Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

[eggomaniac]

Suggested location.

[brahmburgers]

What are the results of the 'independent report' which was supposed to gauge the viability of nuclear plants for Thailand? I recall mention that the studies were initiated several months ago (can't find the reference on T.Visa) - so am curious about the findings.

Is the report sill being worked on? If so, when is its release date? And, if anyone can recall the cost of the report, please post it below, thanks.

Will the full results be made readily accessible to the Thai public? After all, it's the Thai populace who will be paying for the nuke plants (and their preliminary reports) - and it's mostly Thais who will have to 'live with' the nuclear plants (and their radioactive legacy) for many thousands of years. I say 'mostly Thais' - because there are other nationalities who could well be impacted by a major mishap at any of the nuclear plants proposed by EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand). Regions of Cambodia, Laos, Burma and Malaysia are not more than a hundred Km from the proposed Thai plants - all of which will likely be built along Thailand's coasts. A disaster much smaller than Chernobyl could poison such regions - depending on which way the wind was blowing.

If the 'feasibility report' (including discussion of possible sites) is not favorable to EGAT and the power brokers who are espousing the plants, will the report be hushed up? Realistically, as EGAT is fully eager to get the plants built, and they've appropriated the tens of millions baht to pay for the report, done by people of their choosing, then it's a no-brainer that the report will give a positive spin on the whole idea of Thailand going nuclear.

Even so, since EGAT is a government corporation, and therefore owned (at least indirectly and/or partly by the Thai people) then it's incumbent upon EGAT to hide nothing - at least in its preliminary activities.

home-grown assessment describing why Thailand should not go nuclear it's a small pdf file, which looks at the many facets involved with Thailand's future - if it were entwined with nuclear. The assessment also looks at 'concentrated solar' options.

Edited June 12, 2009 by brahmburgers

[jonclark]

Why not invest the 6 Billion in becoming more energy efficient rather than continuing to be a hugely energy hungry country and wastes huge amounts of energy on super chilly air con and bloody annoying giant TV screens at places like Siam Sq BTS Station.

Interesting to hear the government official talk of the need to place the reactor near a river for cooling purposes. Does anyone have any idea what volume of water would need to be extracted for the purpose of cooling. It just may give an idea of what rivers can support that level of extraction and hence the possible locations. I can only think of Meekong and The old Chao Praya - anyone else any suggestions ???

Or can they use salt water?? Not sure of the physics of reaction cooling process.

Also interesting to see how they reconcile water extraction for the reactor with the farmers need for increased irrigation, which is generally sourced from major rivers

[brahmburgers]

Why not invest the 6 Billion in becoming more energy efficient rather than continuing to be a hugely energy hungry country and wastes huge amounts of energy on super chilly air con and bloody annoying giant TV screens at places like Siam Sq BTS Station.

Interesting to hear the government official talk of the need to place the reactor near a river for cooling purposes. Does anyone have any idea what volume of water would need to be extracted for the purpose of cooling. It just may give an idea of what rivers can support that level of extraction and hence the possible locations. I can only think of Meekong and The old Chao Praya - anyone else any suggestions ???

Or can they use salt water?? Not sure of the physics of reaction cooling process.

Also interesting to see how they reconcile water extraction for the reactor with the farmers need for increased irrigation, which is generally sourced from major rivers

Good points! Thais are waaaaaaay behind the curve when it comes to having a collective consciousness about conserving energy. All Thai schools, from grammar school on up, should teach of the wisdom of conserving energy - and the curriculum should be written by an enlightened farang, because I doubt there is one Thai who has in-depth knowledge and appreciation for true conservation and its ramifications.

The Thai govt authority, EGAT, believes that reactors can be cooled with sea water, but the long term ramifications of using salt water are dire (not just for pipes and pumps, but also for the nearby sea environment), and they won't realize it until it becomes a very big problem, and they can't cover up their mistakes any more - perhaps 10 years after the 1st reactor comes on line.

