Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

[marsteele]

Australia dominates the world with yellow cake deposits, a bit like the arab countries and thier oil deposits but the australian government wont even consider building such a plant for safety reasons.

[Plus]

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

Low, butn not surprisingly.

Qualifies it as "untested".

take a long in-depth look at the innovations that are developing in the rest of the world.

Well, the trend now is to go nuclear. Energy is too serious, too strategic issue and Thais are taking the safest road - safest in terms of reliability, not safety per se.

>>>>>

I don't understand this obsession with government refusing to go solar - what stops people from investing themselves? Why is that guy from Texas quoted earlier doesn't come here and invest? Why the proponents are vocal only when someone else's money is put at risk?

[brahmburgers]

Australia dominates the world with yellow cake deposits, a bit like the arab countries and thier oil deposits but the australian government wont even consider building such a plant for safety reasons.

Good point. When a very few countries control a small amount of 'yellowcake' (unprocessed Uranium), then guess what happens with 'supply and demand' dynamic: The prices will continue to go up, probably dramatically, and certain countries will be standing at the front of the queue. Expect the most powerful countries (US, China, Japan, European) to be first in line. Thailand will be somewhere in the back of the queue. It takes a lot of processing and shipping and insurance and security considerations to get the U to its destination. None of that is a factor with free fuel which radiates from that giant fusion reactor in the sky.

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

Low, but not surprisingly. Qualifies it as "untested".

that number, 16, was from a year ago, and it's in relation to large-scale solar plants. If it works, it works - why should it matter whether there are 16 or 160 functional plants worldwide, EGAT officials and anyone else interested in large scale solar can go and see one or more of those plants and see for themselves how well they work.

take a long in-depth look at the innovations that are developing in the rest of the world.

Well, the trend now is to go nuclear. Energy is too serious, too strategic issue and Thais are taking the safest road - safest in terms of reliability, not safety per se.

There are some countries going nuclear, and there are others going renewable. Even if nuclear were the only 'trend' in officaldom, that doesn't, in itself, qualify it as the smartest option. Yes, energy production on a large scale is serious and strategic considerations - and that's why EGAT in particular and Thai leaders need to make the wisest choice in the matter. A big factor in making wise choices is to check out all viable options. EGAT is not doing that - and thereby doing a grave disservice to their clientele - the Thai people.. .....and creating a scenario which could endanger future generations of Thais and the folks in neighboring countries - who could be adversely affected by serious mishaps.

>>>>>

I don't understand this obsession with government refusing to go solar - what stops people from investing themselves? Why is that guy from Texas quoted earlier doesn't come here and invest? Why the proponents are vocal only when someone else's money is put at risk?

Good point. Let's see some individual / small businesses / municipalities / corporations step up to the plate and invest in solar. At the lease, EGAT could fund a solar plant - perhaps medium scale - to see its viability. It is so adept at throwing tens of millions of baht around (for studies of nuclear with foregone conclusions) - it could set up several small solar arrays, each with a different technology - to see which is best.

Another point is, Thailand's skies are white most of the year, even on clear days. It's not common to have old fashioned blue skies, and that's because of smog and haze. Even so, my personal solar array (v. small scale) produces nearly as much wattage on cloudy days as on blue sky clear days - so white skies shouldn't be an impediment to solar array productivity.

[Plus]

it could set up several small solar arrays, each with a different technology - to see which is best.

They don't have time for field trials. Building a nuclear reactor will take a long time and it must be online by a certain date or Thailand will experience electricity shortages.

that's why EGAT in particular and Thai leaders need to make the wisest choice in the matter.

They did their homework and made the wisest choice they could.

Or should they set up poll on Thaivisa instead of spending milllions of studies and consultants?

[MrWiggle]

and they worry about the Taliban being just 70k's from nukes.....

[Soutpeel]

Australia dominates the world with yellow cake deposits, a bit like the arab countries and thier oil deposits but the australian government wont even consider building such a plant for safety reasons.

No it doesnt....Canada does....should check your facts

1. Canada ... 11,628 tonnes U (28% of world's total uranium production)
   
2. Australia ... 9,519 (22.9%)
   
3. Kazakhstan ... 4,357 (10.5%)
   
4. Russia ... 3,431 (8.2%)
   
5. Namibia ... 3,147 (7.6%)
   
6. Niger ... 3,093 (7.4%)
   
7. Uzbekistan ... 2,300 (5.5%)
   
8. United States ... 1,039 (2.5%)
   
9. Ukraine ... 800 (1.9%)
   
10. China ... 750 (1.8%)
    

[samgrowth]

If that politicians cannot even agree on how to buy 4,000 buses, how do you think they can handle and award the Nuclear contract?

