yuyi

"Mr. Pascal Conner", that does not sound like a German name.

VPN, browser plugin, Internet too slow, bah, too much trouble, far too much.

For some time now I use http://www.Thaiexpat.tv and enjoy not only live TV but 1 week of history.

So far, as long as my ISP doesn't let me down it works great.

I really like to be able to watch what I like, and when I like.

Thaiexpat.tv works fine on my iPad, also the TV Guide. Smooth scrolling!

On the Mac scrolling is not easy, it seams to be the same code as for the iPad. Mac specific code would be nice, then scrolling would not have to be like simulating a "touch and push" with a mouse.

Fullscreen on the Mac works for me, using OS X Lion and latest Safari.

Since they have the new TV Guide, I'm getting addicted. It's so easy now to watch what I like whenever I like. I love it!

...

Tell me about it I missed x factor last night ... hope uk tv is up and running by tonight 2nd part of x factor is on...

Still I cannot download the uk tv player. But I didn't miss anything, enjoyed Formula 1, on the big TV, using thaiexpat.tv

Might not have all the bells and whistles, but ... it works.

They seem to be out of business already, the download link doesn't work, and I found this under "news' on their site:

Dear Customers

Due to unforseen circumstances beyond our control as from Monday 30th April 2012 we shall be suspending the commercial UK TV service.

If payment already made to us covers the period after 30th April, please advise us by e mail to [email protected] your bank details so that we can organise any refund that is due.

We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.

Best regards Your UK-TV-Team

Crossy, are you sure you're not working for them?

Your PR and support for them here really looks like paid advertisement!

Well, I don't really care if BBC likes it or not, I'm pretty sure whatever UK law might apply to them in the UK does not apply outside of the UK.

Actually, I even think BBC likes it, and the advertisers on their channels like it too, their ads are shown even in Thailand.

Introducing these renewable power production sources to displace the conventional ones does not, however, as you imply (where it involves the decommissioning of (nuclear) power plants) make their viability more feasible but much less so in actuality. Governments will incur massive add-on costs where and when such decommissioning is needed and this must be costed into the overall 'feasibility calculation' which will invariably impact adversely in attempting to establish the facts of the true costs of introducing environmentally friendly mean's of power creation.

Well, latest news show that the surprising turnaround of pro-nuclear Mrs. Merkel might have another important reason. There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

And this was not said by some "anti-nuclear eco-warrior" as you call me but it is the pro-nuclear German government itself who authored that secret document. Now it's not secret anymore, it was made public on TV in Germany (March 17, "Kontraste").

So, examining nuclear power plants, we have

• an immense risk potential,
  
• nuclear waste for hundreds and thousands of generations to take care of, and
  
• it's not even economically viable to run it in compliance with the safety standards.
  

Permit me if I have a problem to understand why anyone would want to continue to run such a nuclear power plant, or even build new ones (well, except the ones involved in selling them, obviously their primary motivation is to make money ...).

This has a massive influence on your quoted statement above, there would be massive costs not only to decommission the nuclear power plants (costs which we have sooner or later anyway), but there would be massive costs just to keep them running.

One thing I think we'll both agree on and that is the adoption of solar, wind and harnessing the power of water flow are so much more eco-friendly alternatives and logically the way to go as they are pollution free and non-depletable unlike the conventional fuels that store so many potential problems (as Japan has had to endure and pay the consequence for it pains me to say)!!

...

Agree with me on this Yuyi???

yes, we fully agree on that.

All we've got to do is make it economically viable to implement these next generation energy sources and everyone will be happy (and safe, more pertinently)!!! Agree with me on this Yuyi???

And also here we agree fully except that there are today already a lot of technologies using solar and wind power economically viable. We reached that point already. Especially if you add the true cost of de-commissioning power plants and even more if you add the costs for the nuclear waste management.

