News Clipping Archive - Page 1030 of 1320

Coal

Coal power plants flourish in the Philippines despite ‘climate emergency’

28 October 2019

–

Philippines

Coal has long been the primary power source in the Philippines, and large-scale power plants act as a safety crutch in the country’s quest for energy security.
But the advent of cost-efficient renewable energy technologies is challenging coal’s dominance as the go-to energy source.
President Rodrigo Duterte has voiced support for renewables but has yet to release an executive mandate that could propel the energy department to change its coal-dependent roadmap.
Any meaningful shift to renewables would require drastic changes in priorities and perspective, according to an energy think tank.

MANILA — In 1996, when a community in the Philippine municipality of Pagbilao agreed to house a coal power plant a few hours’ drive from Manila, the residents had high hopes. The fishing town saw in the dominating edifice full-time jobs and food on the table, says Warren Puno of the Catholic diocese of Lucena, the provincial capital.

What they didn’t expect, however, was for additional coal plants to follow suit.

After Pagbilao, another power station mushroomed in the nearby municipality of Mauban in 2000; the two plants have a combined generating capacity of 1,594 megawatts, earning the region the title of the “coal corridor” of the Philippines as it’s the only province to house two major coal plants. They also make the region the biggest power producer for the grid that serves the central island group of Luzon.

President Rodrigo Duterte inaugurated a third plant (the 21st nationwide) on Oct. 16, the 500 MW San Buenaventura Power facility in Mauban, citing the venture as a prime example of “clean coal technology” and a significant addition to the country’s green energy roadmap.

Environmental groups, however, are not convinced. “Coal is not clean, not cheap, and not sustainable,” Khevin Yu of Greenpeace Philippines said at a press conference on Oct. 21. “It is unfortunate that another coal plant has been inaugurated in the country, by no less than the president who seems to have been misled or misinformed by the coal industry and its ridiculous myth of ‘clean coal.’”

While Duterte continues to voice support for renewables in his public speeches, his energy department has gone the other way: more coal-fired power plants have been approved for construction since Duterte assumed office in 2016, driving environmental groups to question the government’s commitment to reducing emissions from coal and its transition to renewables as mere lip service.

Bucking the global coal decline

Since the signing of the landmark Paris climate agreement in 2015, coal projects have declined across the world. But it’s a different story in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia. Threatened by looming energy insecurity and with industries dependent on fossil fuels, coal remains the prime power generation source for electrification in the Philippines.

It’s the only country in Asia that gained a 1-gigawatt increase in power sourced from coal this year, which now accounts for 43 percent of the national energy mix. Given new investments, coal’s share of the pie will reach 50 percent in 2030. The energy sector is the biggest generator of the country’s carbon emissions and is at the forefront of its 70 percent emissions reduction pledge in the Paris Agreement, followed by the transport, waste, forestry and industrial sectors.

Duterte, however, has always had misgivings about the Paris Agreement. “I did not sign it … my predecessor signed it,” he said after taking office in 2016. “It will hamper the country’s industrialization agenda,” he added. He threatened to pull out of the agreement but ratified it begrudgingly a year later, when a majority of his cabinet secretaries voted for it.

Three years on, Duterte’s energy policies remain ambivalent, with the Department of Energy signalling a “conditional concurrence” to the deal, reflected in Secretary Alfonso Cusi’s “technology-neutral” bureaucracy. While the department signed renewable energy contracts in 2016, it also pushed for large-scale coal investments with seven committed projects that will provide 3,971 MW nationwide, spearheaded by San Buenaventura’s switch-on in October. “Coal still serves a purpose for our baseload,” Cusi said during his department’s budget deliberations, adding that a coal moratorium could “hurt” the energy sector.

“There remains considerable uncertainty around how these commitments will be achieved … given that continued economic development is contingent on significant increases in power generation capacity,” according to a 2019 report from the Asian Development Bank.

Further, the country’s power roadmap for 2016 to 2040 cements coal’s role in energy security. Both low-carbon and business-as-usual scenarios show anticipated annual supply growth rate from coal, with a 5.5 percent annual increase under business-as-usual and 4.9 under low-emissions scenarios.

