Malaysian forest with early mists
The chairman of TNB recently confered to Sabahan in Kota Kinabalu that they have no choice but to accept the coal-fired power plant as the best alternative. Sighting also the improved technology, unlike the old, and presented it as ‘clean coal’ technology power plant.
He said coal is black, giving the impression that it is dirty but he impressed, we will be using the latest technology and the pollution is minimal. Drawing example also from Peninsula Malaysia, where such plants are also used and situated in close proximity to populated and tourism areas.
I do not consider myself to be an expert in this area but his argument seems flawed, insincere and hiding a lot of important facts from us, while trying to justify the negativities, at the same time take advantage of our ignorance. By saying that coal firing is clean, he only refers to what we can see, smell and hear but not what are continuously exhausted into the atmosphere unseen.
Why then coal is considered the worst polluter.
Chemically, it is almost 100% carbon and depending on the grade, it may also contain varying degree of sulphur and other elements which can pollute the atmosphere to different degree. Ever heard of acid rain? Not only this, there will be other colourless noxious gases constantly emitted from the flue.
Sourced - (Makeup of Coal and Ash Coal is one of the most impure of fuels. Its impurities range from trace quantities of many metals, including uranium and thorium, to much larger quantities of aluminum and iron to still larger quantities of impurities such as sulfur. Products of coal combustion include the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur; carcinogenic and mutagenic substances; and recoverable minerals of commercial value, including nuclear fuels naturally occurring in coal.)
Carbon Dioxide is the major Green House Gas (GHG) that is raising the temperature of our planet. It took thousands, maybe millions of years for earth planet to reach an equilibrium whereby the GHG absorption and its radiation of heat, can maintain an atmosphere that is habitable to all present living things on earth.
Records have shown, due to our activities in the past 30 years, we had increased the GHG by almost 30% and I don’t think we want to continue this way, to know the actual consequences when it becomes irreversible, which is in not too long into the future, if everyone doesn’t give a damn but only aim for immediate gains and advantages over others.
Perhaps, TNB or Malaysia, doesn’t see it this way, if it is not going to hurt their pockets. But from what I can see, lobby is already in place to have these polluters disadvantaged. Very soon, direct-foreign-investment or world credits/lenders, will only be made available to countries whose power is generated in environmentally friendly way. We just have got to be good neighbour to the rest of the world.
Bakun Dam, area soon be flooded All mineral fuels are polluters when burnt, it is the carbon element which was ‘sunk’ from the earth atmosphere by plants and other lesser means, over thousands/millions years, is now being burnt and brought back to the atmosphere in concentration. That is what, concerned earth citizens, are talking about, we need to have a balance, a ‘carbon sink’, best known now being plants/jungle, to capture back this element from the atmosphere.
Coal as we know, is just carbon, what you burn is what you pollute. Other mineral/biological oils or gas, have hydrogen element in its molecule, thus you get CO2 and water. Hydrogen fuel is the cleanest because what you burn only results in water. Whatever advantage we get out of coal now, we may have to pay many more times in future, to get rid of the GHG.
We do have alternatives, contrary to what TNB chairman had painted, we can have palm-oil fired power plant, the carbon element is ‘sunk’ back to the oil palms in sustainable basis. Alternatively we can source from Bakun, contrary to what TNB suggested as impractical and yet it is practical to channel the power over twice the distance to Peninsula Malaysia, in which half the distance is undersea and is not going to benefit anyone else in whatever future distance.
By diverting the power from Bakun to Sabah, the distance is only from Bakun to Sabah west coast and in future, areas between these two points, can also benefit from it. Sabah needs, not only, power grit between east & west but also a looped power distribution, I do not know if this is already in place, if already in place, I see no difference in where the power source is situated. If there is none, what better opportunity than this, to have it done now.
We had already wiped off a ‘carbon sink’ in Bakun, the size of Singapore, let us make the best use out of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment