Jai Dee Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Thailand opts to build nuclear power plant Thailand will proceed with a plan to build a nuclear power plant to serve the increased demand for electricity, according to Thailand’s Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amaranand. Addressing a speech on "Why should a nuclear power plant be built?", Mr. Piyasvasti said the nuclear facility is needed because of the rising consumption of electrical power. Electricity use has risen 1.14 per cent in comparison with economic growth of one per cent, he explained. The nuclear power plant is an alternative to produce electricity with no affect on the global warming, the minister said. The action plan to build the nuclear power plant will be finished at the end of this year and preparation will take another seven years. Construction will be completed in 2020. Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) governor Kraisri Karnasuta said that construction of the nuclear plant is necessary, and that EGAT will clearly explain its necessity to the public before construction begins. The project, however, is under way and EGAT is looking for an 800 acre site to build the 4,000 megawatt power plant. The budget to build the nuclear power plant is estimated at US$6 billion. When the construction is finished, the cost of producing electricity at the nuclear power plant will stay at Bt2.01 per unit, lower than the Bt2.05 per unit of the electricity produced by conventional coal-fired power plants. Source: TNA - 11 June 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 NIMBY , as i stated earlier when this was raised , until they learn to store munitions without them exploding , perhaps they should refrain from nuclear technology . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The nuclear power plant is an alternative to produce electricity with no affect on the global warming, the minister said. Where did he get that idea? Sure, no CO2 emissions but a considerable amount of heat is generated by the nuclear reaction. This is used to generate steam to drive the turbines and hence the generators. Afterwards this heat has to be disippated, which is why these plants are generally build on estuaries where there are large amounts of water. See here An insight into what can go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSnrang Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is scarier than Iran and North Korea getting nukes from the USA itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundman Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 NIMBY ,as i stated earlier when this was raised , until they learn to store munitions without them exploding , perhaps they should refrain from nuclear technology . One would hope that it is built to a better grade than the airport... I foresee property prices taking a nose dive in whichever lucky province gets designated... Soundman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ijustwannateach Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 No, no, no, no. I'm hoping that the likely result of this announcement is a quiet death in committee. But if not, at least we can rest easy knowing that it's unlikely the place will be built in any less time (or with any greater competence) than: THE AIRPORT!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazeeboy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 No, no, no, no.I'm hoping that the likely result of this announcement is a quiet death in committee. But if not, at least we can rest easy knowing that it's unlikely the place will be built in any less time (or with any greater competence) than: THE AIRPORT!!! thailand with nukes ,have you seen them with fire works ? nightmare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyCA Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 A threat to National Security? Will the US should bomb Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big A Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Thailand + nuclear power = ??? NO Thailand + nuclear power = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Clifton Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Sooooolarrrr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard10365 Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 You don't think they are going to enrich the uranium and add it to used coconut shells to make coconut nukes do you??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSnrang Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Sooooolarrrr! You're in the right direction. With this unbearable heat I wonder why they don't just build a giant system of solar panels that covers the country's entire landmass. Save money on energy and export electricity and natural gases. And it's be shady for once instead of the normal migraine-inducing overillumination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khutan Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 ...Afterwards this heat has to be disippated, which is why these plants are generally buildon estuaries where there are large amounts of water..... This is true and the electricity they produce means the heat is disippated across the entire network, meaning the energy (heat) from a nuclear reaction is sent all over. But, if it is a 3G reactor, then I am in support, as they are far more safe than say an Air cooled reactor like was popular a number of years ago, or a Sodium Cooled reactor, that can be converted into a weapons (breeder reactor) factory within weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John K Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) In other news Radco a warning sign manufacturer stock rose suddenly 3 points today. What did the robot on "Lost in space" always say...... Edited June 11, 2007 by John K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Clifton Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Sooooolarrrr! You're in the right direction. With this unbearable heat I wonder why they don't just build a giant system of solar panels that covers the country's entire landmass. Save money on energy and export electricity and natural gases. And it's be shady for once instead of the normal migraine-inducing overillumination. I believe that, sadly, like is often seen here, part of the decision is about image. Solar energy sure is one hub they could dare claim to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dseawarrior Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Sooooolarrrr! You're in the right direction. With this unbearable heat I wonder why they don't just build a giant system of solar panels that covers the country's entire landmass. Save money on energy and export electricity and natural gases. And it's be shady for once instead of the normal migraine-inducing overillumination. I believe that, sadly, like is often seen here, part of the decision is about image. Solar energy sure is one hub they could dare claim to be. Solar seems like a no-brainer... Thailand ought to be a world leader in this considering its native solar resources...! So is biomass and bio-diesel production... Are there huge Uranium mines in Thailand? Last