%
23%/95%
15 deg C /25 deg C
1,049 mm
135.4 mm/day
Seismic Zone VI
0 kg/m2
13.21 MJ/kg
Remark
ISO condition
For calculation of generator
capacity
ISO condition
ISO condition
Cooling tower system
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
22.2
24.7
28.0
30.0
28.8
28.3
27.8
27.4
27.0
26.3
24.2
21.6
31.6
34.4
37.2
38.3
35.5
34.0
33.3
33.0
32.8
32.3
31.3
30.2
15.0
16.6
20.1
23.4
24.2
24.4
24.1
23.9
23.5
22.3
19.1
15.3
70
62
57
60
72
76
78
81
83
82
78
75
94
89
83
84
90
91
92
94
96
96
95
95
38
31
30
34
50
56
58
61
63
60
53
45
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
(Source) Climatological Data For Period 1981 - 2010, Index 48328, Station 328201-Lampang
Table 3-12 Precipitation in Vicinity of Mae Moh District (1981 to 2010)
Jan.
1
2
Avg. precipitation
(mm)
Daily max.
precipitation (mm)
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
3.2
9.4
22.8
98.3
31.6
7.8
14.3
32.9
59.7
61.3
77.3
77.4
54.8
77.4 102.2
(Source) Climatological Data For Period 1981 - 2010, Index 48328, Station 328201-Lampang
- 68 -
Table 3-13 Atmospheric Pressure in Vicinity of Mae Moh District (1981 to 2010)
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Jun.
1,013.7
1,011.4
1,009.0
1,007.4
1,006.3
1,005.3
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
1,005.3
1,005.7
1,008.0
1,011.0
1,013.5
1,009.3
(Source) Climatological Data For Period 1981 - 2010, Index 48328, Station 328201-Lampang
Figure 3-18 Temperature and Precipitation in Vicinity of Mae Moh District
Rainfall(Ave.)
Temperature (Ave.)
Average Temperature (Monthly Max)
Average Temperature (Monthly Min)
45
250
40
200
35
150
25
mm
Degree-C
30
20
100
15
10
50
5
0
0
1
10
11
12
Month
(Source) Climatological Data For Period 1981 - 2010, Index 48328, Station 328201-Lampang
c. Topography
The Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant is located adjacent to the Mae Moh Coal Mine. Since it has
been installed along with development of its coal mine, there are few restrictions on its property.
Namely, given only the topography, there are many candidate construction sites. One of the main
points of this study includes reduction of facility investment expenses by maximum reuse of the
existing facilities. A facility layout plan considering with this point is described later.
A prerequisite for earthquake-resistance design is Seismic Zone VI in terms of Mercalli intensity
scale, based on an internationally used national disability risk chart which was prepared by the UN
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. For a fundamental structure and a high-eave
building requiring earthquake-resistant performance, it must be reflected at the time of designing
the details.
The following table summarizes the survey results related to the foundation of the existing power
generation facilities as data accompanying the topography. The local power plant has detailed data
such as a pile layout drawing, etc. It is evaluated that the EGAT has sufficient technical capabilities to
- 69 -
Pile
(50 cm in diameter)
120
Pile
(90 cm in diameter)
380
50
150
475
100
300
950
Unit
%ar
%ad
%ad
%ad
%ad
%ad
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
%daf
%daf
%daf
%daf
%daf
-
Average
32.65
19.71
16.08
34.13
30.08
2.63
57.15
17.53
14.70
13.21
27.30
73.09
3.37
2.25
4.16
17.13
1.33
(Note) ar = as received basis, ad = air dry basis, daf = dry ash free basis
(Source) EGAT
- 70 -
Max
35.71
24.75
20.21
38.49
48.33
3.56
75
19.25
15.67
14.15
28.08
85.66
7.03
3.27
5.34
27.31
1.40
Min
28.13
15.47
12.67
17.88
22.52
1.96
45
15.90
13.55
11.98
26.46
64.18
1.79
0.76
3.27
4.59
1.27
Ash Analysis
(% wt)
Ash Fusion
Temperature
(AFT)
Silica
Alumina
Titania
Ferric Oxide
Calcium Oxide
Magnesia
Potassium Oxide
Sodium Oxide
Sulfur Oxide
Mangan Oxide
Initial default
Softening
Hemisphere
Flow
Unit
%db
%db
%db
%db
%db
%db
%db
%db
%db
%db
deg C
deg C
deg C
deg C
Average
18.14
8.78
0.15
13.52
28.07
3.53
0.89
1.89
23.14
0.21
1253
1285
1299
1347
Max
26.60
11.94
0.22
16.73
35.15
5.40
1.53
3.07
30.38
1.19
1353
1501
1501
1501
- 71 -
Min
11.00
5.46
0.05
12.27
22.03
2.50
0.37
1.25
10.27
0.08
1129
1153
1172
1195
WTA = German abbreviation standing for fluidized-bed drying with internal waste heat utilization
- 72 -
Table 3-17 shows the currently commercialized typical oxygen-blown gasification processes.
Table 3-17 Oxygen-Blown Gasification Processes in Operation
Process licenser
Plant
Plant installed country
Coal supply system
(1)
Shell
Buggenum
Holland
Dry feed
(2)
Uhde
Puetollano
Spain
Dry feed
(3)
GE
Tampa
United States
Wet feed
(4)
ConocoPhillips
Wabash River
United States
Wet feed
Since the wet feed system supplies the coal to the gasifier in the form of slurry substance, it contains about 30% of
moisture. A heating value is used to increase the moisture up to the internal temperature of the gasifier (1,500-1,600 deg C),
resulting in lower efficiency. Since CO is converted into CO2 and H2 of zero heating value by aqueous gasification reaction,
generation of CO2 becomes a factor of lower efficiency.
- 73 -
Shell gasification process has been most widely employed as shown in Figure 3-20 in comparison
of plant capabilities by licenser, scheduled to be constructed by 2030.
Figure 3-20 Construction Record and Prediction of Gasification Plants by Licenser
- 74 -
partial pressure of the acid, 350 kPa or more is a guide for employing the physical absorption
process.
(2) Solubility of the acid gas becomes lower as the temperature increases. Lower temperature is
more advantageous for absorption. A refrigerator is required depending on the process.
(3) Lower thermal energy required for regeneration than chemical absorption.
(4) Less deterioration of the absorbent solution caused by impurities in the process gas.
(5) Complicated low-temperature process configuration, resulting in higher construction cost
than the chemical absorption process.
(6) More expensive absorbent solvent than the chemical absorption process.
To apply to the IGCC plant, the following is required as the process performance.
(1) In order to observe the regulation value of the SOx concentration in the gas turbine exhaust
gas, keep the H2S + COS concentration in the syngas within the specifications after removing
the acid gas.
(2) Absorb H2S selectively. (Since CO2 contributes to the enhanced output of the gas turbine, it
is important to recover more CO2 into the process gas.)
Placing a premium on a mild regulation value of SOx in the exhaust gas and construction cost
reduction, the chemical absorption process using the amine solution (MDEA) has been employed
in this investigation.
d. Sulfur recovery unit
Selection of various processes is conceivable as a sulfur recovery method depending on the end
product, but a gypsum production process was selected because a market has been already
established.
Selected process: CT-121 process (limestone and gypsum process)
The CT-121 process developed by Chiyoda Corporation has been employed as the gypsum
production process because it has a richer domestic and overseas construction record, high process
performance, etc. among the limestone and gypsum processes widely used for coal- and oil-fired
boiler exhaust gases. The following describes the features of the CT-121 process.
(1) High process performance by a superior gas-liquid contact system (jet bubbling system).
High desulfurization rate (99% or more).
High removal performance of harmful trace components in soot dust and gas.
The conventional spray system sprays the absorbent solution into the gas and desulfurizes by
contacting the gas with the liquid. On the contrary, the jet bubbling system jets the exhaust gas
into the absorbent solution to form a bubble layer, realizing high-efficiency gas-liquid contact.
- 75 -
(1) One gas turbine will do because of its high capacity, reducing the construction cost.
(2) The gas turbine, steam turbine and power generator are arranged on one axis to save a site
area.
(3) A combined cycle power generation output combined with the steam turbine is of 500 MW
class (on the gross basis), satisfying a basic design condition16.
f. Air separation unit (ASU)
GT-ASU air integration rate17: 30%
GT-ASU air integration at the IGCC plant leads to lower power consumption in the ASU,
effectively improving overall efficiency. On the other hand, operability is restricted because
variations of the power generation output leads to the ASUs operational variations and it is
necessary to coordinate with the combined cycle side at the time of starting the unit.
As shown in Figure 3-21, full air integration (all the air supplied to the ASU is acquired from the
gas turbine compressor) is about 3 to 5% more efficient than no air integration (all the air supplied
to the ASU is acquired from the atmosphere). Although full air integration is superior in efficiency
like the Buggenum and Puertollano plants, it has been switched to partial air integration because of
the reasons such as no flexibility in operation, more time required for start-up. It is said that 25 to
16
- 76 -
50% partial air integration is adequate, considering efficiency and operability. This study has
employed 30% air integration, considering securement of easy operability and minimizing
variations in the unit, while placing a premium on overall efficiency.
Figure 3-21 Effects of GT-ASU Air Integration on Efficiency
(Source) Siemens:IChemE2009
3) Main facility specifications
a. Coal pretreating unit
The coal pretreating unit consists of the following facilities.
Coal drying and coarse crushing facility
Coal pulverizing facility
Basic design specifications
The coal pretreating unit has been considered based on the following basic design specifications.
Coal drying and coarse crushing facility: 100%18 x 1 unit
Moisture content in pulverized coal: 10% or less
Pulverized coal particle distribution: 90m or less, 90%
Pulverizer: 50% x 2 units
Process description
Figure 3-22 shows RWEs typical flow of the coal drying and coarse crushing facility.
18
The percentage values mentioned in each basic design specifications indicate the required capabilities of the facilities and
devices.
- 77 -
Figure 3-22 Simple Flow of Coal Drying and Coarse Crushing Facility
(Source) RWE
The raw coal is supplied into a receiving bunker by a belt conveyor from outside the system. The
coal coarsely crushed by a hammer mill (raw lignite milling) is introduced into a fluidized-bed
drier. A steam coil is disposed at the bottom of the drier and the raw coal is dried by externally
supplied steam. The dried coarsely crushed coal is cooled by an air-contact cooler (dry lignite
cooler), and then, blended with fluxant19, and finely-powdered slag recycled from the gasification
facility and introduced into a roller mill (dry lignite milling) to be pulverized.
After removing a slight amount of dust contained in dewatered vapor by an electrostatic
precipitator, the dewatered vapor is utilized as a fluidizing medium for a fluidized-bed dryer and as
a heat supply medium for a vapor condenser.
A crushed particle size distribution and moisture content are greatly associated with the fluidity of
the coal supplied to the gasifier, and may require drying and fluidity tests in actual design.
b. Coal gasification unit
The coal gasification unit consists of the following facilities.
Coal feeding
Coal gasification
Slag removal
Dry solid removal
Wet scrubbing
Primary WWT
19
Necessity of fluxant is determined by fluidity of ashes in the gasifier and from a viewpoint of securing an enough amount
of ashes to coat and protect the internal membrane wall of the gasifier. The Mae Moh coal, however, has a problem with
fluidity of ash content because it has high CaO content and low Si2O3 and Al2O3 contents. Fluxant is added in order to
improve the fluidity.
- 78 -
Carbon conversion ratio = (Carbon content in the syngas)/(Carbon content in the coal supplied to the gasifier)
- 79 -
recycling compressor at the outlet of the gasifier, and then, thermally recovered by a syngas cooler
as high-pressure steam (HPS) and medium-pressure steam (MPS).
Since the inside of the gasifier is protected by the membrane wall composed of water tubes and the
tube surface is covered with molten slag film, there is less heat loss, resulting in high gasifier cold
gas efficiency21.
<Slag removal>
Although it depends on the ash content in the coal or an added ash amount, about 50 to 80% of the
mineral content such as silica, alumina, iron, calcium, etc. are discharged as molten slag from the
gasifier. In order to assure smooth discharge, the gasifier is operated at the temperature higher than
an ash melting point. After water-cooled in a slag water cooling tank and pulverized by a slag
crusher, the molten slag is depressurized and separated from water in a slag water sealing tank, and
fed out of the system by a slag drag conveyor and slag conveyor. The molten slag is non-leachable
(glassy substance not leaching outside) and handled as a non-dangerous object.
<Dry solid removal>
In order to lower soot dust concentration in the raw syngas at the gasification outlet, a
high-pressure high-temperature filter is installed to remove soot dust contained in the gas as fly ash.
According to the Buggenum plants track record, 99.9% have been removed.
The fly ash recovered by the filter is depressurized and cooled by the lock hopper system, and then,
conveyed outside the system. Since the dried fly ash has low carbon content, it is available as a raw
material for cement and ceramics.
<Wet scrubbing>
Composed of a venturi scrubber22and first rinsing tower, this facility removes the ashes, unburnt
carbon content, and aqueous chlorine and ammonia accompanying the raw syngas. Although the
rinsing tower uses water cyclically, low pH concentration causes problems such as corrosion of
piping. To avoid this, it is necessary to inject caustic soda to keep the pH concentration almost
neutral.
<Primary waste water treatment>
The circulation water partly extracted from the first rinsing tower water circulation line of the wet
scrubbing unit and part of filtrate separated by a clarifier23 are supplied to a sour slurry stripper to
remove dissolved acid gas and ammonia. Part of the filtrate separated by the clarifier is used by the
coal gasification unit as recycled water and the remaining water is fed to the waste water treatment
unit.