“Investing in coal is investing in the climate crisis that is already impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of Filipinos and costing the Filipino taxpayers billions every year,” Yu said, adding the government should “stop investing in coal, enact a moratorium on all planned coal projects, and enable an immediate energy transition towards clean and cheap renewable energy.”

‘The time is ripe for renewables’

Electricity prices in the Philippines remain among the highest in Southeast Asia, driven by high dependence on fossil fuel imports, high financing costs and uncompetitive market structures that have stifled innovation, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), an international think tank.

“There is an unprecedented opportunity to redesign the market to attract lower prices and more investment,” an IEEFA report says. “The government should guard against abuse of market power and anti-competitive agreements such as price fixing without a bidding system.”

But while renewable’s biggest opposition is its upfront high costs, especially for solar, the advent of new and cheaper technologies when matched with existing but underutilized financing schemes can tip the scales in favor of renewables, according to Gerry Arances of the local think tank Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development.

“Solar’s share in the energy mix is still a low 6 percent,” Arances told Mongabay. “But in the past, it never breached the 1 percent mark. But now it jumped in two years — that goes to show that there is a huge, untapped market … and it is growing. The technology, policies, and mechanisms are there to fully transition to renewables. We simply need to fully implement it.”

In the coal corridor, resistance against the fossil fuel ballooned after the energy department approved the construction of three new coal-fired power plants: Tangkawayan (1,000 MW), Atimonan (1,200 MW), and Ibabang (600 MW), in Pagbilao municipality.

“The community started asking: ‘Why are they building here again?’” Puno says. “We are being turned into a trash can. We think coal is dirty and we are becoming a repository for all that dirt.”

Theirs is not a lone sentiment. Around the Philippines, resistance against coal power is gaining ground in at least 12 provinces, with the most vocal opposition in Palawan, where the government approved a 15 MW plant that, according to local environmental groups, threatens the province’s biodiversity and overlooks cheaper renewable power generation options.

“The energy department is in a better position to begin the transition because the renewables technology is there,” Arances says. “Prices won’t plummet if the industry is not ripe for renewables. It’s about time that the Department of Energy puts its act together and shepherd the transition.”

Banner image of the coal-fired Quezon Power Plant in Mauban, Quezon. The 511-megawatt power plant was commissioned in 2000 and is owned and operated by Quezon Power Limited Co. Image by Lawrence Ruiz (Epi Fabonan III) via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Renewables

Ben Kritz: Only Russia will benefit if PH goes nuclear

28 October 2019

–

Philippines

Oct. 29– Oct. 29–Home Business Business Columns Only Russia will benefit if PH goes nuclear

Only Russia will benefit if PH goes nuclear

By BEN KRITZ, TMT

October 29, 2019

Facebook

Twitter

By BEN KRITZ, TMT

October 29, 2019

Facebook

Twitter

First of two parts

FOR the second time during the term of the current administration, fast-talking salesmen from Russia’s nuclear energy agency Rosatom have managed to convince a few impressionable officials here that the mighty atom is the answer to all the Philippines’ energy needs, especially if it is packaged in the product Rosatom has to offer.

The only people who will benefit from the Philippines’ adopting nuclear power will be the shareholders of Rosatom. Nuclear power is an economically and environmentally disastrous proposition for the Philippines, and no amount of persistence from the misguided nuclear advocacy can change that.

On October 17, Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi announced the Department of Energy had signed a memorandum of intent with Rosatom for the latter to conduct feasibility studies on the possible deployment of so-called small modular reactors (SMRs) in the Philippines.

These reactors, which generate between 20 to 200 megawatts (MW) of power, can be mounted on floating platforms to provide electricity to island provinces, or slaved together like giant batteries to create larger land-based power plants.

Russia currently has one such floating plant in operation, a 21,000- metric ton barge carrying two 35-MW reactors and dubbed the Akademik Lomonosov. The craft, which will replace a coal plant and an old nuclear plant in Russia’s far east, can provide power to about 100,000 homes and has a crew of about 70.