I knew there are NONE!!! This smacks of some under the table dealing with major Nuclear Power pushing international corporations... Sooo... Who is behind this absolutely ludicrous idea??? Follow the money folks... dseawarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rychrde Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 mmm... looks like EGAT could do with a few baht to actually keep their website updated. Or maybe their webmaster needs those extra megawatts just to wake up and get motivated. http://www.egat.co.th/english/ waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rychrde Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) btw the numbers they quote are pretty large. a 4000 MW plant would require 3 or 4 reactors, depending on design. For a country with zero nuclear experience they could have built one first, just to get all the training and experience needed. this article is worrying. Thais couldn't even get it together to build a 10 MW exprimental reactor http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/573/5439.html http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/592/5538.php just search for Thailand on the WISE site for other goodies about Thailand's nuclear past. Ah...found their previous test reactor. We shall see who they pay for this new one. On scientific merit, buy a CANDU, tho I suspect China and Russia are frontline here. rych Edited June 11, 2007 by rychrde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkstoney Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) I can't think of a better place to have a nuclear meltdown. The world really needs more nuclear meltdowns. We need more coal and more oil burning to create energy that we should be held by law to waste. For example, I'm at work, but my aircon is on in my empty house and I think I remembered to open some windows before I left. There should be no cars made smaller than a Hummer and that would be the economy-sized car with the best mileage--something that most God-fearing, self-respecting citizens of the world would never own. They're too small and, really, only suffice for the poor. Give me a Mack truck for a jaunt to the corner store. I think it's funny how people think that solar energy is going to save the world. Do you have any idea of the environmental damage that's done just from the manufacture of those panels alone? If any of us cared about the environment, we certainly wouldn't be using computers, driving cars and motorbikes, flying to foreign destinations, wearing clothes made in other countries, or eating imported California raisins in our breakfast mush. If we really cared we'd walk around naked and eat grass. Let's do everyone a favor and consume as much as we can. Let's get this shit over with. Edited June 12, 2007 by dkstoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai Dee Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 Egat ready to pump $6 bn into nuclear power The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) is ready to invest at least US$6 billion (Bt208 billion) in two nuclear power plants in line with the power development plan, which includes the generation of 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. Kraisri Karnasutra, governor of the state agency, yesterday said the plants would require an investment of $1.5 million per megawatt. He said nuclear power involved a lower generating cost - at Bt2.01 per unit - than coal, for which the cost was Bt2.05 per unit. Under the power development plan (PDP), which runs from this year to 2021, Egat will be responsible for national nuclear power generation. "We're studying the project in detail, and we'll also work on educating the public about nuclear power generation," Kraisri said yesterday at an Egat-sponsored forum titled "Why Nuclear Power Plants?" He said the plants would be located near rivers, because water is essential for cooling in nuclear facilities. The two plants will together cover an area of 1,000-2,000 rai. In his speech to the forum, Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand said the Kingdom needed nuclear power, because of its overreliance on natural gas and trends towards cleaner energy. "Nuclear power provides the highest security in terms of fuel when Thailand is facing risks in natural-gas supplies. At present, one-third of natural gas comes from Burma, and Thailand is now negotiating to import liquefied natural gas." He called natural gas a clean energy source that was in high demand from many countries, which have agreed purchase contracts in advance. Meanwhile, despite its abundance, coal does not enjoy public acceptance, due to fears of pollution. "Therefore, energy ministers of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum at their meeting from May 27-30 in Australia approved the move to develop nuclear power technology jointly," the minister said. Under the PDP, 4,000MW of nuclear power is set to be fed into the system in the next 14 years: 2,000MW in 2020 and 2,000MW in 2021. Piyasvasti said a nuclear-power working committee had been formed and that an action plan should be complete by the end of this year. If approved, construction of the plants will not start before 2014, by which time the authorities will have undertaken personnel training and public education. A further assessment will then be carried out to finalise whether Thailand was ready for nuclear power plants. If so, the plants will take about six years to build. "If the new government does not agree to the plan, it should have a clear answer about what the alternative would be and where the fuel would come from," he said. Piyasvasti added that the Energy Ministry plans to be carried out under the PDP would help reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. Under the PDP, priority will be given to power generation from natural gas in the initial stage, to be followed by coal-fired power plants and hydropower. Carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced from 600 tonnes per gigawatt to 470 tonnes by 2021. Source: The Nation - 12 June 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 This smacks of some under the table dealing with major Nuclear Power pushing international corporations... Sooo... Who is behind this absolutely ludicrous idea??? Follow the money folks... "Therefore, energy ministers of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum at their meeting from May 27-30 in Australia approved the move to develop nuclear power technology jointly," the minister said. not hard ....................