"We should not forget that the use of fossil and nuclear fuels to produce electricity come with significant external costs that are not reflected in the prices we pay for electricity. While renewable forms of power production do have impacts, I would argue that they pale in comparison to those associated with conventional forms of power production."(Steven E. Letendre)

This doesn't address my point in the slightest , let me remind you as you seem to have a selective mind . Here we go, are you ready?? OK, GO!!

Why are governments suspending or cancelling their 'policy' of building nuclear power stations on account of failures in the water cooling system in several reactors of one of Japan's nuclear complexes due to a massive earthquake (probably the biggest in it's history) when many of the countries involved in adopting this irrational reversal of policy will never, if history has it's say, experience an earthquake in ours, the next generation and many more to come's lifetime (Germany included). Answer me this and I might take your ripostes seriously. Looking forward to your reply Yuyi, if one is forthcoming that is. Interesting to see if you take me up on this as I'm dying to see the content!!

About Mrs. Merkels motivation, your explanation might hit the nail on the head.

However as to what she said, that was not about Germany getting hit by an earthquake, but she admitted that she finally understood Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong.

In her words: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

And when it comes to the possible bad cases or worst cases of nuclear power plant disasters they are simply too bad to be acceptable.

You've accepted my appraisal of WHY she did it (blatant opportunism) which was a totally unacceptable and morally inexcusable thing to do in my mind considering the outcome of this terrible tragedy which has resulted in the loss of so many lives.

I can see that you are determined to stick to your alternative theme to my posting and maybe you should have posted your opinion on a different or new posting instead of answering mine with something that does not effectively challenge anything within it, but that's 'by the by' now so lets move on.

I think I merely answered to your question about what are these people thinking (in areas where there are no earthquakes).

While I think that your explanation of Mrs. Merkel's motivation might very well be correct for her I have heard similar words from quite a few non-politicians with whom I spoke the last days. Many have believed that this technology would be under control, that nothing could happen, at least not in the advanced countries such as Japan and the European countries. It is what the nuclear lobby told them all the time. Now they understand that if a disaster can happen, it can indeed happen, and will happen sooner or later.

This has nothing to do with the actual cause of the disaster in Japan, the earthquake. It could also have been a terrorist attack. Or whatever. It's about the risk we create by building nuclear power plants, and the illusion of having it under control. As long as it is a theoretical risk it can be seen as 'never happening'. But when you see it happening you understand 'sh*t, it can really happen'.

This doesn't address my point in the slightest , let me remind you as you seem to have a selective mind . Here we go, are you ready?? OK, GO!!

Why are governments suspending or cancelling their 'policy' of building nuclear power stations on account of failures in the water cooling system in several reactors of one of Japan's nuclear complexes due to a massive earthquake (probably the biggest in it's history) when many of the countries involved in adopting this irrational reversal of policy will never, if history has it's say, experience an earthquake in ours, the next generation and many more to come's lifetime (Germany included). Answer me this and I might take your ripostes seriously. Looking forward to your reply Yuyi, if one is forthcoming that is. Interesting to see if you take me up on this as I'm dying to see the content!!

About Mrs. Merkels motivation, your explanation might hit the nail on the head.

However as to what she said, that was not about Germany getting hit by an earthquake, but she admitted that she finally understood Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong.

In her words: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

And when it comes to the possible bad cases or worst cases of nuclear power plant disasters they are simply too bad to be acceptable.

The diesel cooling backups of this 30+ years old installation worked fine until the tsunami hit. Then the battery backup for the diesel backup kicked in to give time for the mobile cooling equipment to arrive, etc, etc.

Please read it.

Well, something must have gone wrong there. I just listened on CNN an hour ago, to an interview with a professor for nuclear stuff, Glenn from Texas, who sounded very concerned, saying that the high levels of radiation inside the plant can only mean that there was at least a partial core meltdown.

Sounds to me as if the cooling systems more or less FAILED.

But again, providing solar energy for a 170,000 families is not a big deal, ...

I think it's a good start.