The (weak) case for nuclear power

Hard on the heels of the announcement of the DoE’s agreement with Rosatom, local nuclear advocates took part in a “Stand Up for Nuclear” event held in Manila and other cities around the world on October 20. The event achieved what its organizers presumably hoped it would — the publication of a rash of news articles and opinion columns in the days following it, all touting the supposed benefits of nuclear power to the energy-challenged Philippines.

The arguments put forth in favor of nuclear power in general — which haven’t changed in years — and of SMRs in particular are rather shallow, but at first glance seem to be valid.

The benefits of nuclear power, according to its advocates, are that it does not produce harmful emissions, unlike conventional fossil-fueled power plants; it is an extremely efficient energy source, which results in lower power costs to consumers; it has a very good overall safety record, in spite of attention-grabbing disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima; and it provides reliable baseload power to augment energy from intermittent sources like solar and wind power.

SMRs are touted as a good option for countries like the Philippines without well-developed nuclear capabilities or budgets to sustain them because they are small, versatile, relatively inexpensive, and less complicated than normal-scale nuclear plants. For example, unlike a conventional pressurized water or boiling water reactor, the cooling and steam generation water flows in most SMR designs are gravity-fed. This presumably makes them immune from the sort of loss-of-coolant accidents that led to the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

All of these arguments are very positive-sounding, enough to convince many impressionable government officials and media commentators, whom the nuclear advocacy hopes have neither the time, inclination nor capacity to look critically at the facts, which tend to be a more than a little inconvenient.

Cutting through the nonsense

The first argument that “nuclear plants do not produce harmful carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,” is true in a very literal sense, but it is not true that nuclear plants do not contribute to harmful emissions at all, as some advocates claim. All nuclear plants emit heat and water vapor to the atmosphere at the rate of 4.4 grams CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO2-e/kWh) of energy produced. While this is certainly very much less than a conventional power plant, it is not zero, and compares unfavorably with solar and wind power, which actually remove water vapor and heat flux to the atmosphere at the rate of -2.2 g CO2-e/kWh.

An even bigger environmental problem with nuclear power is that any nuclear reactor uses an enormous amount of fresh water and discharges a large amount of heated wastewater.

Because of the complicated chemistry within a nuclear reactor, seawater cannot be used, and even fresh water must be “scrubbed” to remove any impurities. In a country such as the Philippines, where fresh water supplies are increasingly constrained, any nuclear power facility is a problematic option.

The second argument, that nuclear energy is extremely efficient and therefore less expensive than other forms of power, is again only literally true in a narrow context.

Uranium as a fuel is incredibly efficient; one ton of uranium has the energy content of about 80,000 tons of coal. However, to obtain useable fuel a great deal of processing is necessary, which of course comes at an energy cost, and the amount of useful uranium to be used as nuclear fuel is quickly being depleted; US reserves of uranium have virtually disappeared, and reserves elsewhere in the world are estimated to last no more than 100 years.

The supposed cost benefits of nuclear power are completely misrepresented by the nuclear advocacy. A comparison between an existing nuclear plant and an existing coal plant, for example, would show that electricity derived from nuclear power is less costly on a per-MW basis, but power costs, as Filipino consumers have long been painfully aware, include all the costs associated with building and maintaining a power plant. The proper way to calculate comparative costs is through a formula called levelized cost of energy (LCOE), which takes into account construction costs, regulatory costs, fuel costs, available subsidies, and operating costs.

This is where nuclear power completely falls apart compared to other energy alternatives.

According to the 2018 report of Lazard (the go-to source for energy cost analysis), nuclear has a high-end LCOE of $189 per megawatt hour (MWh). Coal has an LCOE of $143/MWh; utility-scale solar of between $44/MWh and $48/MWh; and wind, $56/MWh. Of the various energy sources analyzed, only gas peaking plants and rooftop solar installations had a higher LCOE than nuclear power, at $208/MWh and $287/MWh, respectively.

And Lazard’s results may be a serious underestimate of the true cost of nuclear power. In the next installment, I’ll explain further why, despite supplying about 20 percent of the world’s electricity, nuclear power is one of the worst solutions for the Philippines, or any other country for that matter.