The reasons for immediately abandoning nuclear are many, yet the lockstep march toward a nuclear Thailand continues. Future generations of Thais will have a heck of a tough time undoing the damage when they wake up to the radioactive problems their foolish leaders of yesteryear left for them.

Edited June 12, 2009 by brahmburgers

[isanb]

Suggested location.

suggested supplier :

North Korea

[dbrenn]

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.

Sure a nuclear rector generates heat, but how much heat and does it's heat output alone contribute to global warming? I think not.

A modern power reactor generates around 1,000 Megawatts of electricity at 33% efficiency, so it's total output of heat and electricity (which ends up as heat) is around 3,000 MW. The midday sun produces around one kilowatt per square metre, so how many square metres worth of sunshine equivalent heat does a nuclear power reactor produce?

3,000 Megawatts = 3,000,000 kilowatts = 3,000,000 square metres at 1 kw per square metre

3,000,000 square metres = square root 3,000,000 = 1,732 = only 1.7 square kilomentre's worth of sunshine

Not much heat at all, and no greenhouse gases, so nuclear power is not really a problem as far as heating the earth is concerned. Would be great if we could harness 1.7 square kilometres worth of sunshine 24/7 and do away with the nuclear reactor, but we just can't.

Thailand with nuclear power? No thanks! Too much mai pen rai when it comes to safety. But what will Thailand do for power when natural gas and lignite runs out?

[BigSnake]

50 years to build, like the airport by that time sure no one will much care one way or the other.

[seri thai]

I am a proponent of nuclear power, but I just get really, really scared when I think of Thailand doing it. These plants require the most scientific and careful design and location. They need very detailed studies of the geography and placement of the plants. Then, they need to be constructed in the most careful and professional manner possible. This is one of the endeavors where you don't want to see substandard concrete, less rebar and other corners cut.

Very seldom see that in Thailand. A little scary.

I can see your point and I would be a little worried too if it was a rush job. But I think if it goes ahead they will make sure it is of the highest quality and it will be scrutinised by authorities. There are a lot of international organizations that have access and check progress that Im sure Thailand would invite and give free reign too.

[seri thai]

Most people think that nuclear power stations only release radioactivity to the environment when they go wrong. But that's not true. One of the reasons they're invariably located on the coast (apart from easy access to abundant water for cooling) is to be able discharge a constant stream of radioactive material into the sea, where the thinking is that it will be diluted enough to become harmless. Yeah. Right.

So that's the Gulf of Thailand out then. That leaves only the Andaman Sea.

Hmmm, Khao Lak looks like a good spot with vacant land plots.............

[Soutpeel]

Heck, I was more worried about the construction of a nuclear plant in Daya Bay in southern China in the 90s! Residents of an island in HK closest to there (about 70 km?) were issued iodine tablets by the then-colonial HK government as a just-in-case measure. As far as we know, there has not been a significant problem.

I was on that project in the early 90's just before the first two units went on-line, and have kept up with devleopments on Daya Bay and as spode has said no significant problems, in-fact know a few guys who worked there in the early years on operations and they commented that its actually better run than a lot of the US and UK stations...

Based on the pages of comments on this subject, of the opinion there is a lot of scare-mongering going on, put forward by people who dont have a clue as to how a nuclear power plant even works...

Due to the current ecomonic crisis, cant see this sort of project going ahead in Thailand for many years as the cash is just not there, I would guess Thailand will exhaust its supply of oil/gas first as the production costs as compared to nuclear are far less. Even if they decided to go ahead tomorrow, you would be looking at least 6-7 construction before the first unit went on line, assuming its a PWR type system they are building. As regards who would build it.....basically only two players....either the Japanese or the French and seeing as the French have built more of these things, they would be the favourite

[bungy007]

Based on the pages of comments on this subject, of the opinion there is a lot of scare-mongering going on, put forward by people who dont have a clue as to how a nuclear power plant even works...