What confuses me though is the senseless, unquantified reaction from some countries governments who have suspended or even postponed their nuclear power programs on account of safety related issues created by the emergency water systems malfunctioning - damaged in the initial, powerful earthquake.

To give you an example for such a government, with the hope that it helps you to get the point:

The chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, know to be close to the nuclear industry, just said: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

Yes I take your point, but not from an earthquake or tsunami affecting Germany!!!!!! I don't know if you are aware of the situation leading up to this prothetic statement but she was pilloried by several parties (including crucially, the Greens) for wanting to delay the decommissioning of 17 nuclear plants by at least a decade past their sell-by date (assumedly to save money).

...

This is nothing other than a convenient excuse to readjust her unpopular stance and change direction so as to improve her and her parties poor ratings whilst masquerading as a caring politician that understands the situation!! Pure bunkum on her part!!!!!!! and if you are still persuaded by this claptrap, yours as well!!!!!

Interesting. So the people there do use the elections to give the politicians a message. Not bad.

For me, don't worry, I did not need the tragic events in Japan to understand the dangers of nuclear power plants. As said earlier, there is a long history of malfunctions of nuclear power plants. Which opened my eyes to the problems long ago.

I ment, where will you place all the active panels? They will need thousands of square kilometers for Thailand alone...

Mostly on the roofs. Houses have roofs. Factories have roofs. There are "thousands of square kilometers" roofs available.

Also, as an example of what could be done, there is a project called "Solar Farms" built by Solar Power Co., LTD in Bangkok. They plan 34 solar farms with 6 MW each, totaling 204 MW. This is supposed to generate power for 170,000 families.

First, it is not the production that cannot be controlled, it is the waste management, it is extremely expensive to properly recycle solar panels.

And at the same time you say that the management of the highly radioactive and poisonous nuclear waste is under control?

I think whoever would be able to do that would easily be able to recycle used solar panels.

And where would you put all these panels?

Recycle them.

Suffice it to say that a province in Germany, Ostfriesland, gets 90 % of its power from renewable energies, already today!

And another province there, Sachsen-Anhalt, gets already 52 % of its power from wind, already today!

Enough real world existing proof to show that it can be done, if you want.

Yes, it can be done, but it still requires enough wind and money... Which Thailand lacks both of! Money can be found, but wind can't be generated.

You got to be kidding me!

Are you telling me that there is less sun in Thailand than in Germany?

And less wind on Thailand's West coast than in Sachsen Anhalt?

C'mon!

BTW, I'm writing this while my PC draws its power from my little PV system, producing enough power to keep router and PC running 24x7 obviously there must be some sunshine in Thailand

True, there is a long history of malfunctions, but all of these happened to very old plants. And the chief engineer from the Fukushima have even admitted that the plant was not built to withstand what happened to it, whereas new plant can withstand A LOT MORE than these old plants. And today, Angela Merkel has just announced that all pre 1980 plant in Germany, will be shut down now to avoid future complications.

Ah, nice, at least you agree that all "older" nuclear power plants are insecure and should be switched off immediately.

Waste management is not a big problem, look at what the Germans and Finnish do. Bury it far down in a solid granite rock, and it has been proven that it does not generate any additional radiation on the surface.

There is a lot of doubt about the long term stability of the storage facilities for nuclear waste in Germany, Gorleben. It is not even used yet (!!!), thus nothing is proven, and many scientists say it does not fulfill the criteria for safe long term storage of nuclear waste. It is more of an 'Alibi' facility to be able to pretend the problem would be solved.

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. "clean" energy.

Ok, a typical modern commerical nuclear generates around 1800 Mw from two units.

Please tell me how many wind tubines you would need, how much land area that takes up and what area of solar panels you would need to generate 1800Mw

Do your math yourself.

Suffice it to say that a province in Germany, Ostfriesland, gets 90 % of its power from renewable energies, already today!

And another province there, Sachsen-Anhalt, gets already 52 % of its power from wind, already today!

Enough real world existing proof to show that it can be done, if you want.