Slag slurry supplied from a slag dewatering tank is condensed by the clarifier and a thickener24
and dewatered by a vacuum belt filter. Then, slag is fed out to a coal yard.
21
Gasifier cold gas efficiency = (LHV of H2 + CO in the syngas)/(LHV of the coal supplied to the gasifier)
Equipment designed to rinse away the impurities contained in the gas.
23
Equipment designed for solid-liquid separation from solid contained slurry by gravitational sedimentation. It is intended
for obtaining the filtrate.
22
- 80 -
- 81 -
- 82 -
gypsum purity, by maintaining remaining sulfite at a low level. This sulfuric acid is neutralized by
limestone powder supplied by a limestone slurry pump, generating high-grade high-dewaterability
gypsum as a by-product under the condition that there is a sufficient retention time, small seed
crystals to be added to induce crystallization, and no crushing by a large circulation pump. The
generated gypsum is fed to a centrifugal separator by an absorber extraction pump.
Since the JBR operation parameter, pH and liquid submergence are automatically controlled by
feed forward signal for a cooler inlet volume, they require no operation for inlet condition changes
due to modifications of the type of coal, etc. and are always controlled at an optimum point,
conserving the energy.
After removal of accompanying airborn droplets (mist) and pressure increase by a mist eliminator,
the desulfurized exhaust gas is discharged from a chimney.
< Gypsum separation>
The gypsum slurry extracted by the absorber bleed pump is fed to a gypsum vacuum belf filter.
The gypsum dewatered by the gypsum vacuum belt filter and containing about 10wt% adhered
moisture is stored in a gypsum storage. The filtrate water is stored in a filtrate pit. Then, it is partly
fed to a limestone slurry pit by a filtratepump and the remainder is fed to the JBR.
e. Combined cycle unit
Basic design specifications
Integration with other facilities is emphasized, considering higher power generation output, higher
efficiency, enhanced energy conservation and lower construction cost.
The combined cycle unit has been considered based on the following basic design specifications.
Gas turbine:
100% x 1 unit (M701F)
Exhaust heat recovery boiler: 100% x 1 unit (reheat multi-pressure natural
circulation boiler)
Steam turbine:
100% x 1 unit (two-cylinder double flow exhaust
reheat condensing type)
Outlet NOx concentration:
10 ppmv or less at 15% O225, dry (with a denitrifier)
Figure 3-25 shows integration between the combined cycle unit and other facilities.
25
Equivalent at a specific concentration (15%), not an oxygen concentration in an actual gas, in order to correctly assess an
NOx/SOx concentration.
- 83 -
Figure 3-25 Integration between Combined Cycle Unit and Other Facilities
- 84 -
Product nitrogen:
Process description
Figure 3-26 shows a typical air separation unit process flow.
After dust and impurities are removed by an air filter, the raw air is pressurized by the air
compressor and supplied to a spray cooler. The 2-stage spray cooler cools the raw air by bringing it
into countercurrent contact with circulation cooling water (lower tower) and chiller water (upper
tower) as well as clears it of dust and water-soluble impurities, and then, introduces it into an MS
adsorber filled with a molecular sieve.
The MS adsorber has two towers which are switchably operated. While one of the towers is
adsorbing, the other one is desorbing. After moisture and carbon dioxide are adsorbed and
removed by the MS adsorber, the air is branched into two streams. The main stream is introduced
into an air separator (cold box), cooled by heat exchange with product oxygen and nitrogen at the
main heat exchanger, and introduced into the high-pressure lower tower. The other stream is
pressurized by an expansion turbine and supplied to the low-pressure upper tower through the
subsequent cooling and depressurization processes.
The expansion turbine generates the cold heat to make up for heat losses in the system. At the
lower tower, high-purity nitrogen is extracted from its top and an oxygen-rich liquid from its
bottom and fed to the upper tower, respectively. At the upper tower, high-purity nitrogen is
extracted from its top and high-purity oxygen from its bottom, respectively. After warmed up by
the main heat exchanger, they are pressurized to predetermined pressures by the compressor,
respectively, and the oxygen is fed to the coal gasification, nitrogen is used as a regenerated gas for
the MS adsorber, and the remaining gas is used as a dilution gas for the gas turbine and a coal
feeding gas.
- 85 -
- 86 -
Free
cyanide
Removal
Ammonia
Removal
Heavy metals
/ Fluoride
Removal
Calcium
Removal
Organics
Removal
Ammonia
Removal
Cyano
complex
Removal
SSCOD
Removal
- 87 -
In the first step, organics centering around formic acid are removed by supplying oxygen by
aeration from the lower part of the reactor by a fixed bed holding microbes in a hollow cylindrical
carrier.
In the second step, NH3 is oxidized to NO2 and NO3 by supplying oxygen by aeration from the
lower part of the reactor by the fixed bed holding nitrification bacteria in the hollow cylindrical
carrier.
In the third step, NO2 and NO3 are reduced to N2 under the anaerobic conditions by a fluidized bed,
holding denitrification bacteria in a granular carrier.
In the fourth step, the organics slightly excessively added in the third process are removed by
aeration again to further enhance treatment efficiency, and solid-liquid separation is performed by
coagulation.
Because of the carriers excellent capability of holding microbes, Biofiner features a miniaturized
reactor and less sludge generation owing to promoted self-digestion.
After the fourth step, the treated waste water is fed to the residual cyano complex removal process.
<Cyano complex removal>
After the organic removal process, residual cyanogen (cyanogen complex and free cyanides) are
removed by the Prussian blue method. The waste water treated in the residual cyanogen removal
process is fed to the SS/COD removal process.
<SS/COD removal>
(1) SS (Suspended Solids) removal
The suspended solids carried over from the organic removal process are removed by a filter. With
the 2-layer filtration method, the filter includes anthracite with low specific gravity and large grain
size in the upper part and filter sand with high specific gravity and small grain size in the lower part
as filter media, and its sterical filtration allows a compact design. It is backwashed daily and
backwash waste water is returned to a backwash waste water tank. The waste water treated by the
filter is fed to an activated carbon adsorber.
(2) COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) removal
The activated carbon adsorber adsorbes and removes organic COD. It is backwashed daily and
backwash waste water is returned to the backwash waste water tank. The waste water treated by
the activated carbon adsorber is fed to a waste water tank.
4) Plant operation
a. Power generation performance
Gross output:
Net output:
Internal power consumption:
500 MW
425 MW
75 MW
- 88 -
3.9 MW
1.5 MW
5.7 MW
5.1 MW
53.1 MW
5.7 MW
41.5%
b. Process performance
Figure 3-28 Block Flow Chart
- 89 -
250.3ton/h
17.8ton/h
115.5ton/h
279.6ton/h
19.4
65.5
3.2
10.0
0.5
1.4
33.3ton/h
38.8ton/h
12.2ton/d
c. Environmental performance
Exhaust gas
Flow rate (on the dry basis):
Exhaust gas pr operties:
- NOx:
2,040,000Nm3/h
6.0ppmV (15O2)
14.0ppmV (7% O2)
12.0ppmV (15O2)
28.0ppmV (7% O2)
4.8mg/Nm3
- SOx:
- Particulate:
Waste water
Flow rate:
45m3/h
Composition:
- pH:
5.5 to 9
- SS:
< 20mg/l
- Cyanide:
< 0.2mg/l
- Heavy metals
Cr (Hexavalent):
< 0.25mg/l
Cr (Trivalent):
< 0.75mg/l
Cu:
< 2.0mg/l
Hg:
< 0.005mg/l
- Fat, Oil and Grease:
< 5mg/l
- TKN:
< 50mg/l
- Total-F:
< 15mg/l
- BOD:
< 20mg/l
- CODCr:
< 120mg/l
- Should be lower than effluent standard for the other items as well.
d. Utility and chemical consumptions
The following describes the consumptions of utilities and chemicals at the IGCC plant.
Utility consumptions
Low-pressure steam (0.5 MPag):
Circulation cooling water ( = 10C):
Boiler feed water:
Industrial water:
95ton/h
34,500ton/h
51ton/h
570ton/h
Chemical consumptions
Caustic soda (20 wt% aqueous solution):
Hydrochloric acid (15 wt% aqueous solution):
Limestone:
- 90 -
4ton/d
2ton/d
17.8ton/h
- 91 -
80% (track record of 2004), on the syngas and aux. fuel combined
operation basis.
73% (track record of 2009), on the syngas independent operation basis.
- 92 -
Coal: IGCC
2,600-2,850
Coal: PC
2,000-2,300
1,060-1,150
3,100-3,800
85-101
3,200-4,100
87-105
1,600-1,900
68-109
- 93 -
- 94 -
One (1) MHI air-blown, two stage entrained bed gasification train
- Installation
- Main Fuel
Outdoor
Approximately 60% of gasifier heat input (roughly corresponds to
50% of power output)
Mae Moh Coal
- Auxiliary. Fuels
Natural Gas for start-up fuel of Gasifier & Gas turbine is assumed.
- Design Life
20 years is assumed.
- Turndown Capability
Gasification System
- Gasifier
- Syngas Cooler (SGC)
- Porous Filter
(Note 1) For the capacity of equipment and/or facility, 100% means the required capacity for one (1)
gasifier, except when specified otherwise.
(Note 2) Natural Gas is presently considered as start-up fuel of Gasifier and Gas turbine.
(Source) MHI
- 95 -
HRSG &
SCR
ASU
Stack
Coal
Handling
Coal
Bunker &
Coal
Grinding
Gasifier &
Syngas
Cooler
LTGC &
AGR
Switch
Yard
Gas
Turbine
Steam
Turbine
Generator
Condenser
Water
Treatment
Slag
Handling
Effluent
Raw
Water
Sulfur
Recovery
Sulfur
Handling
Air
Compressor
Cooling
Tower
Mitsubishi (&Partner)
Owner
(Source) MHI
b. Plant Description
b-1. Gasification Plant
MHI Gasifier
The MHI gasifier uses a dry feed design that avoids the need for mixing the pulverized coal
feedstock with water as would otherwise be required by slurry transport designs. The MHI
air-blown system also reduces the auxiliary power that would otherwise be consumed by a
full-sized ASU required for oxygen-blown gasifiers and the high investment cost that goes with
those larger ASU-based configurations.
Since the nitrogen in the air (gasification agent) lowers the combustion gas temperature in the
gasifier, special attention is required to ensure both the proper discharge of molten ash and
maintaining a sufficiently high heat content in the syngas for stable burner operation in the gas
turbine.
MHI has adopted a two-stage gasification process as an effective solution to these issues. MHIs
gasifier design features an up-flow two-stage configuration that consists of two chambers: a lower
combustor chamber and an upper reductor chamber.
A description of the major features of this configuration is provided below, and illustrated in Figure
3-32. The MHI gasifier configuration enables continuous molten slag discharge from the bottom of
the gasifier, and overall higher carbon conversion to syngas, both within the same pressure vessel.
- 96 -
Reductor
Gasifier
Gasification of Char
Gas Cooling
Pyrolysis of Coal
Char + CO2 2CO
SGC
HP Steam
Reductor
Reductor
Char + H2O CO + H2
Char
CO + H2O CO2 + H2
Coal
Combustor
Combustion of Coal/Char
Melting Ash
Coal Volatile matter + Char
Volatile matter + O2 CO2 + H2O
Combustor
Combustor
Coal
Air
Temperature
Char + O2 CO + H2
Discharge of ash as slag
Syngas
(Source) MHI
High temperatures enable the coal ash to separate from the gas stream in the form of molten slag.
The molten slag flows down to the bottom of the chamber, where it is quenched in water. The slag
is recovered in the form of a glassy bead-like byproduct with less than 0.1 percent unburned
carbon. The slag is in a glassy form and contains virtually no leachable trace elements. The slag
has a relatively high density, so the volume of slag is only about half that of the fly ash from a
conventional pulverized coal plant. This slag has possible commercial applications as road paving
materials or as a fine aggregate for concrete.
The air feed to the combustor section is enriched with oxygen to enhance this part of the process.
Oxygen enrichment adds to the operating flexibility of the gasifier, and also increases the heating
value of the syngas ultimately delivered to the gas turbine combustor.
The gasifier has a membrane water wall configuration that eliminates the need for a refractory
lining. An initial startup refractory lining is applied only for the inner surface of the combustor for
protection until it is gradually replaced by the formation of a solid state slag layer.
MHI Stage Two: Reductor
In the second stage, more coal is fed to the hot gas stream flowing upwards into the reductor, but
- 97 -
- 98 -
Syngas
Gasifier Cooler
Porous
Filter
STM
BFW
Char
Slag
G/T Compressor
Extraction Air
O2
Air
N2
Air Compressor
(Source) MHI
On the other hand, as mentioned above, air-blown gasifier discharges ash content in coal as molten
slag, thus very well fitted to the coal with high CaO like Mae Moh Coal. In addition, MHI
air-blown gasification has enough operation experience also for the moisture and ash content of the
coal and it will be easily applied for the commercial plant. In conclusion, MHI air-blown gasifier
can gasify Mae Moh Coal without any special consideration.
b-2. Gas treatment process
Basis of Design
The raw syngas from the porous filters requires additional treatment to make it suitable for
combustion in a gas turbine for electric power generation. Treatment is required to remove chloride,
sulfur, and ammonia from the syngas for process and emission considerations.
Though the raw syngas treatment configuration varies in detail dependent on the process
engineering firm, typical example can be summarized as follows:
Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
- 99 -
- 100 -
Although NOx emissions at gas turbine outlet can be reduced by some diluents or saturation
means, this design aims to achieve the highest gas turbine performance and to reduce NOx mainly
by SCR.
The design above has been proved to be feasible by the successful operation of 250 MW Nakoso
IGCC unit with MDEA gas clean-up.