I wonder why? Maybe they've witnessed the standards of Thai housebuilding teams from Isaan, maybe they remember the denials of cracks in the runways by those who ran the country only to finally have to admit their spin and blame all defects on foreign engineers. Perhaps they have witnessed the lack of transparency in the country's judicial procudures and any procedure you care to mention in Thailand. Or maybe they recognise that if a country cannot adopt a simple system such as rules of the road (witness the tremedous yearly carnage of Thais due to the inability to follow a highway code) then there is no-way the locals could be trusted with neclear power.

[animatic]

While not being anti-Nuclear power,

this for me is a recipe for disaster in the making.

Glad I'll be well in the grave before the ever finish and light er up....

[tropo]

Sure a nuclear rector generates heat, but how much heat and does it's heat output alone contribute to global warming? I think not.

A modern power reactor generates around 1,000 Megawatts of electricity at 33% efficiency, so it's total output of heat and electricity (which ends up as heat) is around 3,000 MW. The midday sun produces around one kilowatt per square metre, so how many square metres worth of sunshine equivalent heat does a nuclear power reactor produce?

3,000 Megawatts = 3,000,000 kilowatts = 3,000,000 square metres at 1 kw per square metre

3,000,000 square metres = square root 3,000,000 = 1,732 = only 1.7 square kilomentre's worth of sunshine

Not much heat at all, and no greenhouse gases, so nuclear power is not really a problem as far as heating the earth is concerned. Would be great if we could harness 1.7 square kilometres worth of sunshine 24/7 and do away with the nuclear reactor, but we just can't.

They're planning to build 2 nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 4000 megawats.

Edited June 13, 2009 by tropo

[Soutpeel]

then there is no-way the locals could be trusted with neclear power.

You are correct, but you have to understand, at least for the first 10 years of operations, locals would not be running the plant, Expats would be, As Thailand has so few people with any form of Nuclear experience (somebody mentioned a grand total of 3.. ) To get their license to operate the plant within the international frame work, expats would have to run the place....its just not a case of starting up and "handing over ther keys"...

I fully understand what you are getting at....

Thai operators would be subject to the same international licensing rules as the rest of the world abides by (with exception of Iran and North Korea) and individuals need to undergo international licensing exams, if they cant pass the exam, they dont get the license, once the number of licenses goes below a certain number on a particular plant, instruction is given to shut the plant down, if they dont comply, all support is withdrawn by the international companies in the game....ie they cant get fuel etc etc...

[Soutpeel]

Sure a nuclear rector generates heat, but how much heat and does it's heat output alone contribute to global warming? I think not.

A modern power reactor generates around 1,000 Megawatts of electricity at 33% efficiency, so it's total output of heat and electricity (which ends up as heat) is around 3,000 MW. The midday sun produces around one kilowatt per square metre, so how many square metres worth of sunshine equivalent heat does a nuclear power reactor produce?

3,000 Megawatts = 3,000,000 kilowatts = 3,000,000 square metres at 1 kw per square metre

3,000,000 square metres = square root 3,000,000 = 1,732 = only 1.7 square kilomentre's worth of sunshine

Not much heat at all, and no greenhouse gases, so nuclear power is not really a problem as far as heating the earth is concerned. Would be great if we could harness 1.7 square kilometres worth of sunshine 24/7 and do away with the nuclear reactor, but we just can't.

They're planning to build 2 nuclear plants with a combined capacity of 4000 megawats.

Is it two plants or two units - not the same thing, typically you would build two units of around 900MW a piece to start off with and add other units as required, have heard of what they call a 4 loop single unit 2000MW PWR design, but you would need two of these units to get your 4000MW, dont see Thailand building these as they are very very very expensive to build, and dont believe even in franch they have tackled one of these yet, may be wrong on that one

[DP25]

locals would not be running the plant, Expats would be, As Thailand has so few people with any form of Nuclear experience (somebody mentioned a grand total of 3.. )

Thailand has been running a nuclear reactor for nearly fifty years already. They have a heck of lot more than three, they actually employ over 400 people in addition to the hundreds who worked there previously.