What confuses me though is the senseless, unquantified reaction from some countries governments who have suspended or even postponed their nuclear power programs on account of safety related issues created by the emergency water systems malfunctioning - damaged in the initial, powerful earthquake.

To give you an example for such a government, with the hope that it helps you to get the point:

The chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, know to be close to the nuclear industry, just said: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

Repeating this old myth / propaganda lie does not make it true.

The solar cells of today are not like the very first ones decades ago.

Well, they only have a small contribution to the CO2 emission, but they are extremely poisonous when dumped since they contain lead, mercury and cadmium. Most producers also use nitrogen trifluoride in the production process, which is a way more potent GHG compared to CO2. So sure, we might limit CO2 emission, but instead we poison the environment with heavy metals.

I am not saying that solar panels won't work one day, but for now, it's not sufficient enough.

So unfortunately it is still not a myth.

There is a bunch of quite different technologies available today for solar cells, therefore a global statement such as yours is not correct anymore.

While it is true that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells, depending on the technology used, uses some heavy metals, the energy saved by the use of those solar panels more than offsets this.

(It is funny that the same people who claim that they can safely story highly radioactive and poisonous nuclear waste for thousands or millions of years claim that the solar cell production cannot control their production process.)

To quote a study "Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles" by Professor Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues which comes to the result:

"Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaic displaces electricity from the grid".

see also http://www.our-energy.com/news/ecologically_acceptable_solar_cells_technology.html

Well, to my knowledge, there is not much "silent radiation" from nuclear power plant, since they do not pollute when running according to plan.

"According to plan" - that's the key issue here. Please have a look at the loooong history of malfunctions and the exposure of the public to radiation.

And after that tell us also how the highly radioactive nuclear waste can be stopped from silently radiating future generations.

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. Regarding previously made comments about nuclear energy being OK in the right hands, there simply are "no right hands". This has been proved by Japan, the US and Russia. Handing out potassium iodide as a preventative measure doesn't cut it. I know first hand as I had to have my thyroid gland and 15 adjacent neck lymph nodes removed due to radiation exposure and subsequent stage three carcinoma. No picnic I can assure you.

Hopefully the events unfolding now in Japan will finally be the proverbial and much-needed "nail in the coffin" to nuclear power as a viable, "clean" energy. Cancer is NEVER clean.

On the contrary, the current events will bring a ringing endorsement for nuclear energy, once all the nonsense has been dismissed.

If there is an earthquake near a solar or wind power plant, nobody has to run away quickly to flee from radiation. Nobody will get cancer just because he couldn't run fast enough, or because the wind came from the wrong side. Nobody.

I don't know why you think that the current events might be "a ringing endorsement for nuclear energy". For me they just show that Murphy's law applies also to nuclear power plants: What can go wrong will go wrong!

The objections to solar power, production costs and eficiency are currently valid. However, many new ideas are in the pipeline using organic materials, thin film layers to produce electricity directly or to produce hydrogen gas as energy storage. Nuclear fusion is still a possibility, beamed energy from space stations. Many countries sit on vast reserves of thermal energy. Wave and tidal power is a growth industry also.

The real problem is energy storage and daily fluctuating demands, here battery and fuel cell technology is also rapidly improving.

The prices for PV solar cells have dropped dramatically in the last 2 years. With the prices today PV is already competitive, once you include all costs. And prices are continuing to drop.

The real problem is the power industry which currently has a monolithic hold on energy supply. They don't want the public to have personal energy sources ...

Indeed, that is a big part of the problem.

Moreover, wind energy generates a lot of noise. Anyone who have lived near a big windmill can agree with this!

Are you saying that because there might be some noise near big windmills we should prefer to live near a nuclear power plant and enjoy the silent radiation?

And an interesting thing about so called "renewable" energy, is that most solar panels e.g. pollute more than most coal power plant, if you include the production and dumping stages.

This is absolutely not true.

Repeating this old myth / propaganda lie does not make it true.

The solar cells of today are not like the very first ones decades ago.