Hot Gas Path
The hot gas path section is identical to a typical M701F gas turbine firing natural gas. The hot gas
path design will employ design features and materials that leverage MHIs fleet experience while
seeking to minimize operating and maintenance cost.
Air Extraction
When MHI M701F is integrated with air-blown gasifier, extracted air from gas turbine is
introduced into booster air compressor and thus further compressed air is admitted to the gasifier as
gasification agent. All the air for gasification is supplied only with this means and it seems to be, as
it were, full integration. This process works successfully at the 250 MW Nakoso IGCC unit and
it will also be applied for the commercial plant using MHI M701F.
Accessory Systems
The MHI M701F fuel delivery system has been assessed for its suitability to supply syngas. The
fuel supply system is specifically designed to accommodate syngas with a high hydrogen
composition. A N2 inert purge system is used in the combustion system while firing on syngas to
ensure safe operation in a hydrogen-rich environment. The start-up fuel system is included in the
fuel delivery system to assure the starting process of the gasifier and gas clean up system.
Enclosure and Ventilation Systems
Enclosure and ventilation systems developed for natural gas fired gas turbines will be designed to
accommodate the larger piping, higher heat loads, and specific fuel characteristics associated with
syngas fuel. MHI has successfully employed this technique on low Btu fuel gas.
Control System
The control system will be designed for syngas operation to assure safe and reliable operation
while maintaining emissions within required limits. The control system will be configured for
start-up, transfer from start-up fuel to syngas, and operation at full load on syngas. The shutdown
sequence will be the reverse of the start-up sequence, operating at full load on syngas, reduce load
on syngas while admitting start-up fuel and shutdown on start-up fuel.
In summary, although there are no MHI 701Fs currently operating on syngas with air extraction,
MHI has a body of experience using low BTU fuels and has established a comprehensive
development testing program such as full scale combustion testing, feed back from full scale
operational testing at the 250 MW Nakoso IGCC unit, and other design validation programs to
take place while still meeting the requirements.
- 101 -
Item
Gross Plant Output
Net Plant Output
Remarks
505.4 MWe
11.5 %
43.4 %(HHV)
(Source) MHI
b. Process Performance Summary
Table 3-22 Process Performance of Air-blown IGCC
Coal Consumption
Air-blown IGCC
(Plant overall)
285.4 metric-t/h
As Receieved Base
40.3 metric-t/h
O2 Purity : 95vol%
Slag Discharge
38.5 metric-t/h
Dry Basis
Elemental Sulfur
5.0 metric-t/h
Item
Remarks
(Source) MHI
c. Auxiliary Power Consumption
The table below shows the preliminary auxiliary power consumption for two (2) different cases.
Table 3-23 Auxiliary Power Consumption of Air-blown IGCC
No
Item
Air-blown IGCC
(Plant overall)
9,300 kWe
1,400 kWe
5,400 kWe
16,400 kWe
26,300 kWe
Others
7,200 kWe
Total
66,000 kWe
(Source) MHI
- 102 -
Remarks
Item
GT Flue Gas Flow Rate
Air-blown IGCC
Remarks
2,013,000 m3N/h
Dry basis
SO (@15%O2,dry)
SO (@7%O2,dry)
NOx (@15%O2,dry)
NOx (@7%O2,dry)
Particulate Matter (@15%O2,dry)
9.6 ppmV
22.4 ppmV
6.0 ppmV
14.0 ppmV
4.8 mg/m3N
(Source) MHI
b. Effluent Condition
Table 3-25 Effluent Condition of Air-blown IGCC
No
Item
Air-blown IGCC
340 m3/h
BOD
<20 mg/l
COD
<120 mg/l
Suspended Solid
Oil Content
Hg
Cr Hexavalent
<0.25 mg/l
Cr Trivalent
<0.75 mg/l
Cu
<2 mg/l
10
Mn
<5 mg/l
11
pH
5.5 - 9.0
<50 mg/l
<5 mg/l
<0.005 mg/l
(Source) MHI
- 103 -
Remarks
During Normal Operation,
Incl. Blow-down from
Cooling Tower
5) Utility Consumption
Table 3-26 Utility Consumption of Air-blown IGCC
No
Item
Demin. Water
Service Water
Instrument Air
Service Air
Air-blown IGCC
(Plant overall)
11,800 m3/h
34 metric-t/h (Max.)
17 metric-t/h (Ave.)
1,260 metric-t/h (Max.)
1,250 metric-/h (Ave.)
30 m3N/min (Cont.)
66 m3N/min (Int.)
1 m3N/min (Cont.)
49 m3N/min (Int.)
Remarks
Max. quantity incl. makeup for
drum blow from SGC and HRSG
(Source) MHI
Figure 3-34 Typical Plant Layout
LTGC &
AGR
Water
Treatment
SRU
360m
Gasifier
HRSG
ASU
GT / ST&
Generator
Flare
220m
(Source) MHI
- 104 -
Cooling
Tower
Year1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year5
Year6
Pre-FEED
(Feasibility Study)
Receive PO
FEED including Detail Design /
Procurement, Construction &
Comissioning
COD
(Source) MHI
e) Current Situation of Coal Mines and Coal Procurement Plan
1) Current situation of the coal mines
a. Geological overview
Coal resources in Thailand are mostly lignite and subbituminous coal belonging to the Tertiary
period of the Cenozoic. Many of the coal mines are concentratedly distributed in the northwest
region, but some of them are also distributed in the southern region of the peninsula. Coal was
formed in the intermountain basins or fault-caused depressed lands, both of which are distributed
in isolation, respectively. Many coal mines are relatively on a small scale and the Mae Moh coal
mine is not an exception. Figure 3-36 shows the situation of coal production other than the Mae
Moh Coal Mine. Currently, however, no coal mine is being operated other than the Mae Moh Coal
Mine.
- 105 -
Mae Lamao
Lamao
Mae
Loei
Loei
Loei
13
11
Na Duang
Na
Duang
Na Klang
Klang
Na
Tak
Tak
Tak
Mae Tuen
Mae
Tuen
Nakhon
Nakhon
Nakhon Ratchasima
Ratchasima
Ratchasima
Suphan
Suphan Buri
Buri
Buri
Suphan
Bangkok
Bangkok
Bangkok
Nong Ya
Ya Plong
Plong
Nong
15
Mae
Mae Moh
Moh
Mae Than
Mae
Than
13
17
Nan
Nan
Nan
Mae Teep
Teep
Mae
Li
Li
15
19
21
Vietnam
Vietnam
Laos
Laos
Muan
Chiang
Chiang Muan
Chiang
Chiang Mai
Mai
Mai
Chiang
Bo Luang
Bo
Luang
17
Mae Chaem
Mae
Chaem
105
103
101
99
Myanmar
Myanmar
19
97
95
21
Cambodia
Cambodia
Andaman Sea
Sea
Andaman
Khirikhan
Prachub Khirikhan
Khirikhan
Prachub
Prachub
11
Gulf of
of Thailand
Thailand
Gulf
Vietnam
Vietnam
Thani
Surat Thani
Thani
Surat
Surat
Nakhon Si
Si
Thammarat
Nakhon
Nakhon
Si Thammarat
Thammarat
Krabi
Krabi
Kantang
Kantang
Songkhla
Songkhla
Songkhla
Yala
Yala
Yala
North
Indonesia
Indonesia
5
95
97
Department
Department
Departmentof
of
of
ofMineral
Mineral
Mineral
MineralResources
Resources
Resources
Resources
Department
Department
Department
of
of
Mineral
Mineral
Resources
Resources
March
March
March12,
12,
12,
12,2001
2001
2001
2001
March
March
March
12,
12,
2001
2001
99
Malaysia
Malaysia
101
50
100
Kilometers
103
105
(Source) The Agency for Natural Resources and Energy of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry Clean Coal Technology Diffusion Project in 2009 (Survey of Effect on Coal
Supply-Demand and Reduction of Environmental Burdens by Introduction of CCT into East
Asian Region)
The Mae Moh Coal Mine is located 30 km to the east of Lampang and the EGAT is developing
and operating it in the same district. The coal bed originated in the Mae Moh formation of the
Miocene to Pleiocene of the Neocene and its layers are named Layer J, K, Q, R and S from above.
The three layers, J, R and S, are poorly developed and not considered as the production targets.
The two layers, K and Q, are being mined as the production targets. These years, however, Layer J
with fewer split seams has been also considered as the mining target. The interburden of Layers K
and Q consists of 10 m to 30 m mudstone, etc.
- 106 -
Plei-Recent
5 - 400 m
Overburden
J
Interburden
K
300 - 420 m
Interburden
Semicon, CS, MS, brown-gray, Lignite layers.
Gastropod/Qtz, Illite, Calcite etc/Lacustrine.
R
S
15 - 320 m
Triassic
- 107 -
- 108 -
7 km
4.5 km
(Note) The depth increases in order of red, yellow, green, blue and purple.
(Source) EGAT-supplied material Overview of Mae Moh Lignite Mine
b. Overview of the coal mine
The Mae Moh Coal Mine started coal production by open-pit mining in 1955. Its production
volume in 1955 was 40,500 t. Along with addition and expansion of the Mae Moh Coal-Fired
Power Plant, the production volume continued to increase and exceeded 10 million t in 1991 and
15 million t in 1996, maintaining the annual production volume of 15 million t or more in the
2000s.
Figure 3-41 Coal Production Performance and Strip Ratio at Mae Moh Coal Mine
10.0
Coal production
Strip Ratio
20
9.0
8.0
7.0
15
6.0
5.0
10
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
(Source) Information posted on the website of the Mae Moh Coal Mine
(http://maemohmine.egat.co.th/production/index.html)
- 109 -
Strip Ratio
25
The mining target area of the Mae Moh Coal Mine extends about 4.5 km in the east-west direction
and about 7 km in the north-south direction, with the final mining depth of 500 m below the
ground surface. The total minable coal reserves of this area are estimated to be 825 million t. As of
January 2010, 333 million t of coal has been mined. Accordingly, 492 million t of minable coal
remains in the mining target area as of January 2010. As shown in Figure 3-42, there is a fossil
zone in the southwest of the mining target area, where fossils exist as cultural assets (fossils of
shellfish, trilobites, etc.). To preserve this zone, an inhibited (fossil) area which inhibits bench cut
for coal mining will come into being on its east side (south of the mining target area). It has been
confirmed that this area contains 150 million t of minable coal reserves, but no mining permission
has been obtained. Without these coal reserves, the remaining minable coal reserves are 342
million t.
Figure 3-42 Final Geometry of Mining Area
Dumping Area
Dumping Area
Fossil Zone
Coal Stockpile
Power Plant
26
- 110 -
Specification
Range
2,300
1,300 3,300
(ar basis, %)
3.3
1.8 5.0
(%)
23
2 52
Sulphur
CaO in ash
Waste Removal
Coal Production
Pit
Transportation
Conveyor Belt
Conveyor Belt
Conveyor Belt
- 111 -
Inpit Crusher4,500t/h
Inpit Crusher3,500t/h
- 112 -
Coal Production
5 - 10 %
30 %
Contractors
90 - 95 %
70 %
- 113 -
Power Generation
Capacity
Power Generation
Lignite
Consumption
MW
GWh/year
(million ton/year)
150
985
150
985
150
985
150
985
300
1,970
300
1,970
10
300
1,970
11
300
1,970
12
300
1,970
13
300
1,970
Total
2,400
15,760
16
- 114 -
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
Total
10
11
12
13
1.02
1.03
0.99
1.04
0.92
0.95
0.94
1.02
1.03
0.99
1.04
0.92
0.95
0.94
1.02
1.03
0.99
1.04
0.92
0.95
0.94
1.02
1.03
0.99
1.04
0.92
0.95
0.94
1.96
1.97
1.91
1.99
1.78
1.83
1.81
1.72
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.96
1.97
1.91
1.99
1.78
1.83
1.81
1.72
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.58
1.96
1.97
1.91
1.99
1.78
1.83
1.81
1.72
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.58
1.54
1.96
1.97
1.91
1.99
1.78
1.83
1.81
1.72
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.58
1.54
1.54
1.96
1.97
1.91
1.99
1.78
1.83
1.81
1.72
1.60
1.62
1.64
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.61
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.59
1.58
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.96
1.97
1.91
1.99
1.78
1.83
1.81
1.72
1.60
1.62
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.63
1.60
1.59
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.58
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
253.01
- 115 -
Cumulative
new 4-7
Coal
replacemen Year Total
Consumption
t
15.86
15.86
15.96
31.82
15.45
47.27
16.11
63.38
14.35
77.73
14.78
92.51
14.62
107.13
2.71
13.01
120.14
2.51
12.11
132.25
2.54
12.29
144.54
2.56
12.39
156.93
2.56
12.37
169.30
2.56
12.37
181.67
2.56
12.37
194.04
2.51
12.14
206.18
2.49
12.05
218.23
2.47
11.96
230.19
2.47
11.96
242.15
2.47
11.98
254.13
2.47
10.38
264.51
2.40
8.56
273.07
2.40
7.02
280.09
2.40
5.48
285.57
2.40
5.48
291.05
2.40
5.48
296.53
2.40
3.94
300.47
2.40
2.40
302.87
2.40
2.40
305.27
2.40
2.40
307.67
2.40
2.40
310.07
2.40
2.40
312.47
2.40
2.40
314.87
2.40
2.40
317.27
2.40
2.40
319.67
2.40
2.40
322.07
2.40
2.40
324.47
2.40
2.40
326.87
73.68
326.87
16.0
450
400
14.0
350
12.0
300
10.0
250
8.0
200
6.0
150
4.0
100
2.0
50
0.0
0
'10
'12
'14
'16
'18
'20
'22
'24
'26
'28
'30
'32
'34
'36
'38
'40
'42
'44
'46
16.0
450
Unit 8-13
400
350
12.0
300
Mine Out
10.0
250
8.0
200
6.0
150
4.0
100
2.0
50
0.0
14.0
0
'10
'12
'14
'16
'18
'20
'22
'24
'26
'28
'30
'32
'34
'36
'38
'40
'42
'44
'46
- 116 -
By reference to the operation prospect of the plant with the EGATs presented CaO issue taken into
account, coal consumption was estimated on the assumption that the Units 4 and 5 (150 MW x 2) will
stop operation in 2014, Unit 8 (300 MW) in 2017, and all the existing plants (Units 9 to 13, 300 MW x
5) in 2024, respectively (see Figure 3-48). It is assumed that one plant (new Units 4 to 7) to be
replaced in 2017 and the IGCC are not subject to the CaO issue.