[Soutpeel]

locals would not be running the plant, Expats would be, As Thailand has so few people with any form of Nuclear experience (somebody mentioned a grand total of 3.. )

Thailand has been running a nuclear reactor for nearly fifty years already. They have a heck of lot more than three, they actually employ over 400 people in addition to the hundreds who worked there previously.

I bow and request forgiveness.... .....assuming here these are research reactors/small scale for the production of medical isotopes ??....if so....not quite the same thing as a 1000MW power reactor...sort of comparing Mr Beans mini to F1 racing car..but your point is taken...

Edited June 13, 2009 by Soutpeel

[asiasurfer]

Oh, and I think if the country goes nuclear then we won't need much electricity because we'll all be glowing in the dark anyway!

I have no particular problem with nuclear energy, but I do given the level of corruption and the gross level of inexperience (and incompetence) in this area. I mean, someone gets a contract from their "influential" politician/friend, he then decides to sub-contract that to his loser brother-in-law, who decides to use less rebar and cement........ and, here we are, glowing in the dark!

If this thing blows up one day, it will make the Tsunami look rather irrelevant.

[Soutpeel]

Oh, and I think if the country goes nuclear then we won't need much electricity because we'll all be glowing in the dark anyway!

I have no particular problem with nuclear energy, but I do given the level of corruption and the gross level of inexperience (and incompetence) in this area. I mean, someone gets a contract from their "influential" politician/friend, he then decides to sub-contract that to his loser brother-in-law, who decides to use less rebar and cement........ and, here we are, glowing in the dark!

If this thing blows up one day, it will make the Tsunami look rather irrelevant.

Fact is...a nuclear power plant cant blow up, you will not have an atomic mushroom over BKK...

The Uranium used U236 is not enriched enough to blow up...

The worst thing that can happen is a melt down, granted not a pleasant prospect, considering what happened at Chenoble, but not an atomic bomb...

Personally think this is all pie in the sky for Thailand, seeing as they have enough proven gas for next 20 years or so....building mutliple combine-cycle power stations will be more cost effective and ultimately they would be able to generate more than 4000MW for a lot less cost

[dbrenn]

Oh, and I think if the country goes nuclear then we won't need much electricity because we'll all be glowing in the dark anyway!

I have no particular problem with nuclear energy, but I do given the level of corruption and the gross level of inexperience (and incompetence) in this area. I mean, someone gets a contract from their "influential" politician/friend, he then decides to sub-contract that to his loser brother-in-law, who decides to use less rebar and cement........ and, here we are, glowing in the dark!

If this thing blows up one day, it will make the Tsunami look rather irrelevant.

Fact is...a nuclear power plant cant blow up, you will not have an atomic mushroom over BKK...

The Uranium used U236 is not enriched enough to blow up...

The worst thing that can happen is a melt down, granted not a pleasant prospect, considering what happened at Chenoble, but not an atomic bomb...

Personally think this is all pie in the sky for Thailand, seeing as they have enough proven gas for next 20 years or so....building mutliple combine-cycle power stations will be more cost effective and ultimately they would be able to generate more than 4000MW for a lot less cost

Sure the U235 is not enriched enough to detonate, but it can create an awful mess when it melts down and starts a fire, as we saw at Chernobyl. Let's not forget the disaster that nearly happened at Three Mile Island either:

http://kd4dcy.net/tmi/part1.html

Thais are lovely people, but the thought of them running a nuclear power station? *gulp* Or perhaps I am being a bit too harsh - Thai Airways has an OK safety record, and a friend of mine who is an airline pilot tells me that the standards of engineering at Suwannabhumi are as good as anywhere.

I still don't see any long term alternative to nuclear power that reduces CO2 emissions - all the other options just don't generate enough electricity continuosly. Solar power is too puny (1.7 square km of midday sunshine = 1 reactor), wind power is too puny (2MW per wind turbine in optimum wind conditions, average only 300kW). Both are not continuous - the sun doesn't shine at night, and the wind is too fickle.