Bioenergy

Palm oil market — bargaining power is key

28 October 2019

–

Malaysia

KUALA LUMPUR: World’s dominant palm oil producers, Indonesia and Malaysia contribute 87 per cent of the global supply — creating a duopoly market of the most versatile edible oil.

Indonesia produces 33 million tonnes of the commodity annually, while Malaysia 19.5 million tonnes. Other players are Thailand, Columbia and Nigeria.

Palm oil contributes approximately one-fifth of the world’s production of oils and fats.

It is also the most affordable edible oil in the market, making it a much sought after commodity, giving both Malaysia and Indonesia the upper hand in the industry.

Putrajaya and Jakarta can actually collude on prices or output, a practice that is banned by the US Antitrust Law, said an industry veteran.

Such practice can result in consumers having to pay higher prices than they would in a truly competitive market.

Here, it is a free market, whereby under the rule of engagement of two suppliers, consumers will try to seek after the raw material from both sides and by doing this, they can compete to buy at the best price.

“But if you choose to buy from only one market, first of all you lose bargaining power,” he said, adding that the particular market would also have to scramble to supply more palm oil.

“And in the case of the Indian trade body’s call for its members to refrain from importing Malaysian palm oil and instead buy more from Indonesia, it will require Indonesia to export 15,000 tonnes extra palm oil (one more shipload) everyday,” said the veteran who requested anonymity.

Mumbai-based Solvent Extractors’ Association of India, which represents oilseed crushers, had recently advised its members to stop buying palm oil from Malaysia in protest against Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s criticism of New Delhi for its actions in Indian-administered Kashmir.

One should also be mindful that both Malaysia and Indonesia are going full force on their respective bio-diesel programme to manage their respective stocks.

Malaysia is set to implement its 20 per cent bio-content or B20 biodiesel programme, which is expected to boost the domestic demand for palm oil to 500,000 tonnes per annum.

Indonesia is also set to implement its B30 programme by early January 2020 to increase domestic palm oil consumption, as well as reduce energy imports.

The move will lift the country’s total biodiesel output about eight million next year.

Jakarta currently has a mandatory B20 programme and aims for B50 by 2021.

As long as the world population continues to increase, the demand for palm oil will always be there.

The industry veteran said there will always be new markets to explore and new downstream products to be produced, given the innovation and research and development conducted in the country.

Meanwhile, Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia strategist Dr Rais Hussin, in a letter to The Star, said much of Indonesia’s palm oil is owned and sold by the likes of Malaysian companies.

He raised a valid question — whether India would then buy palm oil from Indonesia without Malaysian equity and partnership.

Until now, the call to restrict Malaysian palm oil purchase came merely from traders, and Putrajaya has not received any official note on the matter from New Delhi.

And therefore, Malaysia has not brought it up with the World Trade Organisation.

Malaysia, nevertheless, has the right to seek legal redress if India were to breach the Malaysia–India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (MICECA).

The fact is, none benefits from a trade war or anything along that line.

The current spat between the United States and China is clear example of how it has fractured the global value chain.

The Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (TNCC) has voiced concern that reduction of palm oil imports from Malaysia by India would hit the migrant workers from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu who are currently employed in Malaysia is one example of the potential implications.

“At least 500,000 people from Tamil Nadu are working in the information technology sector and restaurants in Malaysia.

“They also send almost 90 per cent of their wages to their families living in India,” TNCC president KS Alagiri said.

According to the World Bank, India tops the global list of remittance recipients, with US$79 billion (RM331 billion) last year, mainly from the Gulf nations.

Malaysia ranks in the top 20 with an average remittance of RM2 billion annually for the past three years.

Hence, in a globalised economy where migration is norm and industries have partnerships in multiple countries, it is difficult to have such trade restrictions without equal disadvantages.– BERNAMA

Bioenergy

Row over Kashmir sparks KL-Delhi palm oil tensions

28 October 2019

–

Malaysia

MALAYSIA’S mammoth palm oil sector faces a new threat after Indian traders were asked to halt purchases amid a diplomatic row over Kashmir, piling further pressure on the industry as Europe also plans cutbacks.