As shown in Figure 3-48, coal consumption will be reduced in 2014 because of shutdown of the Units
4 and 5 (150 MW x 2) and will be further reduced in 2017 because of shutdown of the Unit 8. Coal
consumption will increase in 2020 because the IGCC will start operating. In 2024, however, the coal
will be consumed only the replaced plant and the IGCC because all the existing plants will stop
operation. On this assumption, there will remain 61 million t of minable coal reserves even in 2046. If
this amount is divided by the IGCCs annual consumption, or 1.8 million t, it is 34 years worth,
allowing additional construction of the 500 MW-class IGCC power plant as an alternative for the
existing Units 8 to 13 which will have been shut down.
Figure 3-48 Coal Consumption Plan (3)
18.0
450
Unit 4-7 (before replacement)
IGCC
16.0
Unit 8-13
400
350
12.0
300
10.0
250
8.0
200
6.0
150
4.0
100
2.0
50
0.0
14.0
0
'10
'12
'14
'16
'18
'20
'22
'24
'26
'28
'30
'32
'34
'36
'38
'40
'42
'44
'46
- 117 -
low-CaO coal. Since there are no coal reserves suitable for this purpose near Mae Moh or in Thailand,
the EGAT is thinking about importing the coal (lignite) up to 10% of annual consumption from
Myanmar, 400 km to 500 km distant.
A possibility of importing the coal from Myanmar is worth considering, if there is a railway
connecting a production area and Mae Moh straight. However, such long-distant trucking of a large
amount of coal is not very practicable, considering its cost and traffic safety on the transportation
route.
Figure 3-49 Coal Consumption Plan (4)
18.0
450
Unit 4-7 (before replacement)
IGCC
16.0
Unit 8-13
400
350
12.0
300
10.0
250
8.0
200
6.0
150
4.0
100
2.0
50
0.0
14.0
0
'10
'12
'14
'16
'18
'20
'22
'24
'26
'28
'30
'32
'34
'36
'38
'40
'42
'44
'46
- 118 -
Chapter 4
SO2 (ppm)
PM (mg/Nm3)
1,300
500
180
320
500
180
(Note) Total SO2 load of the Mae Moh Units 1 to 13 < 11 t/h
(Source) Official gazette of Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Thailand
The above table excerpts the atmospheric emission standards on the existing power generation facilities.
Including a publication in the Mae Moh district on Dec. 27, 1999, they have been partly revised several
times. The current version was eventually publicized in a Thai government gazette on Mar. 16, 2001.
As it is clear from the year of publication, these standards have lowered the criteria in accordance with
additional installation of the current desulfurization equipments. The Mae Moh Units 1 to 3 were
decided to be demolished, not remodeling the facilities. Namely, the criteria of the Mae Moh Units 1 to 3
are close to the performance of the Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant before installing the desulfurization
equipments for the Units 4 to 13, indicating remarkable improvement.
Next, Table 4-2 shows the emission standards for new thermal power plants in Thailand.
- 120 -
Table 4-2 Atmospheric Emission Standards for New Thermal Power Plants in Thailand
Standard Values for New Power Plants (published 15 Jan 2010)
SO2 (ppm)
PM (mg/Nm3)
Coal (<50MW)
360
200
80
Coal>50MW
180
200
80
Oil
260
180
120
Gas
20
120
60
Biomass
60
200
120
- 121 -
Table 4-3 Effluent Standards for Industrial Plants and Industrial Estates,
and Power Plant Management Values in Thailand
Industrial Effluent Standards
Standard Values
Unit
(published 13 Feb 1996)
5.5 9.0
<=3,000 (or <=5,000,
mg/l
depending on condition)
<=50 (or <=150, depending
mg/l
on condition)
deg C
<=40
pH
5.55 - 9.0
SS (Suspended Solids)
Temperature
Not objectionable
Not objectionable
mg/l
<=1.0
<=1.0
mg/l
<=0.2
<=3,000
<=50
<=40
Heavy Metals
Zn
mg/l
Maximum 5.0
Maximum 5.0
Cr (Hexavalent)
mg/l
Maximum 0.25
Maximum 0.25
Cr (Trivalent)
mg/l
Maximum 0.75
Maximum 0.75
As
mg/l
Maximum 0.25
Maximum 0.25
Cu
mg/l
Maximum 2.0
Maximum 2.0
Hg
mg/l
Maximum 0.005
Maximum 0.005
Cd
mg/l
Maximum 0.03
Maximum 0.03
Ba
mg/l
Maximum 1.0
Maximum 1.0
Se
mg/l
Maximum 0.02
Maximum 0.02
10
Pb
mg/l
Maximum 0.2
Maximum 0.2
11
Ni
mg/l
Maximum 1.0
Maximum 1.0
12
Mg
mg/l
Maximum 5.0
mg/l
10
Formaldehyde
mg/l
Maximum 5.0
<= 5 (or <=15, depending
on condition)
<=1
11
Phenols
mg/l
<=1
12
Free Chlorine
mg/l
<=1
13
Pesticide
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen
Demand)
mg/l
None
<=20 (or <=60, depending
on condition)
<=100 (or <=200,
depending on condition)
<=120(or<=240,depending
on condition)
14
mg/l
15
mg/l
16
mg/l
<= 5
-
<=20
<=100
<=120
- 122 -
The standards for effluent measuring methods are separately provided and must be complied with when
conducting an environmental and health impact assessment (EHIA).
For reference, the effluent standards for the offshore areas and the standards for surface water are
separately provided. That is, the standards in the above table are applicable to the Mae Moh Thermal
Power Plant which has to take into account an effect on inland ponds and rivers. When constructing along
the coast, applicable standards are separately provided and the relevant provisions have to be referred to.
3) Noise and vibrations
There are the standards for community noise, annoyance noise, and mining and quarrying noise, which
are shown in the following table.
Table 4-4 Noise Standards in Thailand
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
2)
3)
Description
Maximum Lmax < 115 db(A)
Leq 24hours < 70db(A)
Annoyed Sound Level =10 db(A)
The sound is indicated to be annoyance provided that the
calculate annoyance level is higher than the sound pressure
level of annoyed sound.2)
Maximum Lmax < 115 db(A)
Leq 8hours < 75db(A)
Leq 24hours < 70db(A)
- 123 -
10
Velocity (mm/s)
>4.7
>9.4
>12.7
>12.7
>12.7
>12.7
>12.7
>12.7
>12.7
>12.7
Displacement (mm)
0.75
0.75
0.67
0.51
0.40
0.34
0.29
0.25
0.23
0.20
Frequency (Hz)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Velocity (mm/s)
>13.8
>15.1
>16.3
>17.6
>18.8
>20.1
>21.4
>22.6
>23.9
>25.1
Displacement (mm)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Frequency (Hz)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Velocity (mm/s)
>26.4
>27.6
>28.9
>30.2
>31.4
>32.7
>33.9
>35.2
>36.4
>37.7
Displacement (mm)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Frequency (Hz)
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40=<
Velocity (mm/s)
>39.0
>40.2
>41.5
>42.7
>44.0
>45.2
>46.5
>47.8
>49.0
>50.8
Displacement (mm)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
2008
2009
2010
Renewable (t)
1,633,688
1,575,764
1,358,495
1,512,353
Landfill (t)
2,566,845
2,517,547
2,894,865
2,898,890
Total (t)
4,200,533
4,093,311
4,253,360
4,411,243
(Source) Data aggregated by EGAT and Mae Moh Thermal Power Plant
- 124 -
- 125 -
environmental performance shown in Figure 4-1 is slightly beyond the specifications in view of the
environmental performance standard required in Thailand.
Denitrification equipments have been installed only at few of existing thermal power plants in Thailand.
Given the environmental regulation values of new power generation facilities, they are beyond the
specifications with respect to the environmental performance required in Thailand. If the denitrification
equipments are not installed, the NOx value will be about 50 ppm.
Only the situation of dust and soot differs from NOx and SOx. Since the IGCC has aversion to particle
errosion, it is required in designing that the number of microparticles in a combustion gas must be
extremely few. Since the devices are introduced based on the up-to-date specifications as per the
performance in Figure 4-1 for the current pulverized coal-fired boilers, it is not allowed to downgrade the
specifications because of cost-effectiveness. However, it is a coal mine area and there may be much dust
in the atmosphere from the beginning. The figure shows the dust deriving from the power generation
facilities, and the actual measurement values are the dust in the atmosphere + dust caused by IGCC
operation. In any case, the discharge amount is greatly lower than the current regulation values, showing
high environment improvement effects.
From the above, SOx and NOx removal capabilities are eventually determined by cost-effectiveness
within regulations. Even if the specifications are downgraded, however, substantial environment
improvement effects are expected because the IGCC basically has high environmental performance.
Figure 4-1 General comparison among environmental performance
(Oxygen Content in Exhaust Gas: 7% for PC Boiler, 15% for IGCC)
600
O2 7% for PC Boiler
O2 15% for IGCC
500
NOx
SOx
Particulate
PPM
400
300
200
100
0
Exixting Mae Moh 8-13
(Regulation)
- 126 -
plant
NOx
SOx
Particulate
PPM
400
300
200
100
0
Exixting Mae Moh 8-13
(Regulation)
- 127 -
This project plans to newly construct the waste water treatment facilities in view of the capabilities of the
existing waste water treatment facilities. The effluent quality is determined unambiguously by the facility
capabilities and the environment will not deteriorate. Since there is no occurrence of effluent peculiar to
introduction of the IGCC power plant to the existing power generation system, there is no factor of
becoming worse than now.
The environmental impacts by effluent are determined by the effluent volume and the effluent quality by
the waste water treatment facilities. Quantitative evaluations are difficult at this moment, but the
environment improvement effects of the water quality are expected of the IGCC because effluent
reduction is estimated. It is conceivable that underground water has run from the coal in the coal stockpile,
but since there is no simple expansion for introduction of the IGCC power plant, there is no factor of
becoming worse than now.
3) Applicability of the CDM
Thailand has ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol.
Since the Kyoto Protocol regards Thailand as a developing country, it is the target country of the CDM. At
the time of conducting this investigation, no policy incentives have been set because Thailand has no
greenhouse gas reducing obligations or emission restrictions. The Thai government, however, is
concerned with the UNFCCC and considering a regulatory framework. Its specific approaches are as
follows.
Firstly, the Ministry of Finance is considering introduction of a carbon tax in the future. For instance, it has
started discussions on revamping a vehicle tax to the car manufacturers based on CO2 emissions instead of
engine size.
The government has been preparing a charging system for NOx, SOx, etc. It tries to support an
environmental fund by charging to emission gases, thereby diffusing and promoting a clean energy
project.
Furthermore, the Department of Mineral Fuels under the Ministry of Energy has started considering CO2
capture and storage (CCS). Although the government policies have not been determined, there are
growing interests.
As it is clear from either approach, the Thai government has been focusing on the UNFCCC to promote
various approaches. Furthermore, given that Thailand has a track record of concluding the CDM case,
applicability of the CDM is likely.
In the existing CDM system and methodology, however, the ACM001327 will be applied to new
construction of a coal-fired power plant. The application conditions mentioned in this ACM0013 require
that the electric energy generated with the target fuel exceed 50% of the total generated energy of the
target country or region. For this reason, the existing CDM cannot be applied. On the other hand, Japan
has started negotiations with a host country toward conclusion of the bilateral offset credit system,
27
Consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology for new grid connected fossil fuel fired power plants using a less
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) intensive technology
- 128 -
centering around the Asian countries. Negotiations with Thailand are scheduled to start in the future and
new construction of a high-efficiency coal-fired power plant is expected to be the target of the bilateral
offset credit system. Chapter 5 estimates economic effects resulting from conclusion of the bilateral credit.
Brief the project scale and information (rough development area, facility area,
production volume, power generation, etc.).
No
Local residents
NGO
Others (
Is the project newly launched or already existing? If already existing, have you received
strong complaints from the local residents, or an improvement guidance or a
construction cancellation order/shutdown order from the local environmental authority?
New
Existing (with complaints, etc.)
Existing (no complaints)
Others (Already existing, but the applied technology is new. The existing project has installed
the desulfurization equipments based on the past background to enhance the environmental
performance. As a result, there are no more strong complaints, etc.)
- 129 -
Question 4.
Is environmental impact assessment (EIA, IEE, etc.) required in your national systems
as to the project?
If yes, is it being implemented or planned? Describe the reason,
if required.
Others (
Question 6.
)
)
If additional approvals and licenses related to the environmental and social aspects are
required other than the environment assessment, describes their names. Have they been
already obtained?
Obtained
Required, but not obtained yet
Not required
Others (Necessary to check and discuss the necessity of individual approvals and licenses
such as an agreement on pollution prevention with the stakeholders since the
environmental equipments were additionally installed in the past.)