Edited June 14, 2009 by dbrenn

[Plus]

The problems of developing countries going nuclear is not limited to Thailand. I recon earlier I said there are more than thirty applying for licenses now. Pakistan and Inda have nuclear bombs, and comparing to them Thai culture is much more responsible and punctual.

And no, Thaland doesn't have enough electricity for the next 20 years. They have studied possible solution for years, came up with an answer, and now internet experts show off their knowledge and try to convince us that commission was stuffed with morons. Ok, maybe those consultants weren't up to the western standards, but that was the best Thailand could produce. I'm reasonably sure they were educated in the west and worked in energy sector for decades and know all the numbers by heart and keep abreast with recent developments in solar techonology, and they made their decision.

It's a bit presumptious to say "I know better", don't you think?

[brahmburgers]

locals would not be running the plant, Expats would be, As Thailand has so few people with any form of Nuclear experience (somebody mentioned a grand total of 3.. )

Thailand has been running a nuclear reactor for nearly fifty years already. They have a heck of lot more than three, they actually employ over 400 people in addition to the hundreds who worked there previously.

It would only take one ding dong to make a big mess if that person was negligent or intending to cause mischief. It could be a 'cut-corner' or oversight in maintenance, ...or in construction. It could be a former employee who felt 'wronged' for some reason. It could be an insurgent - a nuclear reactor is about the juiciest target imaginable. Even in the hands of some of the best qualified Russian, American, Japanese nuclear technicians - things have gone seriously wrong. Proof is in radioactive emmissions from N-plants in each of those countries - whose techies are far beyond the level of Thai techies.

There are impressive developments in Solar going on right now. Concentrated solar, in particular, is showing increased efficiencies - week by week, while cost-per-Kw are going down.

On a personal level, I have a solar set-up that works even in cloudy days and when the sun is hitting the panels at a slight angle. My set up is tiny in comparison to the arrays which could be bought for a small fraction of the money which will be needed to a nuclear plant. Solar power generation is preferable to nuclear in every way. Even its cost per Kw is fast becoming cheaper that nuclear - particularly when you figure in the mountain of peripheral costs needed for nuclear (high security, clean-up/decommissioning, ever-higher fuel costs, insurance, maintenance, environmental impacts, etc etc).

Whoever says nuclear has no CO2 emissions is not looking at the big picture. There are internal combustion engines involved in every phase of nuclear: from mining, processing, shipping, maintaining, to eventual decommissioning (which, BTW, no experts agree will work as planned).

added details

[animatic]

locals would not be running the plant, Expats would be, As Thailand has so few people with any form of Nuclear experience (somebody mentioned a grand total of 3.. )

Thailand has been running a nuclear reactor for nearly fifty years already. They have a heck of lot more than three, they actually employ over 400 people in addition to the hundreds who worked there previously.

It would only take one ding dong to make a big mess if that person was negligent or intending to cause mischief. It could be a 'cut-corner' or oversight in maintenance, ...or in construction. It could be a former employee who felt 'wronged' for some reason. It could be an insurgent - a nuclear reactor is about the juiciest target imaginable. Even in the hands of some of the best qualified Russian, American, Japanese nuclear technicians - things have gone seriously wrong. Proof is in radioactive emmissions from N-plants in each of those countries - whose techies are far beyond the level of Thai techies.

There are impressive developments in Solar going on right now. Concentrated solar, in particular, is showing increased efficiencies - week by week, while cost-per-Kw are going down.

On a personal level, I have a solar set-up that works even in cloudy days and when the sun is hitting the panels at a slight angle. My set up is tiny in comparison to the arrays which could be bought for a small fraction of the money which will be needed to a nuclear plant. Solar power generation is preferable to nuclear in every way. Even its cost per Kw is fast becoming cheaper that nuclear - particularly when you figure in the mountain of peripheral costs needed for nuclear (high security, clean-up/decommissioning, ever-higher fuel costs, insurance, maintenance, environmental impacts, etc etc).