The South-east Asian nation is the second-biggest producer of the oil after Indonesia, used in everything from food to cosmetics, in a sector long vilified by environmentalists who blame it for fuelling deforestation.

With Western companies reducing use of the commodity as green groups ratchet up pressure, the top two growers have increasingly come to rely on demand from India, the world’s biggest buyer of edible oils, and China.

But a speech by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the United Nations General Assembly last month, in which he said New Delhi had “invaded and occupied” Kashmir, has sparked a backlash in India that could badly hit the sector.

There has been sympathy in mostly Muslim Malaysia for Kashmiris after the Hindu nationalist government in New Delhi revoked the Muslim-majority region’s autonomy in August and imposed a lockdown to quell unrest.

Kashmir has been split between India and Pakistan since 1947, and has sparked wars and numerous skirmishes between the two countries. An armed rebellion against Indian rule has raged in the valley since 1989.

Dr Mahathir’s comments prompted calls for Indians to shun Malaysian products – with social media users posting angry messages alongside the hashtag #BoycottMalaysia – while rumours swirled New Delhi may hike tariffs on Malaysian palm oil.

Last week, a major Indian vegetable oil trade body called on its 875 members to avoid buying palm oil from Malaysia, noting the government was mulling retaliatory measures.

“In your own interest as well as a mark of solidarity with our nation, we should avoid purchases from Malaysia for the time being,” said Atul Chaturvedi, president of the Solvent Extractors’ Association of India.

It is a blow for Malaysia, as India was the country’s third-biggest market for palm oil and palm oil products in 2018, with a value of RM6.84 billion (S$2.22 billion).

Teresa Kok, the minister who oversees the commodity, scrambled to defuse tensions, describing the association’s move as a “major setback” and saying Malaysia was looking at increasing imports of sugar and buffalo meat from India.

The row is a further hit to the sector in Malaysia after the European Union announced plans to phase out palm oil in biofuels by 2030. Malaysia and Indonesia have vowed to fight the move, saying it could damage the livelihoods of millions of small-scale farmers.

Despite attempts by some Malaysian officials to calm the spat, calls are growing in India for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to curb palm oil imports.

Such a move would signal that “countries gaining economically from India while criticising the country politically will not have a free run anymore”, Neelam Deo, director of Mumbai-based think-tank Gateway House, told AFP.

Tensions have also risen between India and Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told the UN General Assembly that Indian-administered Kashmir was “besieged”.

Reports have since said that Mr Modi had cancelled a planned visit to Turkey as a result, and that India could axe a US$2.3 billion order with a Turkish shipyard. India’s foreign ministry, however, denied that any such visit was planned.

New Delhi has yet to take any formal measures against Malaysia or Turkey but Bloomberg News reported last week that India was considering placing curbs on some imports from both countries, citing people familiar with the matter.

Despite the furore, Dr Mahathir has been unapologetic, reportedly telling journalists last week: “We speak… our minds and we don’t retract and change. Sometimes, what we say is liked by some and disliked by others.” The famously outspoken 94-year-old is known for his acid-tongued attacks on Jews and the West during a first stint in office from 1981 to 2003.

And with nationalistic anger growing in India, the row appears unlikely to end soon.

“It’s not purely a palm oil issue,” James Chin, a Malaysia expert at the University of Tasmania, told AFP. “It ties in with egos… and nationalism.” AFP

Coal

Cleaning up a dirty industry: ASEAN is becoming more dependent on coal but it has an obligation to mitigate its environmental impact

28 October 2019

–

ASEAN

Universal electricity access is a key pillar of ASEAN’s development goals. The regional bloc has committed to providing every citizen with an electricity supply by the early 2030s. To achieve this end, the region will need to increase its power capabilities by some 60% by 2040.

To quench the thirst for power, Wood Mackenzie, an energy research company, estimated in its September report that ASEAN nations would need to invest US$17 billion a year.