(Approval and license names:
)
Question 7.
YES
Are there the following susceptible areas in or around the project site?
NO
National park and nationally designated protected area (nationally designated coastal area,
swamp, area for minority/indigenous people, cultural asset, etc.)
Primeval forest and tropical natural forest
Ecologically important habitat (coral reefs, mangrove coast, mudflats, etc.)
Habitat of precious species required to be protected by a domestic act, international treaty,
etc.
Area subject to large-scale salt accumulation or soil erosion.
Area strongly apt to desertification.
Area having an archeologically, historically or culturally peculiar value.
Living area of minority/indigenous people, nomads having a traditional living style, or an
area having a special social value.
Question 8.
YES
persons)
Question 9. May the project have an adverse effect on the environment and society?
YES
NO
Air pollution
- 130 -
Water contamination
Soil contamination
Waste materials
Noise and vibrations
Land subsidence
Foul odor
Topography and geology
Bottom sediment
Living organisms and ecological system
Utilization of water
Accidents
Global warming
Non-voluntary relocation of residents
Local economy such as employment and livelihood
Utilization of land and local resources
Social organizations such as social capitals and local decision-making bodies
Existing social infrastructure and social services
Poverty group, indigenous//minority people
Uneven distribution of harms and profits
Conflict of interests in the area
Gender
Childrens rights
Cultural assets
Infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS
Others (
)
Overview of related social impacts: (
)
Question 10. (In case of load aid) Is the case incapable of identifying the project at this moment (for
example, two-step loan, sector loan, etc. incapable of identifying the project at the time
of agreement)?
Omitted
Question 11. Disclosure of information and discussions with local stakeholders
When environmental and social considerations are required, do you agree to disclosing
the information and having discussions with the local stakeholders according to the
JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations?
Omitted
- 131 -
Category
Table 4-7 Check Lists for Environmental Matters on Thermal Power Plant Projects (from the JICA web site)
Environmental Items
No:N
2. Mitigation measures
Yes:Y
(a) Have several alternatives been studied for this project? (including study on
environmental and social considerations)
(a) Do air pollutants, such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and soot
and dust emitted by power plant operations comply with the countrys emission
standards? Is there a possibility that air pollutants emitted from the project
will cause areas that do not comply with the countrys ambient air quality
standards?
(b) In the case of coal-fired power plants, is there a possibility that fugitive coal
dust from coal piles, coal-handling facilities, and dust from coal ash disposal
sites will cause air pollution? Are adequate measures taken to prevent the air
pollution?
- 132 -
(a)N
(c)N
(d)N
(b)N
(a)N
(b)N
(a)Y
(a)Y
(b)Y
Category
Environmental Items
Yes:Y
No:N
(a) Do effluents including thermal effluents from the power plant comply with the
countrys effluent standards? Is there a possibility that the effluents from the
project will cause areas that do not comply with the countrys ambient water
quality standards or cause a significant temperature rise in the receiving
waters?
(b) In the case of coal-fired power plants, do leachates from coal piles and coal ash
disposal sites comply with the countrys effluent standards?
(c) Are adequate measures taken to prevent contamination of surface water, soil,
groundwater, and seawater by the effluents?
(3) Wastes
(a) Are wastes, (such as waste oils, and waste chemical agents), coal ash, and
by-product gypsum from flue gas desulfurization generated by the power plant
operations properly treated and disposed of in accordance with the countrys
standards?
(a)Y
(a) Do the noise and vibration accompanying operation meet the country's
standards?
(a)Y
(5) Subsidence
(a)N
(6) Odor
(a) Are there any odor sources? Are adequate odor control measures taken?
- 133 -
(a)N
Category
3. Natural Environment
Environmental Items
Yes:Y
No:N
(a) Is the project site located in protected areas designated by the countrys laws or
international treaties and conventions? Is there a possibility that the project
will affect the protected areas?
(2) Ecosystem
(a) Does the project site encompass primeval forests, tropical rain forests,
ecologically valuable habitats (e.g., coral reefs, mangroves, or tidal flats)?
(b) Does the project site encompass the protected habitats of endangered species
designated by the countrys laws or international treaties and conventions?
(c) If significant ecological impacts are anticipated, are adequate environmental
protection measures taken to reduce the impacts on ecosystem?
(d) Is there a possibility that the amount of water (e.g., surface water, groundwater)
used by the project will adversely affect aquatic environments, such as rivers?
Are adequate measures taken to reduce the impacts on aquatic environments,
such as aquatic organisms?
(e) Is there a possibility that discharge of thermal effluents, intake of a large
volume of cooling water or discharge of leachates will adversely affect the
ecosystem of surrounding water areas?
- 134 -
(a)NA (a) EGAT has been preparing EHIA for another new
project in Mae Moh Power Station. This situation
will be studied in the EHIA.
(a)Y
Category
Environmental Items
Yes:Y
No:N
4. Social Environment
(1) Resttlement
- 135 -
(a)N
(b)N
(c)N
(d)N
(e)N
(f)N
(g)N
(h)N
(i)N
(j)N
Category
Environmental Items
Yes:Y
No:N
(a) Is there a possibility that the project will adversely affect the living conditions
of inhabitants? Are adequate measures considered to reduce the impacts, if
necessary?
(b) Is sufficient infrastructure (e.g., hospitals, schools, roads) available for the
project implementation? If existing infrastructure is insufficient, is a plan
developed to construct new infrastructure or improve existing infrastructure?
(2) Living and Livelihood
(a)N
(c) Is there a possibility that large vehicle traffic associated with the project will
affect road traffic in the surrounding areas? Are adequate measures considered
to reduce the impacts on traffic, if necessary?
(b)Y
(e)N
(c)N
(d)N
(e) Is there a possibility that the amount of water used (e.g., surface water,
groundwater) and discharge of thermal effluents by the project will adversely
affect existing water uses and uses of water areas (especially fishing)?
(3) Heritage
(a) Is there a possibility that the project will damage the local archeological,
historical, cultural, and religious heritage sites? Are adequate measures
considered to protect these sites in accordance with the countrys laws?
(4) Landscape
(a) Is there a possibility that the project will adversely affect the local landscape?
Are necessary measures taken?
- 136 -
(a)NA
(a)N
Category
Environmental Items
Yes:Y
No:N
(a) Is there any consideration that reduces affects on culture and lifestyle of ethnic
minority and indigenous people?
(b) Dose this project make consideration on the indigenous right of ethnic minority
and indigenous people?
(a) Dose this project comply with national regulations regarding to working
environment?
(b) Dose this project consider the industrial accident prevention by hardware side
such as installing safety equipment and managing hazardous substance?
(6) Working environment
(c) Dose this project manage the safety and health of project authorized people via
software method such as making safety and health management plan and
educating safety lectures to workers (including traffic safety and sanitation)?
(a)Y
(b)Y
(c)Y
(d)N
(d) Dose this project consider the prevention method when the guard assigned this
project affect adversely on the project authorized people and circumstances?
5. Others
(a) Are adequate measures considered to reduce impacts during construction (e.g.,
noise, vibrations, turbid water, dust, exhaust gases, and wastes)?
(1) Impacts during
Construction
(a) In the case of coal-fired power plants, are adequate measures planned to
prevent spontaneous combustion at the coal piles? (e.g., sprinkler systems).
- 137 -
(a)Y
(b)N
(c)N
(a)Y
Category
Environmental Items
Yes:Y
No:N
(a) Air:
A device will be installed in the flue to measure
air pollutants continuously, which will be
monitored at all times in the central control
room. There are already air quality
measurements being made in the vicinity of
mining district. These measurements will be
continued in the future.
(a) Does the proponent develop and implement monitoring program for the
environmental items that are considered to have potential impacts?
Water quality:
EGAT already monitor water quality in
accordance with Thai regulations. These
measurements will be continued in the future.
(a)Y
(b) Are the items, methods and frequencies included in the monitoring program
judged to be appropriate?
(b)NA
(3) Monitoring
Noise:
(c)Y
(d)Y
During construction:
As necessary, air and water quality, noise and
vibration will be appropriately monitored or
measured on the construction site.
(b) These measures are considered to be
appropriate.
(c) EGAT will manage monitoring system in the
same way of another new project for Mae Moh
Power Station.
(d)
- 138 -
Category
Environmental Items
6. Note
(a)
Reference to Checklist of
Other Sectors
Notes on Using
Environmental Checklist
Yes:Y
No:N
(b) Where necessary, pertinent items described in the Ports and Harbors checklist
should also be checked (e.g., projects including construction of port and harbor
facilities).
(a) If necessary, the impacts to transboundary or global issues should be confirmed
(e.g., the project includes factors that may cause problems, such as
transboundary waste treatment, acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer, and
global warming).
- 139 -
(a)N
(b)N
(a)Y
2) Examination by the JBIC Guidelines for Confirmation of Environmental and Social Considerations
The following examines the environmental and social consideration items according to the Japan Bank
for International Cooperation (JBIC) Guidelines for Confirmation of Environmental and Social
Considerations, Reference Materials Screening Form and Check List.
Since the JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations implemented in 1) have been
prepared based on the JBIC Guidelines, there are many duplications between them. The following
describes the results of examination except for the duplications.
Of the results of utilizing the Check List, Table 4-8 shows those except for the duplications.
Check results of utilizing the Screening Form
The case name, project implementation period, project implementing agent, etc. on Page 1 are
duplicated.
Questions
Questions 1 to 8
Duplicated
Question 9.
If Yes, describe the scale of appropriate characteristics and answer Question 10 and the rest.
If No, answer Question 11 and the rest.
(1) Non-voluntary relocation of residents
(Scale:
persons)
(2) Pumping of underground water
(Scale:
m3/year)
(3) Landfill, land development, cultivation
(Scale:
ha)
(4) Deforestation
(Scale:
ha)
Question 10. If any one of the above-mentioned elements is applicable, are there any scale
requirements for the elements described in Question 9 in the country where the
project is to be implemented? If any, does the project satisfy those requirements?
Serves as the basis.
Does not serve as the basis.
Others (
)
Question 11. Does the aid of the JBIC or Nippon Export and Investment Insurance account for 5%
or less of the total project cost or is the amount of aid equivalent to 10,000,000 SDR or
less in yen?
Omitted
Question 12. Does the project have only minor environmental impacts or no foreseeable
environmental deterioration (for example, the maintenance project of the existing
facilities, rehabilitation without expansion, and acquisition of interests without
additional facility investments)?
(No)
If Yes, you do not need to answer the following questions.
If No., answer Question 13 and the rest.
- 140 -
Question 13. Does the project fall under the categories of the following specific sectors?
(Yes)
If Yes, check the box for the appropriate sector and answer Question 14.
If No, you do not need to answer the following questions.
(1) Mine
(2) Oil and natural gas development
(3) Pipeline
(4) Steel industry (including large furnaces)
(5) Nonferrous metal refining
(6) Petrochemistry (raw material production, including an industrial complexes)
(7) Petroleum refining
(8) Oil, gas and chemical material terminals
(9) Paper and pulp
(10) Production and transportation of harmful and hazardous materials (those
provided by the international treaties, etc.)
(11) Thermal power generation
(12) Nuclear power generation
(13) Hydroelectric generation, dams and reservoirs
(14) Power transmission/transformation and power distribution (accompanied by
large-scale non-voluntary relocation of residents, large-scale deforestation, and
undersea power transmission lines)
(15) Roads, railways and bridges
(16) Airports
(17) Ports and harbors
(18) Sewage and effluent treatment (including the characteristics liable to affect or
located in an susceptible area)
(19) Waste material treatment and disposal
(20) Agriculture (accompanied by large-scale cultivation and irrigation)
(21) Forestry, forestation
(22) Tourism (hotel construction, etc.)
Question 14. Duplicated
- 141 -
6. Note
5. Others
2. Mitigation
measures
Table 4-8 Check Lists for Environmental Matters on Thermal Power Plant Projects
(from the JBIC web site, excluding same questions of JICA guidline)
(1) Impacts
during
Construction
(2) Accident
Prevention
Measures
Notes on Using
Environmental
Checklist
- 142 -
- 143 -
The EHIA related information has been obtained accordingly at the time of conducting this investigation.
Since the EGATs current object persons of discussions directly become the stakeholders of this project,
continuous collaboration with the EGATs investigation teat allows collection of necessary information.
- 144 -
EHIA Report
- 145 -
economic efficiency as a general investment project. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider not only the
measures to maximize the economic efficiency of this project, such as application of the bilateral credit,
but project formation by a PPP scheme.
Namely, the Thai government and implementing agency are expected to immediately implement the
following as the conditions for promoting this project.
(1) Cooperation of the implementing agency for environmental assessment and necessary
explanations to the local residents.
(2) Support for and promotion of acquisition of approvals and licenses according to the
procedural flow in Figure 4-3.
(3) Discussions with the stakeholders.
- 146 -
Chapter 5
c) Maintenance/service cost
Three percent of the construction cost was assumed for the maintenance and service costs based on the
track record of operation in the Shell Buggenum plant and others currently in operation, experiences of
the equipment vendors, and the information accumulated in Chiyoda Corporation.
- 148 -
- 149 -
500MW
425MW
85%
41.5%
3,723GWh
3,165GWh
5 years
25 years
25 years (fixed)
5 years
10 years
25%
US$2,800/kW
US$3,294/kW
US$1,400 million
109.4 billion (ex-rate: 78.13/US$)
d. Fixed cost
Fixed asset tax rate:
Insurance rate:
Maintenance/service cost:
Number of operators:
Unit labor:
e. Variable cost
Amount of lignite used:
Price of lignite:
Limestone:
Price of limestone:
Kaolin:
Price of kaolin:
Industrial water:
Price of industrial water:
Circulating cooling water:
250.3 t/h
775 baht/t
17.8 t/h
187 baht/t
17.8 t/h
187 baht/t
570 t/h
3.81 baht/m3
345 t/h (The amount resupplied is
assumed to be 1% of the circulation
flow volume.)