[Plus]

There was an article about wind power in today's Nation. Apparently the trials are not satisfactory yet.

There was also mention of the nation power plan and that windpower has it's place and share in it and there are about fifty investment applications in windpower stations.

I hope it's the same situation with solar - anyone can come and invest if they want.

[MJP]

Has to be the funniest thread I've ever read on TV . . .

If it it wasn't so life threateningly serious.

I reckon Thailand got invited to the 1st World a little too early. Unless it's French built and run, which would make sense.

[animatic]

If that politicians cannot even agree on how to buy 4,000 buses, how do you think they can handle and award the Nuclear contract?

~One ofr= the FEW times we agree,

and this is spot on....

[bdenner]

Australia dominates the world with yellow cake deposits, a bit like the arab countries and thier oil deposits but the australian government wont even consider building such a plant for safety reasons.

No it doesnt....Canada does....should check your facts

1. Canada ... 11,628 tonnes U (28% of world's total uranium production)
   
2. Australia ... 9,519 (22.9%)
   
3. Kazakhstan ... 4,357 (10.5%)
   
4. Russia ... 3,431 (8.2%)
   
5. Namibia ... 3,147 (7.6%)
   
6. Niger ... 3,093 (7.4%)
   
7. Uzbekistan ... 2,300 (5.5%)
   
8. United States ... 1,039 (2.5%)
   
9. Ukraine ... 800 (1.9%)
   
10. China ... 750 (1.8%)
    

Check yours sunshine the guy was talking about reserves

Canada rates 5th in reserves but is the largest producer currently.

[henryalleman]

Before they should even consider to build a nuclear plant they should first put the electric cables who hang above the roads in order and put them underground like in any other decent country. I you cross Bangkok or any other city I'm always bewilderd about it. Its unsafe and even life treathening in some places.

[samgrowth]

I know the best place to build this plant.

The disputed land beside the Khmer temple.

[sprinter2008]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I can't imagine starting something when you have no, absolutely no idea how to finish it. The used radioactive material would still be radioactive after one hundred Chakri dynasties have lived and died, maybe ten times the current Buddhist date of 2550...in what language and alphabet do you engrave the warning signs on the containment capsules? What material has been shown able to encase uranium for 298,859 years?

Dear Bolndie, I am looking for some professionals who have experience in Power Plant Maintainence , Construction etc, basically anyone who " Engineer" -has woked in a power plant project. Please let me know if any of your friends are interested, also do advise if there is any other alternate place to post an advert and get a good response. All jobs are in Thailand with one of the biggest client names.

[animatic]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I can't imagine starting something when you have no, absolutely no idea how to finish it. The used radioactive material would still be radioactive after one hundred Chakri dynasties have lived and died, maybe ten times the current Buddhist date of 2550...in what language and alphabet do you engrave the warning signs on the containment capsules? What material has been shown able to encase uranium for 298,859 years?

Dear Bolndie, I am looking for some professionals who have experience in Power Plant Maintainence , Construction etc, basically anyone who " Engineer" -has woked in a power plant project. Please let me know if any of your friends are interested, also do advise if there is any other alternate place to post an advert and get a good response. All jobs are in Thailand with one of the biggest client names.

Earlier in this thread are comments form an actual western nuclear plant engineer here in thailand.

Blanking on his name at the moment. But he is exactly who you discribe above.

[JoeThePoster]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I can't imagine starting something when you have no, absolutely no idea how to finish it. The used radioactive material would still be radioactive after one hundred Chakri dynasties have lived and died, maybe ten times the current Buddhist date of 2550...in what language and alphabet do you engrave the warning signs on the containment capsules? What material has been shown able to encase uranium for 298,859 years?

Dear Bolndie, I am looking for some professionals who have experience in Power Plant Maintainence , Construction etc, basically anyone who " Engineer" -has woked in a power plant project. Please let me know if any of your friends are interested, also do advise if there is any other alternate place to post an advert and get a good response. All jobs are in Thailand with one of the biggest client names.

Earlier in this thread are comments form an actual western nuclear plant engineer here in thailand.

Blanking on his name at the moment. But he is exactly who you discribe above.

I suppose you refer to Cobalt60.

But, gamma-radiating seafood and yoghurt is a different ball game altogether.

[Soutpeel]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I can't imagine starting something when you have no, absolutely no idea how to finish it. The used radioactive material would still be radioactive after one hundred Chakri dynasties have lived and died, maybe ten times the current Buddhist date of 2550...in what language and alphabet do you engrave the warning signs on the containment capsules? What material has been shown able to encase uranium for 298,859 years?