Coal is king—for now

ASEAN currently relies on natural gas for the bulk of its energy needs. The bloc receives 42% of its energy from liquified natural gas sources. However, this is set to change.

To meet a rapidly rising energy demand, ASEAN is turning to coal. Coal-fired power plants offer a cheap, readily available source of energy. Under the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2016-2025, coal is expected to meet 40% of new energy demands until 2040. An increasing proportion of ASEAN’s energy imports will also come from coal. The Japanese energy industry, a major importer to the region, has increased its reliance on coal since the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

This increased dependence on coal puts ASEAN at a crossroads. At present, ASEAN cannot afford to rely on alternate, cleaner energy sources. The cost of wind and solar energy is approximately 29% higher than coal-fired power in the region. However, embracing coal comes with its own cost. If all of ASEAN’s planned coal projects are carried to fruition by 2030, an estimated 70,000 citizens will die each year as a result of medical complications caused by coal-fired plant emissions.

ASEAN has already made its decision. At the 2018 Ministers on Energy Meeting, the ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and Korea) renewed ASEAN’s commitment to coal-fired power. Coal is expected to overtake natural gas as the region’s dominant energy source by 2035.

Wood Mackenzie estimates that solar and wind power will have to wait until the 2040s to lead the region’s power capacity. ASEAN nations will wait until the cost of renewables can compete with coal before making the transition.

ASEAN has an obligation to mitigate the environmental impacts of coal-fired power plants

ASEAN’s relationship with coal over the next two decades cannot resemble that of the last two. With ASEAN’s energy portfolio wedded to coal, it must take steps to reduce pollution from coal-fired plants and mitigate emissions to protect citizens’ rights to clean air and a safe living environment.

Currently, 86% of ASEAN’s coal-fired power plants consist of what is known as “subcritical” units. These are inefficient, high-polluting, outdated units that do not incorporate the carbon-capture and storage technologies of more modern plants. As ASEAN expands its coal capabilities, it will need to increase the proportion of “supercritical” (SC), “ultrasupercritical” (USC), and “advanced ultrasupercritical” (AUSC) plants in its energy portfolio. These high-efficiency low-emission (HELE) plants burn coal at much higher temperatures and pressures to reduce pollutants and produce power more efficiently than older subcritical units.

As of 2018, Malaysia was the only ASEAN nation with HELE powerplants. It has also committed to using mainly USC units in new developments. Thailand’s recently added energy capacity has also been exclusively limited to SC units.

It is through the adoption of HELE units that has allowed China, the US, Japan and the EU to pursue cleaner air policies while maintaining the inclusion of coal in their energy portfolios.

Not only do HELE units reduce emissions, they are also more financially viable in the long run. Their increased efficiency means less coal is required to produce the same volume of power, reducing running costs. Subcritical units incur running costs two to three times higher than supercritical plants.

Not everyone is committed to cleaner coal

While Malaysia and Thailand have taken steps towards incorporating HELE coal technologies, other nations have been reluctant to make the transition. Dr Ian Barnes of the International Energy Agency (IEA) said the Vietnamese government will only develop AUSC units “when plants are retired and additional power is needed from 2035 onwards”. He added that Indonesia remains “heavily biased” towards subcritical and SC units.

This poses a problem for a region already battling the effects of climate change and deteriorating air quality. Indonesia and Vietnam will account for 60% of Southeast Asia’s total power demand by 2040.

An October report from the ASEAN Centre for Energy outlined a vision to “fully implement” clean coal use and “accelerate efforts” to reduce pollutants but has little support from the bloc’s two largest coal users.

A bulldozer pushing Indonesian coal in Power plant Ljubljana.
Photo: Petar Milosevic

Even when the Indonesian government has made concrete commitments to reducing emissions, it has failed to live up to them. For example, the government announced plans to source 23% of its energy from renewables by 2025. However, it maintains subsidies on coal and has done little to reduce the costs of wind and solar power, prompting Moody’s to question Indonesia’s ability to meet its target. On the matter of clean coal, it has not even made as nominal a gesture as setting a target or implementation timeline.