Whoever says nuclear has no CO2 emissions is not looking at the big picture. There are internal combustion engines involved in every phase of nuclear: from mining, processing, shipping, maintaining, to eventual decommissioning (which, BTW, no experts agree will work as planned).

added details

Solar is much more practical than the start up time for nuclear and vastly safer.

Sure it takes space, but there IS space for it, and for wind.

Couple them together with storage and you have a WORKING NOW viable addition

to Thailand's demands for energy, not all of it, but a LOT. And for shorter money too.

1.7 square km of solar panels vs one reactor sounds like a hel_l of a deal actually.

It need not be 1.7 km in one big block either. There is MUCH more than 1.78 square km of roofs in Bangkok...

Add computer controled heat concentrators and you can generate serious steam power too,

not just passive solar panels but managed active solar is WORKING RIGHT NOW.

Edited June 14, 2009 by animatic

[Plus]

They have studied solar options, too. The costs were reported higher, and I bet the technology is untested on a mass scale, and suppliers and expertise are lacking.

Thailand is not going to be pioneers and bank its future on a any new technology. Everybody else goes nuclear, Thailand is just following the trend.

Get used to it.

[brahmburgers]

They have studied solar options, too. The costs were reported higher, and I bet the technology is untested on a mass scale, and suppliers and expertise are lacking. Thailand is not going to be pioneers and bank its future on a any new technology. Everybody else goes nuclear, Thailand is just following the trend. Get used to it.

I'd be interested to see how long ago they studied solar, and what the discussion was like. Solar tech is advancing at a fast clip, so looking at it June '09 would show a significant different findings than looking at it at, say Nov. '08. Cost per Kw are coming down considerably, as efficiency and technologies improve.

There are currently at least 16 large scale solar producing power plants worldwide.

Large scale solar power farms are active in the American SW, in Spain, in Australia and other regions. A big shot American investor billionaire recently said something (when asked why he invested millions in a Texas solar power plant) ....to the effect: "I'm not a tree hugger. I invest money where I see the strongest possibility of highest returns. I've got an expert staff studying all sorts of investments. I invested in that solar plant for the simple reason that my staff saw it as the one of the best money making options currently available. It had nothing to do with green-this or green-that."

Below is a tiny proportion of what's going on in the fast developing world of solar innovation - and the info is at least a year old - so there's newer innovations available that I'm too lazy to research right now, and you can be sure EGAT isn't researching what's at the vanguard of solar technology:

>>> Nevada Solar One is one of the world's largest solar installations, and generates 64 megawatts from Boulder City, Nevada. It covers 300 acres (750 rai) and contains 760 mirror arrays, each measuring about 100 meters. The mirrors direct sunlight onto an oil-filled tube which creates steam to turn a turbine, which in turn generates electricity - considerably cheaper than nuclear generated power - particularly when you factor in the slew of peripheral costs inherent with nuclear.

>>> Delaware (UD) has achieved a record-breaking combined solar cell efficiency of 42.8 percent. Another small company, Intermediate band solar cells, are getting efficiencies close to 63.2%

>>> DiSP’s (Israel) has been developing a miniature concentrating photovoltaic (MCPV) unit that could increase solar efficiency to 79%.

>>> Sunengy Liquid Solar Array. The collectors can be arrayed on a raft on a lake - has the potential to produce electricity for 3 US cents (one baht) per Kw hour and has a 20% efficiency rating. http://www.sunengy.com/

>>> The Thai Net Metering Project - allows small community-owned or small individual-owned renewable energy generators to sell excess electricity to utilities (EGAT included).

Meanwhile, no word from EGAT or the fact-finding team they paid hundreds of millions of baht - to come up with findings that back their desire to go nuclear. As expected, much of what they do - and will do - will be cloaked in stealth - much like the giant propane storage facility that popped up in a residential neighborhood near Bangkok, with no prior warning to residents. The less EGAT tells the public, the easier it will be for EGAT to get what it wants. After all, when they start pouring the concrete, it's going to be mighty hard for the local community to stop the project.

