When faced with demands from various groups about the choices of power plants in the official PDP, decision makers often counter, “What are the alternatives?” Often what is assumed in the point of view of policy makers is that we must choose among large‐scale gas, nuclear, coal and big dams. Our PDP 2012 analysis challenges the assumption that “we have no other better options”. As discussed above, there are cheaper, less impactful energy options sufficient to meet the growing demand for electricity to fuel continued economic development in Thailand.
This section incorporates the resources discussed in the previous section to ensure that the growing need for electricity, as projected by our adjusted forecast in the previous section, can be met. In creating the PDP 2012, our analysis is based on the following key assumptions and guiding principles:
The primary objective is to maintain reliability of the power system, using EGAT's criteria of maintaining a minimum reserve margin (generation capacity in excess of peak demand) of 15%.
Demand projections are adjusted to be more consistent with historic electricity demand trends as discussed in the Electricity demand projection section on page 10. Future demand growth is assumed to follow the historical 25-year average trend, in which peak demand increases 830 MW per year. Peak demand is then converted to energy demand (in GWh) using the same load factor as is used in the PDP 2010.
To meet growing demand and replace retiring generation capacity, priority is given to energy efficiency, plant‐life extension, co‐generation, and renewable energy sources. New power plant projects in the PDP 2010 that are controversial in nature or have not begun construction as of 2011 are considered uncommitted plants. Uncommitted plants are postponed or canceled as needed to make way for other resource options that are cleaner, cheaper and more consistent with the policy objectives. The next section discusses the assumptions and justifications in the PDP 2012 model.