Increased collaboration will be key moving forward

The establishment of a new regional Clean Coal Centre would help ASEAN transition to cleaner coal technologies and improve its air quality. A regional body would help facilitate research and development and encourage technology sharing, effectively giving developing countries a leg up in the development of cleaner coal technologies.

The introduction regional emissions standards as part of the APAEC 2015-2025 to push individual nations to upgrade and retrofit coal-fired plants with HELE technologies would also help ensure the region’s energy infrastructure developments do not induce a public health and environmental crisis.

Finally, the most recent ASEAN Centre for Energy report recommended regional coal power plants carry out environmental impact assessments to explore ways to reduce their environmental impact. Governments could easily leverage existing financing schemes to incentivize these assessments. Making coal subsidies contingent on coal companies undertaking environmental impact assessments would push the private sector to consider the role it plays in the deterioration of regional air quality. Governments can even push financial institutions to fund cleaner coal options over inefficient, high-polluting units.

The emissions debate is often framed as a binary choice. Developing nations have to choose between pursuing bolstering their energy security and protecting the environment. The reality is far more nuanced. With a strong political will, ASEAN can pursue its energy ambitions, while upholding efforts to mitigate their environmental impact. Coal will always be a dirty industry, but until renewable energy sources are economically viable, ASEAN governments should seize any opportunity to clean up coal operations.

Energy-Climate & Environment

In Indonesia, Students Use Puppets to Banish ‘Big Ghost’ of Plastic Waste in Fight Against Climate Change

28 October 2019

–

Indonesia

Jakarta: The scene is much like any other Indonesian puppet show: the beat of the gongs is frenetic, the musicians wear intricately-patterned traditional costumes and the puppets sway back and forth in a fast-paced exchange laced with maniacal laughter.

But the puppets have bottle-cap noses and long, pink hair made from shredded plastic bags, and are being manipulated by schoolchildren taking their show on the road to the capital, Jakarta, from their home on the central island of Lombok.

In a year when young people worldwide have followed the example of activist Greta Thunberg in flagging environmental concerns, these Indonesian students are using plastic items to make the puppet characters that bring alive traditional tales.

“Small amounts of waste that we are hoarding in our homes can become a ‘big ghost’,” said Abdul Latief, who set up the first puppet school on Lombok in 2015, to ensure it did not lose its next generation of puppeteers.

“It can fill the guts of dead whales, and get stuck in the noses of dead turtles at sea. Therefore we encourage people to resolve waste issues in their own homes,” he added, explaining that responsible management of waste, such as plastic bottles, cups, cutlery and bags, by each household could benefit the entire community.

Latief’s troupe started to make puppets from plastic waste last year. It is a disposal method that generates educational material for audiences dominated by children, in a country home to a strong tradition of shadow puppetry, known as wayang kulit.

Most of the puppeteers are aged from about seven to 16. They collect and sort through waste from their own neighbourhoods, washing plastic containers and painting faces on paper cups, before assembling the figures using bamboo sticks.

Latief also hoped children among the audience would pick up the lesson not to litter, saying people should be taught to care for the environment when young.

“For us, this is fun and we hope this can benefit many people and have an impact on our environment, the world’s environment,” said a plastic puppet artist, Fitri Rachmawati.

Indonesia has been struggling to cope with the waste it produces, much of which goes into landfills and often seeps into rivers and oceans.

The sprawling Southeast Asian archipelago was the world’s second-biggest contributor of plastic pollutants in the oceans, a 2015 study in the journal Science showed.

Renewables

55 MW Lumut Balai geothermal power plant online in Indonesia

28 October 2019

–

Indonesia

As reported today from Indonesia, the country’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources ( ESDM ) has announced that geothermal capacity continues to grow. Geothermal Director Ida Nuryatin Finahari said that geothermal capacity until the end of September reached 2,003.3 MW. In September 2019 55 MW were added from Lumut Balai,” Ida said to Katadata.co.id.

Lumut Balai PLTP is located in Muara Enim Regency, South Sumatra is operated by Pertamina Geothermal Energy (PGE). The investment value for the project is around US $ 247.5 million. The Lumut Balai project was initially targeted to operate commercially in July 2019. However, the project’s operations were delayed until September 2019.