3.81 baht/m3
51 t/h
61.35 baht/m3
By-product:
Gypsum (sulfur recovery):
Fly ash:
Slag:
33.3 t/h
12.2 t/day
38.8 t/day
Price of by-product:
Gypsum (sulfur recovery):
Fly ash:
Slag:
20 baht/t
170 baht/t
106 baht/t (disposal cost)
(currently not yet commercialized, and
shall be disposed of.)
- 150 -
Energy fund28:
Debt
Equity of SPC
10.0%
Repracement grace
5 years
NA
Prepayment period
10 years
NA
year
2015
2016
3
4
5
Equity
Total
3.50
3.50
0.2%
105.00
35.00
140.00
10.0%
2017
420.00
140.00
560.00
39.9%
2018
315.00
105.00
420.00
29.9%
2019
210.00
70.00
280.00
20.0%
1,050.00
353.50
1,403.50
100.0%
74.8%
25.2%
100.0%
Debt
Commitment Fee
Equity
WACC
6.5%
0.375%
10.0%
7.7%
Total
Interest rate /
amortizatuon rate
Debt
Charged, as the power develop fund, to each coal fired power generation plant.
- 151 -
obtained utilizing JICA overseas financing (2.5% is assumed in this example), the WACC is exceeded if
the electricity selling price is US$0.070/kWh.
Table 5-4 shows the FIRR account that was obtained for an electricity selling price of US$0.08/kWh and
a discount rate of 4.5%. In this example, the NPV will be US$277 million, while the benefit/cost (B/C)
ratio will be 1.26.
Figure 5-1 FIRR calculation results (oxygen-blown IGCC)
FIRR
(%)
0.2
1.5
2.6
3.6
4.6
5.5
6.3
7.1
7.9
8.7
9.4
10.1
10.7
11.4
12.0
FIRR%
Electricity
selling price
(US$/kWh)
0.050
0.055
0.060
0.065
0.070
0.075
0.080
0.085
0.090
0.095
0.100
0.105
0.110
0.115
0.120
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
WACC: 7.7%
(Interest:6.5%)
WACC: 4.5%
(Interest:2.5%)
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
Debt
Commitment Fee
Equity
WACC
2.5%
0.100%
10.0%
4.5%
- 152 -
US$0.07/kWh, the NPV will take a positive value at a discount rate of 4%, and for an electricity selling
price of US$0.09/kWh, it will take a positive value at a discount rate of 7%.
FIRR%
Figure 5-2 Results of the FIRR sensitivity analysis on the construction cost (oxygen-blown IGCC)
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
70
80
90
100
Constraction cost (%)
110
1,500
Electricity selling price 0.09US$/kWh
Discount
rate
(%)
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1,000
500
0
-500
- 153 -
6
Discout rate (%)
10
Investment cost
Gross output
500 MW
Net output
425 MW
Availability
(Plant factor)
85 %
Net efficiency
41.5 %
Investment cost
Depreciation
period
Depreciation
method
Byproduct
Sulfur (gypsum)
Ash (fly ash)
Ash (slag)
Consumption
Fluxant (Kaoline)
Limestone
Industrial water
Cooling water
Boiler water
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
Net Capacity
Availability
Electricity (net)
Fuel consumption
-1
2019
17.8
17.8
570
34,500
51
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour (99% circulating)
ton/hour
-4
2016
-3
2017
-2
2018
-1
2019
mil.USD
3 % of EPC cost
24.22 USD/ton
775 Baht/ton
75:25
Fluxant (Kaoline)
187 Baht/ton
Limestone
187 Baht/ton
Demin. water
25 years
Electricity selling
price
Sulfur selling
price (Gypsum)
Ash selling price
0.08 USD/kWh
20 Baht/ton
Interest rate
170 Baht/ton
61.35 Baht/m3
Baht/person/mou
Ex-rate: 1Baht =
nth
Baht/person/mou
50,000
nth
Industrial water
3.81 Baht/m3
Number of manage
5 persons
106 Baht/ton
Number of operato
57 persons
6.3%
NPV=
277 mil.USD
150,000
Disposal Cost
FIRR=
30%
6.5%
insurance
Labor cost
manager
Labor cost
operator
0.1%
Discount rate
B/C ratio=
0.0313 USD
1.26
4.5%
1
2020
2
2021
3
2022
4
2023
5
2024
6
2025
7
2026
8
2027
9
2028
10
2029
11
2030
12
2031
13
2032
14
2033
15
2034
16
2035
17
2036
18
2037
19
2038
20
2039
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.248
0.004
0.289
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
0.133
4.244
2.6
0.380
0.133
3.313
0.133
3.313
4.244 106.106
2.6 64.222
0.380
9.494
8
2027
425
85
3,165
9
2028
425
85
3,165
10
2029
425
85
3,165
11
2030
425
85
3,165
12
2031
425
85
3,165
13
14
2032
2033
425
425
85
85
3,165 3,165
15
2034
425
85
3,165
16
2035
425
85
3,165
17
2036
425
85
3,165
18
2037
425
85
3,165
19
2038
425
85
3,165
20
21
2039
2040
425
425
85
85
3,165 3,165
22
2041
425
85
3,165
23
2042
425
85
3,165
24
2043
425
85
3,165
25
2044
425
85
3,165
1
2
3
4
5
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
425
425
425
425
425
85
85
85
85
85
3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165 3,165
MW
GWh
Total Investment
(Feed)
Debt
Equity
-2
2018
33.3 ton/hour
12.2 ton/day
38.8 ton/hour (not sale, disposal)
-5
2015
Year
-3
2017
1,400 mil.USD
3.5 mil.USD
Calculation term
-4
2016
Maintenance fee
25 years
Debt / Equity
ratio
-5
2015
Revenue
2,800 USD/kW
straight line
Feed
Year
Cost
6
7
2025
2026
425
425
85
85
3,165 3,165
Total
6.199
0.095
7.223
Total
79,114
3.5
140.0
560.0
420.0
280.0
1,403.5
3.5
0.0
3.5
105.0
35.0
420.0
140.0
315.0
105.0
210.0
70.0
3.5
1,050.0
353.5
Total Revenue
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
Sales Electricity
mil.USD
Sales Sulfur (gypsum)
Sales Ash (fly ssh)
Sales Ash (slag)
Disposal (not sale)
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
253.2
0.2
0.02
159.3
158.9
158.6
158.2
157.9
157.5
157.2
156.8
156.5
156.1
155.8
155.4
155.1
154.7
154.4
154.0
153.7
153.3
153.0
152.6
152.3
151.9
151.6
151.2
150.9
3,949.6
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.3
2.0
7.1
69.6
94.4
28.3
66.1
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.3
2.0
6.8
63.7
94.8
28.4
66.3
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.2
2.0
6.5
57.4
95.1
28.5
66.6
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.2
2.0
6.2
50.6
95.5
28.6
66.8
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.1
2.0
5.9
43.5
95.8
28.7
67.1
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.1
2.0
5.6
35.8
96.2
28.9
67.3
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.0
2.0
5.3
27.7
96.5
29.0
67.6
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
19.0
96.9
29.1
67.8
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.9
2.0
4.7
9.8
97.2
29.2
68.1
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.8
2.0
4.4
0.0
97.6
29.3
68.3
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.8
2.0
4.1
0.0
97.9
29.4
68.6
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.7
2.0
3.8
0.0
98.3
29.5
68.8
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.7
2.0
3.5
0.0
98.6
29.6
69.0
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.6
2.0
3.2
0.0
99.0
29.7
69.3
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.6
2.0
2.9
0.0
99.3
29.8
69.5
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.5
2.0
2.6
0.0
99.7
29.9
69.8
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.4
2.0
2.4
0.0
100.0
30.0
70.0
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.4
2.0
2.1
0.0
100.4
30.1
70.3
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.3
2.0
1.8
0.0
100.7
30.2
70.5
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.3
2.0
1.5
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.2
2.0
1.2
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.2
2.0
0.9
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.1
2.0
0.6
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
0.1
2.0
0.3
1,128.4
33.8
1,050.0
12.6
7.6
18.2
19.4
19.4
23.9
1,400.0
18.2
52.6
165.6
-0.8
45.1
1.4
42.0
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
56.0
1.4
2.0
7.4
75.2
94.1
28.2
65.9
101.1
30.3
70.8
101.4
30.4
71.0
101.8
30.5
71.2
102.1
30.6
71.5
102.5
30.7
71.7
2,453.8
737.1
1,716.8
121.9
122.1
122.3
122.6
122.8
123.1
123.3
123.6
123.8
124.1
124.3
124.6
124.8
125.0
125.3
125.5
125.8
126.0
126.3
126.5
126.8
127.0
127.2
127.5
127.7
1,713.3
Total Cost
Fuel (coal)
Labor
Maintenance
Industrial water
Cooling water
Boiler water
Fluxant (Kaoline)
Limestone
Disposal Cost
Depreciation
Fixed asset tax
Energy Fund
Insurance
Interest
Net Income
Tax
After Tax
Free Cash Flow
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
mil.USD
Ash slag
mil.USD
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
70.0 % Plant coas ratio / total cost
6.8
7.3
35.0
57.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
mil.USD
-0.8
mil.USD
B/C ratio
Benefit
Cost
(including Investment)
2,390
-0.8
-0.8
6,329.1
3.9
0.5
4.5%
0
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
6,333
141
561
421
281
103
103
103
102
102
102
101
101
100
100
100
99
99
99
98
98
98
97
97
97
96
96
96
95
95
3,883
- 154 -
571.3MW
505.4MW
85%
43.4%
4,254GWh
3,763GWh
5 years
25 years
25 years (fixed)
5 years
10 years
25%
US$2,800/kW
US$3,165/kW
US$1,600 million
125.0 billion (ex-rate: 78.13/US$)
0.1% (VS book value)
0.75% (VS book value)
3.0% (VS construction cost)
62 (manager 5 persons, operator 57
persons)
150,000 baht/person/month (manager)
50,000 baht/person/month (operator)
Unit labor:
e. Variable cost
Amount of lignite used:
Price of lignite:
Limestone:
Price of limestone:
Kaolin:
Price of kaolin:
Industrial water:
Price of industrial water:
Circulating cooling water:
285.4 t/h
775 baht/t
15.6 t/h
187 baht/t
0 t/h
187 baht/t
570 t/h
3.81 baht/m3
118 t/h (The amount resupplied is
assumed to be 1% of the circulation
flow volume.)
3.81 baht/m3
17 t/h
- 155 -
61.35 baht/m3
By-product:
Gypsum (sulfur recovery):
Fly ash:
Slag:
Price of by-product:
Gypsum (sulfur recovery):
Fly ash:
Slag:
29.2 t/h
0 t/day
38.5 t/day
20 baht/t
170 baht/t
106 baht/t (disposal cost)
(currently not yet commercialized, and
shall be disposed of.)