Dear Bolndie, I am looking for some professionals who have experience in Power Plant Maintainence , Construction etc, basically anyone who " Engineer" -has woked in a power plant project. Please let me know if any of your friends are interested, also do advise if there is any other alternate place to post an advert and get a good response. All jobs are in Thailand with one of the biggest client names.

Oh well another reputable body shop, advertising on threads... , send me a PM, Worked PWR nuclear construction/maintenance for many years....

[JonTan]

With the high energy consumption in Phuket, the Thai government should consider building a nuclear plant in Phuket west coast. They can use the sea water there to cool the reactor.

However, please keep out of sight of Patong. It may affect the tourism industry.

Thank you.

[Datsun240Z]

Unless it's French built and run, which would make sense.

[brahmburgers]

it could set up several small solar arrays, each with a different technology - to see which is best.

They don't have time for field trials. Building a nuclear reactor will take a long time and it must be online by a certain date or Thailand will experience electricity shortages.

that's why EGAT in particular and Thai leaders need to make the wisest choice in the matter.

They did their homework and made the wisest choice they could.

Or should they set up poll on Thaivisa instead of spending milllions of studies and consultants?

No time for field trials? They should make the time - for such an important decision that will effect future generations of Thais, and Thailand's relationships with its neighbors. Nobody wants even a mini-Chernobyl next door. And don't tell me that 'modern technology of nuclear is such that nothing can go wrong.' That's been the blurb all along. At any given time, vested interests have said such things, yet things continue to go wrong every so often. One example: not long ago, Japan's largest nuclear plant had a problem and ensuing radioactive emissions leak. ...And Japan is miles ahead of Thailand in terms of technical prowess and social responsibility.

Even without their own field trials, there are reams of info coming out weekly (freely accessible) of other tech reports showing how concentrated solar technology is preferable to nuclear on every level: it's cheaper, safer, cleaner, and the fuel is free, and there's not tens of thousands of years of residual radioactivity to deal with.

They (EGAT) did their homework and made the wisest choice they could.

EGAT did not do their homework, and nuclear is by no measure the wisest choice.

EGAT has a hard-on for nuclear, and they're marching lock-step towards it - come hel_l or high water. It's a penis-envy sort of thing. They hear Vietnam and Indonesia are going nuclear, so Thai old school thinking insists they have to go nuclear also. Every step of their campaign is shrouded in secrecy. Every one they over-pay to submit a report knows the report has to have one conclusion: Thailand must go nuclear.

Future generations of Thais will rue the decision - much more than they rue the decision of Thailand purchasing an aircraft carrier that was useless the day it got delivered.

Another note about EGAT. Have you driven to Pai lately? The road is 100 Km long, and all along the winding road are 3 generations of power poles and wires. The wasteful wires and transmission poles probably go all the way to Mae Hong Song and beyond. It's doubtful there was any thought by EGAT given to the possibility of powering those towns with alternative renewable energy plants (solar). It would have cost less than the cost of wire (that's currently there) to set up solar with batteries, and the towns would be off the grid.

[Plus]

EGAT did not do their homework, and nuclear is by no measure the wisest choice

It's your word against theirs. Unfortunately for you they are in charge of national energy policy, and I think it wasn't just Egat who made the decision.

And there is no time for field trials and staring the decision making process all over again just because you disagree with the outcome.

You can't "make" time, it's physically impossible.

[nakachalet]

well, can we try this out?

any of us who thinks he/she can help (not involving money) in starting up a group of people

of likemind like us who would like to help thailand to reconsider its pending nuclear generator plant construction

project, sends email to this email address which would then, by august 1, 2009, one month from now; tabulats

its received ideas and opinions; then, we would proceed from there.

perhaps, afterwhich date--aug 1, 2009, someone who is more knowledgeable would pickup the ball running.

the email address is [email protected]

thank you very much for trying to help getting this important info to the thai people

[email protected]

[brahmburgers]

From The Nation newspaper October 5, 2009

People accepted nuclear power plant but should far away from community

Public agreed with the Kingdom's plan to set up nuclear power plant but should be established far away from their residential area.

Somboon Arayaskul, deputy governor of Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat), said today that its recent public hearing result showed that 64 per cent of the total 44,815 samplings have supported the government plan. However, 59 per cent voiced out against the nuclear power plant and 66 per cent didn't want the establishment is [sic] in their communities.

The public hearing result will be presented to Egat's new power develpment plan sub-committee.

- end of all-too-brief and poorly written article (at least two basic grammatical mistakes) -

- - - - - - - -- - - - - -

BB's comment: How can there be over 100% in a survey? The article claims "64 per cent of the total 44,815 samplings have supported the government plan."

The gov't plan is to install nuke power plants, come h4ll or high water, that's no secret.

Then, the next sentence says "59 per cent voiced out against the nuclear power plant and 66 per cent didn't want the establishment in their communities."