In addition to the Lumut Balai project, the ESDM Ministry is targeting three other geothermal projects to be operational this year. The three projects are Sorik Merapi, Sokoria and Muara Laboh. The total capacity of the four power plants will be 180 MW. Sorik Merapi PLTP which is located in Mandailing Natal Regency, North Sumatra with a capacity of 40 MW. The contractor, PT Sorik Merapi Geothermal Power, has an investment of around US $ 180 million. (announcements from Sorik Marapi states that the plant is now operating, but that has not been officially confirmed)

Furthermore, the Sokoria PLTP in Ende Regency, East Nusa Tenggara is targeted to be able to produce 5 MW of electricity capacity. The contractor is PT Sokoria Geothermal Indonesia with an investment of US $ 22.5 million. While Muara Laboh PLTP in Solok Selatan Regency, West Sumatra can produce 80 MW. The contractor is PT Supreme Energy Muaralaboh, at a cost of US $ 360 million.

Eco Friendly Vehicle

Toyota Indonesia set to produce battery electric vehicles in Karawang

28 October 2019

–

Indonesia

Tokyo (ANTARA) – PT Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indonesia (TMMIN) is ready to start battery electric vehicle (BEV) production at its factory located in Karawang, West Java, though its type had yet to be made public.

“It is a global trend. If we do not join it, we will not be able to export,” Warih Andang Tjahjono, the TMMIN president director, stated on Monday on the sidelines of the Tokyo Motor Show held in Odaiba, Japan, on Oct 24-Nov 4, 2019.

A change in the production line is required, based on several component changes, particularly for the powertrain.

“Some 60 percent must be changed, especially since its battery, powertrain also changes,” he explained.

TMMIN Director of Administration, Corporation, and External Relations Bob Azam noted that his company will train its workers for the production of electric vehicles.

“Hence, special skills will be involved to produce electric vehicles since it is different from ICE (internal combustion engine) cars,” he stated.

TMMIN will support the government’s target for the share of electric vehicle output to reach 20 percent of Indonesia’s total car production by 2025.

“We will participate in it,” Bob Azam remarked without furnishing in detail the number.

Until now, Toyota Indonesia is attempting to produce hybrid vehicles in Indonesia, as a bridge for the production of full battery electric vehicles.

Hybrid vehicle is perceived as being better aligned toward the production of electric vehicles since its engine uses both battery and gasoline.

In the meantime, President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) stated in Aug this year that he had signed the long-awaited presidential regulation (Perpres) on electric vehicles. “We know that batteries constitute 60 percent of the key to producing electric cars, and we have the components to make them, (such as) cobalt and manganese, in our country,” Jokowi said as quoted in a press statement fromsetkab.go.id.

“Hence, this country is a strategic place (for businesses) to start designing an affordable and competitive electric car industry,” he stated.

Jokowi pointed to the fact that most electric cars currently available in the market were some 40 percent costlier than fossil-fueled cars.

Hence, he expressed hope that Indonesia’s ubiquitous resources of materials required for making the batteries would aid in pushing down prices, thereby creating greater demand for EVs.

“In Jakarta, I think we can start with our buses and public transportation as well as taxis,” he remarked.

The government issued Presidential Regulation No. 55 of 2019 on the Acceleration of Battery Electric Vehicle Program for Road Transportation that had come into effect since August 12, 2019.

Development of the domestic electric vehicle industry will be expedited in accordance with the regulation. Furthermore, it encourages incentives, charging station infrastructure development, and special electricity tariffs for battery charging, as well as environmental preservation.

News Clipping

Bucking the global coal decline

‘The time is ripe for renewables’

User Dashboard

Back To ACE

User Dashboard

News Clipping

Bucking the global coal decline

‘The time is ripe for renewables’

SEE ALSO

Malaysia to challenge EU palm oil curbs at WTO

Stay updated withBT newsletters

User Dashboard

Back To ACE

User Dashboard

Stay updated with
BT newsletters