Equity of SPC
10.0%
Repracement grace
5 years
NA
Prepayment period
10 years
NA
- 156 -
year
2015
4.00
4.00
0.2%
2016
119.97
39.99
159.96
10.0%
2017
479.89
159.96
639.86
39.9%
2018
359.92
119.97
479.89
29.9%
2019
239.95
79.98
319.93
20.0%
1,199.73
403.91
1,603.64
100.0%
74.8%
25.2%
100.0%
Debt
Commitment Fee
Equity
WACC
6.5%
0.375%
10.0%
7.7%
Total
Interest rate /
amortizatuon rate
Debt
Equity
Total
- 157 -
FIRR%
Electricity
selling price
(US$/kWh)
0.050
0.055
0.060
0.065
0.070
0.075
0.080
0.085
0.090
0.095
0.100
0.105
0.110
0.115
0.120
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
WACC: 7.7%
(Interest:6.5%)
WACC: 4.5%
(Interest:2.5%)
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.12
(US$/kW)
1,960
2,100
2,240
2,380
2,520
2,660
2,800
2,940
3,080
(%)
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
FIRR%
Construction cost
70
80
90
100
Constraction cost (%)
110
1,500
1,000
NPV (mil. US$)
Discoun
t rate
(%)
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
500
0
-500
- 158 -
6
Discout rate (%)
10
Investment cost
Gross output
571.3 MW
Net output
505.4 MW
Availability
(Plant factor)
85 %
Net efficiency
43.4 %
Investment cost
Depreciation
period
Depreciation
method
Byproduct
Sulfur (gypsum)
Ash (fly ash)
Ash (slag)
Consumption
Fluxant (Kaoline)
Limestone
Industrial water
Cooling water
Boiler water
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
mil. ton
Net Capacity
Availability
Electricity (net)
Fuel consumption
Coal
-1
2019
0
15.6
1,250
11,800
17
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour
ton/hour (99% circulating)
ton/hour
-4
2016
-3
2017
-2
2018
-1
2019
mil. t
mil.USD
285.4 ton/hour
3 % of EPC cost
24.22 USD/ton
775 Baht/ton
75:25
Fluxant (Kaoline)
187 Baht/ton
Limestone
187 Baht/ton
Demin. water
25 years
Revenue
Electricity selling
price
Sulfur selling
price (Gypsum)
0.08 USD/kWh
20 Baht/ton
Interest rate
170 Baht/ton
61.35 Baht/m3
Baht/person/mou
Ex-rate: 1Baht =
nth
Baht/person/mou
50,000
nth
Industrial water
3.81 Baht/m3
Number of manage
5 persons
106 Baht/ton
Number of operato
57 persons
6.9%
NPV=
428 mil.USD
150,000
Disposal Cost
FIRR=
30%
6.5%
insurance
Labor cost
manager
Labor cost
operator
0.1%
Discount rate
B/C ratio=
0.0313 USD
1.32
4.5%
1
2020
2
2021
3
2022
4
2023
5
2024
6
2025
7
2026
8
2027
9
2028
10
2029
11
2030
12
2031
13
2032
14
2033
15
2034
16
2035
17
2036
18
2037
19
2038
20
2039
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.217
0.000
0.287
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.116
9.308
0.879
0.127
0.000
0.000
0.116
2.904
9.308 232.688
0.879 21.966
0.127
3.165
9
2028
505.4
85
3,763
10
11
2029
2030
505.4 505.4
85
85
3,763 3,763
12
2031
505.4
85
3,763
13
14
2032
2033
505.4 505.4
85
85
3,763 3,763
20
2039
505.4
85
3,763
21
22
2040
2041
505.4 505.4
85
85
3,763 3,763
23
2042
505.4
85
3,763
24
25
2043
2044
505.4 505.4
85
85
3,763 3,763
1
2
3
2020
2021
2022
505.4 505.4 505.4
85
85
85
3,763 3,763 3,763
MW
GWh
Total Investment
(Feed)
Debt
Equity
-2
2018
29.2 ton/hour
0.0 ton/day
38.5 ton/hou Disposal (not sale)
-5
2015
Year
-3
2017
4.0 mil.USD
Calculation term
-4
2016
Maintenance fee
1,600 mil.USD
25 years
Feed
-5
2015
2,800 USD/kW
straight line
Debt / Equity
ratio
Year
Cost
2.13
2.13
2.13
4
5
6
2023
2024
2025
505.4 505.4 505.4
85
85
85
3,763 3,763 3,763
2.13
2.13
2.13
7
8
2026
2027
505.4 505.4
85
85
3,763 3,763
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
15
16
17
2034
2035
2036
505.4 505.4 505.4
85
85
85
3,763 3,763 3,763
2.13
2.13
2.13
18
19
2037
2038
505.4 505.4
85
85
3,763 3,763
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
2.13
Total
5.436
0.000
7.167
Total
94,080
53.13
4.0
160.0
639.9
479.9
319.9
1,603.6
4.0
0.0
4.0
120.0
40.0
479.9
160.0
359.9
120.0
239.9
80.0
4.0
1,199.7
403.9
Total Revenue
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
Sales Electricity
mil.USD
Sales Sulfur (gypsum)
Sales Ash (fly ssh)
Sales Ash (slag)
Disposal (not sale)
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
301.1
0.1
0.00
180.2
179.8
179.4
179.0
178.6
178.2
177.8
177.4
177.0
176.6
176.2
175.8
175.4
175.0
174.6
174.2
173.8
173.4
173.0
172.6
172.2
171.8
171.4
171.0
170.6
4,459.2
-0.9
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.6
2.4
8.4
121.0
36.3
84.7
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.5
2.4
8.1
121.4
36.4
85.0
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.5
2.4
7.7
121.8
36.5
85.2
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.4
2.4
7.4
122.2
36.7
85.5
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.3
2.4
7.1
122.6
36.8
85.8
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.3
2.4
6.7
123.0
36.9
86.1
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.2
2.4
6.4
123.4
37.0
86.4
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.2
2.4
6.0
123.8
37.1
86.6
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.1
2.4
5.7
124.2
37.2
86.9
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.0
2.4
5.4
124.6
37.4
87.2
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
1.0
2.4
5.0
125.0
37.5
87.5
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.9
2.4
4.7
125.4
37.6
87.8
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.8
2.4
4.4
125.8
37.7
88.0
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.8
2.4
4.0
126.2
37.8
88.3
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.7
2.4
3.7
126.6
38.0
88.6
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.6
2.4
3.4
127.0
38.1
88.9
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.6
2.4
3.0
127.4
38.2
89.2
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.5
2.4
2.7
127.8
38.3
89.4
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.4
2.4
2.4
128.2
38.4
89.7
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.4
2.4
2.0
128.6
38.6
90.0
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.3
2.4
1.7
129.0
38.7
90.3
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.3
2.4
1.3
129.4
38.8
90.6
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.2
2.4
1.0
129.8
38.9
90.8
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.1
2.4
0.7
130.2
39.0
91.1
51.5
1.4
48.0
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.9
64.0
0.1
2.4
0.3
130.6
39.2
91.4
1,286.7
33.8
1,199.7
27.7
2.6
6.1
0.0
17.0
23.7
1,599.6
20.8
62.4
179.2
3,140.6
943.2
2,197.3
148.7
148.9
149.2
149.5
149.8
150.1
150.3
150.6
150.9
151.2
151.5
151.7
152.0
152.3
152.6
152.9
153.1
153.4
153.7
154.0
154.3
154.5
154.8
155.1
155.4
2,193.3
0.9
Total Cost
Fuel (coal)
Labor
Maintenance
Industrial water
Cooling water
Boiler water
Fluxant (Kaoline)
Limestone
Disposal Cost
Depreciation
Fixed asset tax
Energy Fund
Insurance
Net Income
Tax
After Tax
Free Cash Flow
0.9
0.9
0.9
mil.USD
Ash slag
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
70.0 % Plant coas ratio / total cost
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
mil.USD
-0.9
mil.USD
B/C ratio
Benefit
Cost
(including Investment)
2,710
-0.9
-0.9
7,526.4
3.4
0.0
4.5%
0
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
301
7,530
161
641
481
321
116
116
115
115
115
114
114
113
113
113
112
112
111
111
111
110
110
109
109
109
108
108
107
107
107
4,393
- 159 -
- 160 -
Figure 5-7 Recovery of increment of initial investment by difference of fuel and O & M cost
(IGCC at Mae Moh vs USC by imported coal)
100
0
Cost balance mil. US$
-4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
- 161 -
Table 5-8 EIRR account (IGCC at Mae Moh vs USC with imported coal)
Assumption of IGCC
Gross output
Net output
Availability
Gross efficiency
Net efficiency
Construction cost
O&M cost
Fixed cost
Variable cost
Fuel cost (coal)
Calorific valuue gar
Fuel consumption
500
425
85%
48.8%
41.5%
2,800
0.10
0.09
0.01
24.22
14.70
1.86
Assumption of USC
Gross output
Net output
Availability
Gross efficiency
Net efficiency
Construction cost
O&M cost
MW
MW
US$/kW
million US$/MW
million US$/MW
million US$/MW
US$/
MJ/kg
3,511 kcal/kg
million t/year
452 MW
425 MW
85%
41.4%
38.9%
1,850 US$/kW
0.08 million US$/MW
80% of IGCC
115 US$/
25.96 MJ/kg
6,200 kcal/kg
1.13 million t/year
IGCC
Year
Construct Gross
ion cost Output
mil.US$
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
MW
Availabilit
y
Annual
power
generation
GWh
USC
Gross
Fuel cost
efficiency
O&M cost
Varaiable
Fixed
Total
mil.US$
mil.US$
mil.US$
mil.US$
140.0
560.0
420.0
280.0
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1,400
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
93,075
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
1,126.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
150.6
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
1,083.8
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
1,234.3
Total
Cost
Construct Gross
ion cost Output
mil.US$ US$
0
140.0
83.6
560.0
334.6
420.0
250.9
280.0
167.3
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
3,760.6
836.4
MW
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
452
Availabilit
y
Annual
power
generation
GWh
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
3,367
84,164
Gross
Fuel cost O&M cost
efficiency
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
41.4%
mil.US$
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
129.7
3,241.4
mil.US$
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.7
892.9
Total
Cost
mil.US$
0.0
83.6
334.6
250.9
167.3
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
165.4
4,970.7
EIRR=
- 162 -
Cost
balance
mil.US$
0.0
-56.4
-225.4
-169.1
-112.7
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
70.9
1,210.2
10.0%
(US$/kW)
1,500
1,550
1,600
1,650
1,700
1,750
1,800
1,850
1,900
1,950
2,000
2,050
2,100
2,150
2,200
2,250
2,300
2,350
2,400
(%)
70
72
74
77
79
81
84
86
88
91
93
95
98
100
102
105
107
109
112
EIRR
(%)
22.0
7.4
7.7
8.0
8.4
8.7
9.1
9.5
10.0
10.4
10.9
11.4
12.0
12.6
13.2
13.9
14.7
15.5
16.4
17.5
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
EIRR%
Construction cost
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300
2,400
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
EIRR%
Coal price
(US$/)
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
- 163 -
2.9%
85%
55.8%
54.2%
13,019kcal/kg
US$16.9/million Btu (assumed as CIF Japan in
November 2011)
US$800/kW (assumed current price in Thailand)
Assumed to be 80% of that of the IGCC plant.
Results of analysis
In cost comparison with the GTCC plant that uses imported LNG as fuel in an alternative power
generation form, the EIRR of this project is 19.3% and the IGCC plant is economically superior
to the GTCC plant that uses imported LNG as fuel (see Table 5-9). The difference of initial
investment cost between IGCC at Mae Moh and GTCC by LNG is recovered in 6.5 years after
commencement at a discount rate of 10%. And also the recovery years will be even shorter than
6.5 years, as a LNG terminal for GTCC plant is needed and the initial investment will be higher.
Figure 5-10 Recovery of increment of initial investment by difference of fuel and O & M cost
(IGCC at Mae Moh vs GTCC by imported LNG)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
-400
-600
-800
-1000
- 164 -
Table 5-9 EIRR account (IGCC at Mae Moh vs GTCC with imported LNG)
Assumption of IGCC
Gross output
Net output
Availability
Gross efficiency
Net efficiency
Construction cost
O&M cost
Fixed cost
Variable cost
Fuel cost (coal)
Calorific valuue gar
Fuel consumption
500
425
85%
48.8%
41.5%
2,800
0.10
0.09
0.01
24.22
14.70
1.86
Assumption of GTCC
Gross output
Net output
Availability
Gross efficiency
Net efficiency
Construction cost
O&M cost
MW
MW
US$/kW
million US$/MW
million US$/MW
million US$/MW
US$/
MJ/kg
3,511 kcal/kg
million t/year
438 MW
425 MW
85%
55.8%
54.2%
800 US$/kW
0.08 million US$/MW
80% of IGCC
16.9 US$/MMBtu
54.61 MJ/kg
13,043 kcal/kg
0.39 million t/year
IGCC
Year
Construct Gross
ion cost Output
mil.US$
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
MW
Availabilit
y
Annual
power
generation
GWh
GTCC
Gross
Fuel cost
efficiency
O&M cost
Varaiable
Fixed
Total
mil.US$
mil.US$
mil.US$
mil.US$
140.0
560.0
420.0
280.0
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1,400
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
3,723
93,075
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
48.8%
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
1,126.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
150.6
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
43.4
1,083.8
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
49.4
1,234.3
Total
Cost
Construct Gross
ion cost Output
mil.US$ mil.US$
0.0
140.0
35.0
560.0
140.1
420.0
105.0
280.0
70.0
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
94.4
3,760.6
350
MW
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
438
Availabilit
y
Annual
power
generation
GWh
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
85%
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
3,259
81,477
Gross
Fuel cost O&M cost
efficiency
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
55.8%
mil.US$
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
325.4
8,135.3
mil.US$
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
864.4
Total
Cost
mil.US$ mil.US$
0
0
35.0
-105.0
140.1
-419.9
105.0
-315.0
70.0
-210.0
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
360.0
265.6
9,349.9
5,589.4
EIRR=
- 165 -
Cost
balance
19.3%
(US$/kW)
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1,000
1,050
1,100
1,150
1,200
(%)
86
93
100
107
114
121
129
136
143
150
157
164
171
EIRR
(%)
23.0
18.0
18.3
18.6
18.9
19.3
19.6
20.0
20.3
20.7
21.1
21.5
21.9
22.4
EIRR%
Construction cost
21.0
19.0
17.0
15.0
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
20
22
24.0
22.0
20.0
EIRR%
LNG price
(US$/MMbtu)
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
10
12
14
16
18
- 166 -
fired power generation capacity to the total capacity is not larger than 50%, regarding the new
high-efficiency coal fired power generation technology. Japan has, however, started negotiation with
Asian countries in preparation for reaching an agreement concerning bilateral offset. We consider the
case where Japan and Thailand will have reached an agreement on this bilateral offset and a credit will
have been generated.
The CO2 credit was calculated provisionally and the effect on this project was considered herein by
comparing between the 500MW oxygen-blown IGCC plant being planted to be installed in this project
and the existing subcritical pressure coal fired power plant in the Mae Moh. In reaching a bilateral credit
agreement, it is, however, necessary to establish a methodology that is approved internationally as well
as bilaterally.
Our consideration shows that 1.13 million t of CO2 will decrease annually and a US$19.8 million credit
will be acquired annually, assuming that the credit cost is US$17.58/CO2-t (average cost in 2011). For
reference, the FIRR will improve by approximately 0.5% if it is calculated assuming that the period of
generation of this credit is the 10 years beginning at the start of operation.
d) Syngas production option
Initially, we assumed that no economic efficiency would be obtained owing to an expensive construction
cost of the coal IGCC plant. For this reason, we planned to improve the economic efficiency by
considering production and selling of syngas (an alternative of LPG herein for the following reason) as
an option. As described previously, we were, however, able to decide that this project will be feasible
financially by making a low interest loan; thus, we will not consider the syngas production option in this
investigation.
Because the investigation concerning the LPG market in Thailand was investigated earlier than the
others, the Thailand LPG market is outlined, as reference information, at the end of this chapter.