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafval Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 aside from the practical issues there are the ecomonic, uranium isnt going to last much longer then oil, and with everyone deciding it is some kind of endless energy supply that isnt contributing to global warming I imagine the cost of uranium will have gone up substatualy by the time it is built, let alone the remainder if its life, I predict there will be a lot of half built nuclear reactors around the planet soon, countries really need to think about putting their money into developing sustainable energy, they are going to have to in less then 50 years anyway so why not put the money into it now and get a head start on the rest of the world, but I guess the fortune tellers that make these decisions arent to clued up on reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Royal Plaza, Bangkok, 2007 Royal Plaza, Bangkok, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cclub75 Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 When the construction is finished, the cost of producing electricity at the nuclear power plant will stay at Bt2.01 per unit, lower than the Bt2.05 per unit of the electricity produced by conventional coal-fired power plants. How the governor can tell us what will be the price of electricity... in 2020 ? This detail just shows the intellectual level of those people. The idea to advocate nuclear powerplant in Thailand is not insane. The thai authorities are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupont Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 NIMBY ,as i stated earlier when this was raised , until they learn to store munitions without them exploding , perhaps they should refrain from nuclear technology . Thats right mate. Two years ago, didn't a bunch of militants with few or no armaments, raid a Thai Army Barracks and take 200 odd machine guns from the surrendered and lined up conscripts!?!?#@?! Is it not possible that a lightly armed militant band (armed with 200 odd machine guns (ex Thai Army issue!)) decide to go nuclear and march on an equally un-secured Nuclear Power Plant, line up the staff, shout a few slogans and walk off with a dirty bomb? or worse, blow the place up on the way out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tijnebijn Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 I don't know if it is a good thing or not.At least they do not bring any bad things in the air for environment reasons.But in Thailand? I just don't know if the Thai can do well enough to take care,probably nonsense what I talk,its just like another member pointed out in those pictures.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Mist Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 aside from the practical issues there are the ecomonic, uranium isnt going to last much longer then oil, and with everyone deciding it is some kind of endless energy supply that isnt contributing to global warming I imagine the cost of uranium will have gone up substatualy by the time it is built, let alone the remainder if its life, I predict there will be a lot of half built nuclear reactors around the planet soon, countries really need to think about putting their money into developing sustainable energy, they are going to have to in less then 50 years anyway so why not put the money into it now and get a head start on the rest of the world, but I guess the fortune tellers that make these decisions arent to clued up on reality you are tripping mate, everywhere they dig in northern South Australia, Uranium is popping up. Olympic Dam at a conservative estimate will produce for another 70 years. There are at least 20 other claims that are in the offing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Mist Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Egat ready to pump $6 bn into nuclear powerThe Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) is ready to invest at least US$6 billion (Bt208 billion) in two nuclear power plants in line with the power development plan, which includes the generation of 4,000 megawatts of nuclear power. Kraisri Karnasutra, governor of the state agency, yesterday said the plants would require an investment of $1.5 million per megawatt. He said nuclear power involved a lower generating cost - at Bt2.01 per unit - than coal, for which the cost was Bt2.05 per unit. Under the power development plan (PDP), which runs from this year to 2021, Egat will be responsible for national nuclear power generation. "We're studying the project in detail, and we'll also work on educating the public about nuclear power generation," Kraisri said yesterday at an Egat-sponsored forum titled "Why Nuclear Power Plants?" He said the plants would be located near rivers, because water is essential for cooling in nuclear facilities. The two plants will together cover an area of 1,000-2,000 rai. In his speech to the forum, Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand said the Kingdom needed nuclear power, because of its overreliance on natural gas and trends towards cleaner energy. "Nuclear power provides the highest security in terms of fuel when Thailand is facing risks in natural-gas supplies. At present, one-third of natural gas comes from Burma, and Thailand is now negotiating to import liquefied natural gas." He called natural gas a clean energy source that was in high demand from many countries, which have agreed purchase contracts in advance. Meanwhile, despite its abundance, coal does not enjoy public acceptance, due to fears of pollution. "Therefore, energy ministers of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum at their meeting from May 27-30 in Australia approved the move to develop nuclear power technology jointly," the minister said. Under the PDP, 4,000MW of nuclear power is set to be fed into the system in the next 14 years: 2,000MW in 2020 and 2,000MW in 2021. Piyasvasti said a nuclear-power working committee had been formed and that an action plan should be complete by the end of this year. If approved, construction of the plants will not start before 2014, by which time the authorities will have undertaken personnel training and public education. A further assessment will then be carried out to finalise whether Thailand was ready for nuclear power plants. If so, the plants will take about six years to build. "If the new government does not agree to the plan, it should have a clear answer about what the alternative would be and where the fuel would come from," he said. Piyasvasti added that the Energy Ministry plans to be carried out under the PDP would help reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide. Under the PDP, priority will be given to power generation from natural gas in the initial stage, to be followed by coal-fired power plants and hydropower. Carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced from 600 tonnes per gigawatt to 470 tonnes by 2021. Source: The Nation - 12 June 2007 It takes about 10 years to build a Nuclear Power Station, so if the got cracking now they may have it on line by 2017, what is their estimated consumption by then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Under the PDP, 4,000MW of nuclear power is set to be fed into the system in the next 14 years: 2,000MW in 2020 and 2,000MW in 2021.Source: The Nation - 12 June 2007 It takes about 10 years to build a Nuclear Power Station, so if the got cracking now they may have it on line by 2017, what is their estimated consumption by then? It seems they already gave you the answers..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ping Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Wonder what Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore) reckons about all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now