Edited June 15, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Plus]

16 plants in the whole world?

>>>

This country going to use nuclear for strategic power supplies. Solar has its place in percentage for alternative providers. I think it's something like 5-10% according to a master plan.

I know they are not making it easy, but theoretically anyone can invest in solar power here and sell it to Egat or whoever. There might be political implications here, but country's strategic planners can't leave future to the mercy of Thai politics. One day there will not be enough power for everyone, and that day is approaching soon, so they better start pouring that concrete already.

>>>

Jeez, they've done it with buses, they will do it with power plants as well - the country is incapable of accomplishing anything, either for ignorance, corruption or too much democracy, or all at once.

They need to accept their imprefections and try to get future projects right, not dwell on past mistakes without moving at all. In this case they need a secure nuclear reactor, not someone on the Internet suggesting they go back to drawing boards and re-calculate costs of electricity.

fuc_k, they can't issue 3G licenses for four years already - afraid they make a wrong decision.

[brahmburgers]

16 plants in the whole world?

You're referring to my assertion that; "There are currently at least 16 large scale solar ....plants worldwide."

....and yes, that's about right, depending on one's definition of 'large scale.' There was a time, about 113 years ago that there were only about 16 internal combustion powered cars in the whole world.

I don't know whether you think the number 16 (in reference to solar power plants) is surprisingly high or low.

The point is, large scale solar power plants of various designs are viable and are functioning now in divers locales. Thailand has always been behind the 8 ball in regard to such things (tech innovations, etc), and there's no reason to expect that to change any time soon. But the pu yais (head honchos) who are shaping the direction of Thailand's power generation for the next fifty years should take a long in-depth look at the innovations that are developing in the rest of the world.

There are incredible developments happening week by week in the field of alternative power production from renewable sources. Nuclear cooling tower envy (psychologists might call it 'penis envy') should not be the overriding motivation for turning Thailand nuclear. Vietnam is getting one, Indonesia is getting one, even Burma wants one. ...the bigger the better, so they can impress the neighbors. However, if Thailand went solar, it could well happen that future generations of Vietnamese and members of other neighboring countries might look wistfully at the Thais in 30 years, through the haze of nuclear meltdown, and wish they too had gone with a clean, renewable, less costly option for power generation.

[animatic]

Simply put ;

a significant uptick in power generation could be installed by this date next year,

given the will to do so, and abrogating the 'Penis Tower' Envy issue...

They could install a significant amount of WORKING power generation

during just the construction DESIGN phase of a new nuclear plant.

There are NO long term waste storage issues AND COSTS with solar or wind.

This would hardly dent their nuclear power budget to do it, yet be infinitely safer,

and with the pace of advances likely erase the need to continue with the nuclear option.

It is an EASIER subject to understand for politicians too.

I would hope Newin gets a presentation showing how much profit

he could make with Solar, and the ball game changes for the better.

hel_l it's a better shot than the mess they have now...

Edited June 17, 2009 by animatic

[marsteele]

The problem is all us farangs complaining about how hard it is to invest or buy land in thailand. The thai government has grown sick of our moaning so they have decided to blow the place up. This will stop all the farangs winging.

[marsteele]

I am a proponent of nuclear power, but I just get really, really scared when I think of Thailand doing it. These plants require the most scientific and careful design and location. They need very detailed studies of the geography and placement of the plants. Then, they need to be constructed in the most careful and professional manner possible. This is one of the endeavors where you don't want to see substandard concrete, less rebar and other corners cut.

Very seldom see that in Thailand. A little scary.

I can see your point and I would be a little worried too if it was a rush job. But I think if it goes ahead they will make sure it is of the highest quality and it will be scrutinised by authorities. There are a lot of international organizations that have access and check progress that Im sure Thailand would invite and give free reign too.

like your sense of humour. Are you really thai?