- 167 -
2010
Captive
consumption
8%
Transportation
11%
Industrial
13%
Petrochemical
feedstock
27%
Kitchen use
41%
4
3
2
1
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
29
- 168 -
Export
LPG Export
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Import
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
-2.0
(Note) The graph shows the LPG import volume data as negative values.
(Source) Ministry of Energy, Energy Policy and Planning Office, Energy Statistics: Table 2.3-6, 2.3-8.
3. Price of LPG
According to the data provided on the website of the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand, in recent
years, the LPG import price decreased from US$884/t in 2008 to US$620/t in 2009, and increased
again to US$773/t in 2010. This fluctuation in the import price may be due to the influence of the
worldwide price fluctuation of LPG.
On the other hand, as for domestic LPG prices in Thailand, the wholesale price (ex-refinery) is
13.69 baht/kg as of December 2010, and the retail price is 18.13 baht/kg.
For the retail price, its upper limit has been regulated as 13.69 baht/kg beginning in March 2008, for
the purpose of easing the consumers financial family burden32. The fixed LPG price system has
been supporting the LPG price by using the contribution collected from petroleum products, such as
gasoline and diesel oil, as the capital (Oil Fund)33.
32
33
- 169 -
In August 2011, the following proposal toward alteration of the LPG price system was reported: the
previous fixed price of LPG not matching the market rate should be reconsidered, and credit cards
should be issued to low-income earners instead of the uniform subsidy in the price.34 For this
reason, henceforth, the retail price of LPG may greatly increase compared to the current level35.
However, in September, National Energy Policy Council (NEPC), chaired by Prime Minister
Yingluck Shinawatra, determined that the price of the LPG for domestic use will be kept at 18.13
baht /kg until the end of 201236.
Table 5-10 EIRR Transition of LPG import price in Thailand (2008 to 2010)
US$/t
2008
2009
2010
884
620
773
(Source 1) Created from website of Ministry of Commerce > Main Ex-Im Commodity, Harmonize
System.
US$/t
Reference Propane price
Saudi Arabia/FOB price
Free On Board
Japan/CFR price
Cost and Freight
UK, North Sea/FOB price
2008
2009
2010
1Q
2Q
3Q
4Q
1Q
2Q
3Q
4Q
1Q
2Q
3Q
831
848
856
549
451
390
519
650
735
705
595
838
890
867
453
458
427
544
688
752
705
620
810
834
865
495
416
355
491
605
695
621
597
18
16
LPG
Wholesale price ex-refinery
14
12
10
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
34
- 170 -
Chapter 6
- 172 -
- 173 -
- 174 -
Chapter 7
Implementing Organization
- 176 -
Gas turbine
276 GWh
(0.48%)
Gas-fired
10,831 GWh
(18.79%)
Combined cycle
23,167 GWh
(40,20%)
Hydraulic
5,338 GWh
(9.26%)
Operating Performance
Revenues from sales and services
Income from sales and services
Gains (losses) on foreign exchange
Interest expenses
Net income - EGAT
Net income - minority interest
405,445.06
39,015.85
910.36
4,420.18
37,355.13
2,860.16
373,701.68
32,746.07
1,175.27
4,528.25
31,227.37
3,706.63
Financial Status
Total assets
Land, buildings and equipment - net
Total liabilities
Long-term debts
Equity and minority interest
469,415.42
263,009.45
173,181.45
82,905.92
296,233.97
474,189.38
258,639.86
198,678.59
104,853.21
275,510.79
Financial Ratios
Ratio of gross profit to net sales (%)
Ratio of net profit to net sales (%)
Rate of return on assets (%)
Debt to equity ratio (Times)
Time interest earned (Times)
13.46
9.21
7.92
0.58
10.39
12.56
8.36
6.84
0.72
8.90
- 177 -
- 178 -
Chapter 8
JICA
(Overseas Investment Loans)
EGAT etc
Equity O&M
IGCC Plant
EPC
Contract
SPC
(Thai-Japan JV
Bilateral Credit
Trading
EGAT
(Source) Prepared by Study Team
With investments by the nine electric power companies (Hokkaido Electric Power, Tohoku Electric
Power, Tokyo Electric Power, Chubu Electric Power, Hokuriku Electric Power, Kansai Electric Power,
Chugoku Electric Power, Shikoku Electric Power and Kyushu Electric Power) and Electric Power
Development (J-POWER), a research institute named Clean Coal Power R&D Co., Ltd. was established
in 2001 with an aim of demonstrating the Japanese IGCC technology. The institute and the electric
power companies etc. have accumulated the know-how of the Nakoso IGCC plant, the first plant in
Japan, by designing, constructing and performing operation and maintenance, partly utilizing subsidies
from the Natural Resources and Energy Agency under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Enforcing testing on reliability, operability, durability and economic efficiency of IGCC in the process of
its demonstration, a future challenge is to actually propose and develop IGCC projects in Japan and
overseas.
In order to utilize valuable past performances and accumulated know-how of IGCC operation and
maintenance, Japanese electric power companies which have been involved in Nakoso IGCC plant
operation are expected to participate in this project as project implementing bodies.
- 180 -
- 181 -
- 182 -
Chapter 9
Financial Outlook
- 184 -
namely, to procure financial resources from commercial banks and to use soft loan such as JICA
overseas investment loans. The estimation result showed that soft loan such as JICA overseas investment
loan would be repayable by cash flow produced from the project in both cases of oxygen-blown and
air-blown IGCC (see Tables 8-1 and 8-2).
The analysis was conducted based on the following assumed conditions and US$0.08/kWh as an electric
power selling price.
Loan conditions of commercial banks
Interest rate:
Repayment period:
Deferment period:
6.5%/year
10 years
5 years
- 185 -
Year
Total Investment
(Feed)
Debt
Equity
mil.USD
Total Revenue
mil.USD
Total Cost
mil.USD
Net Income
Tax
After Tax
mil.USD
mil.USD
Year
Loan
Outstanding
Interest
Repayment
Year
Loan
Outstanding
Interest
Repayment
-4
2016
-3
2017
-2
2018
-1
2019
1
2020
2
2021
3
2022
4
2023
5
2024
6
2025
7
2026
8
2027
9
2028
10
2029
11
2030
12
2031
13
2032
14
2033
15
2034
16
2035
17
2036
18
2037
19
2038
20
2039
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
Total
3.5
140.0
560.0
420.0
280.0
1,403.5
3.5
0.0
3.5
105.0
35.0
420.0
140.0
315.0
105.0
210.0
70.0
3.5
1,050.0
353.5
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
253.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
159.3
158.9
158.6
158.2
157.9
157.5
157.2
156.8
156.5
156.1
155.8
155.4
155.1
154.7
154.4
154.0
153.7
153.3
153.0
152.6
152.3
151.9
151.6
151.2
150.9
3,949.6
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
94.1
28.2
65.9
94.4
28.3
66.1
94.8
28.4
66.3
95.1
28.5
66.6
95.5
28.6
66.8
95.8
28.7
67.1
96.2
28.9
67.3
96.5
29.0
67.6
96.9
29.1
67.8
97.2
29.2
68.1
97.6
29.3
68.3
97.9
29.4
68.6
98.3
29.5
68.8
98.6
29.6
69.0
99.0
29.7
69.3
99.3
29.8
69.5
99.7
29.9
69.8
100.0
30.0
70.0
100.4
30.1
70.3
100.7
30.2
70.5
101.1
30.3
70.8
101.4
30.4
71.0
101.8
30.5
71.2
102.1
30.6
71.5
102.5
30.7
71.7
2,453.8
737.1
1,716.8
121.9
122.1
122.3
122.6
122.8
123.1
123.3
123.6
123.8
124.1
124.3
124.6
124.8
125.0
125.3
125.5
125.8
126.0
126.3
126.5
126.8
127.0
127.2
127.5
127.7
1,713.3
Interest
6.5%
Repayment perio
10 years
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0.0 105.0 420.0 315.0 210.0
0.0 111.8 539.1 889.1 1,156.9 1,071.2 979.9
mil.USD
0.0
6.8
7.3
35.0
57.8
75.2
69.6
160.9 160.9
Interest
2.5%
Repayment perio
20 years
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0.0 105.0 420.0 315.0 210.0
0.0 107.6 530.3 858.6 1,090.0 1,047.4 1,003.6
mil.USD
0.0
2.6
2.7
13.3
21.5
27.3
26.2
69.9
69.9
3
2022
882.6
63.7
160.9
3
2022
958.8
25.1
69.9
4
2023
779.1
57.4
160.9
4
2023
912.8
24.0
69.9
5
2024
668.8
50.6
160.9
5
2024
865.7
22.8
69.9
6
2025
551.3
43.5
160.9
6
2025
817.5
21.6
69.9
7
2026
426.2
35.8
160.9
7
2026
768.0
20.4
69.9
8
2027
293.0
27.7
160.9
8
2027
717.3
19.2
69.9
9
2028
151.1
19.0
160.9
9
2028
665.3
17.9
69.9
10
2029
11
2030
12
2031
13
2032
14
2033
15
2034
16
2035
17
2036
18
2037
19
2038
20
2039
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
253.3
25
2044
1,050
8,500
559
1,609
0.0
9.8
160.9
10
2029
612.0
16.6
69.9
- 186 -
Total
11
2030
557.3
15.3
69.9
12
2031
501.4
13.9
69.9
13
2032
444.0
12.5
69.9
14
2033
385.1
11.1
69.9
15
2034
324.9
9.6
69.9
16
2035
263.0
8.1
69.9
17
2036
199.7
6.6
69.9
18
2037
134.8
5.0
69.9
19
2038
68.2
3.4
69.9
20
2039
0.0
1.7
69.9
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
Total
1,050
13,833
348
1,398
Year
Total Investment
(Feed)
Debt
Equity
mil.USD
Total Revenue
mil.USD
Total Cost
mil.USD
Net Income
Tax
After Tax
mil.USD
mil.USD
Year
Loan
Outstanding
Interest
Repayment
Year
Loan
Outstanding
Interest
Repayment
-4
2016
-3
2017
-2
2018
-1
2019
1
2020
2
2021
3
2022
4
2023
5
2024
6
2025
7
2026
8
2027
9
2028
10
2029
11
2030
12
2031
13
2032
14
2033
15
2034
16
2035
17
2036
18
2037
19
2038
20
2039
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
Total
4.0
160.0
639.9
479.9
319.9
1,603.6
4.0
0.0
4.0
120.0
40.0
479.9
160.0
359.9
120.0
239.9
80.0
4.0
1,199.7
403.9
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
301.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
180.2
179.8
179.4
179.0
178.6
178.2
177.8
177.4
177.0
176.6
176.2
175.8
175.4
175.0
174.6
174.2
173.8
173.4
173.0
172.6
172.2
171.8
171.4
171.0
170.6
4,459.2
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
121.0
36.3
84.7
121.4
36.4
85.0
121.8
36.5
85.2
122.2
36.7
85.5
122.6
36.8
85.8
123.0
36.9
86.1
123.4
37.0
86.4
123.8
37.1
86.6
124.2
37.2
86.9
124.6
37.4
87.2
125.0
37.5
87.5
125.4
37.6
87.8
125.8
37.7
88.0
126.2
37.8
88.3
126.6
38.0
88.6
127.0
38.1
88.9
127.4
38.2
89.2
127.8
38.3
89.4
128.2
38.4
89.7
128.6
38.6
90.0
129.0
38.7
90.3
129.4
38.8
90.6
129.8
38.9
90.8
130.2
39.0
91.1
130.6
39.2
91.4
3,140.6
943.2
2,197.3
148.7
148.9
149.2
149.5
149.8
150.1
150.3
150.6
150.9
151.2
151.5
151.7
152.0
152.3
152.6
152.9
153.1
153.4
153.7
154.0
154.3
154.5
154.8
155.1
155.4
2,193.3
Interest
6.5%
Repayment perio
10 years
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0.0 120.0 479.9 359.9 239.9
0.0 127.8 616.0 1,015.9 1,321.9 1,224.0 1,119.6 1,008.5 890.2 764.2 630.0 487.0 334.8 172.7
0.0
mil.USD
0.0
7.8
8.3
40.0
66.0
85.9
79.6
72.8
65.6
57.9
49.7
40.9
31.7
21.8
11.2
183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9 183.9
Interest
2.5%
Repayment perio
20 years
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
0.0 120.0 479.9 359.9 239.9
0.0 123.0 605.9 981.0 1,245.5 1,196.7 1,146.7 1,095.5 1,043.0 989.2 934.0 877.5 819.5 760.1 699.3 636.8
mil.USD
0.0
3.0
3.1
15.1
24.5
31.1
29.9
28.7
27.4
26.1
24.7
23.4
21.9
20.5
19.0
17.5
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
79.9
- 187 -
12
2031
13
2032
14
2033
15
2034
16
2035
17
2036
18
2037
19
2038
20
2039
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
Total
1,200
9,713
639
1,839
12
2031
572.9
15.9
79.9
13
2032
507.3
14.3
79.9
14
2033
440.1
12.7
79.9
15
2034
371.2
11.0
79.9
16
2035
300.6
9.3
79.9
17
2036
228.2
7.5
79.9
18
2037
154.0
5.7
79.9
19
2038
78.0
3.9
79.9
20
2039
0.0
1.9
79.9
21
2040
22
2041
23
2042
24
2043
25
2044
Total
1,200
15,806
398
1,598
- 188 -
- 190 -
- 191 -
EGAT which was established as a state company under the special law, the project implementing body
will be recognized as a state company depending on the investment ratio according to the Thai State
Enterprise Act (if the Thai governments investment ratio is above 50%), and thus the project activities
may be restricted. Further thorough checking on this matter shall be made in the process of promoting
project formulation in future.
- 192 -