So if there are 64% supporters, and 59% opponents, that gives a total of 123% !

Perhaps the survey allowed people to vote both 'for' and 'against' the idea within the same form.

- - - - -

click here to read why Thailand should not go nuclear (76 page pdf file)

Edited October 7, 2009 by brahmburgers

[elkangorito]

My comments in pink.

BB's comment: How can there be over 100% in a survey? The article claims "64 per cent of the total 44,815 samplings have supported the government plan."

Obviously, more info is required with regard to how the survey was conducted.

The gov't plan is to install nuke power plants, come h4ll or high water, that's no secret.

Then, the next sentence says "59 per cent voiced out against the nuclear power plant and 66 per cent didn't want the establishment in their communities."

So if there are 64% supporters, and 59% opponents, that gives a total of 123% !

See previous comment. I doubt that the survey methods used are easily found.

Perhaps the survey allowed people to vote both 'for' and 'against' the idea within the same form.

- - - - -

click here to read why Thailand should not go nuclear (76 page pdf file)

Where was the survey conducted?

Do rural Thais know what a "Nuclear Reactor" is?

How many Thais are in any way knowledgeable with regard to nuclear reactors?

I smell about a million rats in all of this.

I wonder what the survey results would have been if the people being surveyed were more informed about nuclear plants & in particular, NUCLEAR WASTE?

[Rumfoord]

- - - - -

click here to read why Thailand should not go nuclear (76 page pdf file)

that is your publication, right? had to laugh at the sources for the text (p.76): The Nation (the newspaper you can ... 5555), wikipedia (the source you can edit the way you want), motherearthnews (tree hugher news for for only $10.00 (USA only)) , adventure1.com (Ken A., a former blue green algae salesman from the US try to sell his e-books ) and thaivisaforum (second home of the grumpy old men, unintentionally fabricating lulz)

quote: "...the Thaksin administration was too busy busting young women for wearing spaghetti strap blouses (a leading concern at the time)" (p.4)

that isn't actually untrue at all, but still funny whatkind of wacky arguments cranky old white men pull up to bitch about Thaksin, or Thailand and Thais.

[IMA_FARANG]

I have as many doubts about Nuclear power and Nuclear powe reactors as anyone on this forum.

But it strikes me that much of the opposition expressed here are from those who simply feel that :

1. Thais are inferior...in judgement and intellect.

2. Farangs (westerners, especially British) are inherently superior to Thais.

3. For that reason a nuclear reactor might be appropriate in "dear old Albion", but not Thailand.

Reminds me of the old New Yorker magazine cartoon with two Colonel Blimp types....Gin and Tonic in hand...hearing the sound of drums....and saying, "The natives are restless tonight, Fawnsworth, aren't they?".

I would certainly hope that the training of Thai personel who operate any nuclear reactor would be full and verified before they were allowed to operate the reactor. And I expect that this would require international certification of their training.

But I would expect the same thing of a reactor in England, France, or the United States.

Thailand has a lot of energy alternatives...Solar energy and Natural Gas reserves are two.

Never the less, I can understand the lure of a Nulear reactor, that produces a lot of electricity at one concentrated site for a city like Bangkok.

I do hope that there will be a debate among the Thai people about the matter before a decision will be made.

We shall see if there is.

[Ijustwannateach]

My number one issue would be a general history of Thailand not committing to the expense of the proper maintenance and decommissioning of major infrastructural projects. In the case of a major nuclear plant, those aren't optional- and how well do the powers that be in a city that took 30 years to finish its latest major airport because of the budget-padding corruption-fest understand- THOSE AREN'T OPTIONAL!!!

As another recent example- didn't the BTS maintenance contract expire (it was a 10 year contract, right?) Who's doing the maintenance now, and how well?

(note to self: get onto the MRT line soon).

[Rumfoord]

I have as many doubts about Nuclear power and Nuclear powe reactors as anyone on this forum.

But it strikes me that much of the opposition expressed here are from those who simply feel that :

1. Thais are inferior...in judgement and intellect.

2. Farangs (westerners, especially British) are inherently superior to Thais.

3. For that reason a nuclear reactor might be appropriate in "dear old Albion", but not Thailand.

Reminds me of the old New Yorker magazine cartoon with two Colonel Blimp types....Gin and Tonic in hand...hearing the sound of drums....and saying, "The natives are restless tonight, Fawnsworth, aren't they?".

i agree, but wouldn't say that it is an especially British trait. citizen of other Nations do that as well, if not more often.

[henryalleman]

I wrote it before and I write it again.

1.

Before they even plan a nuclear plant they should arrange that electric cables on the streets, and put them underground, its realy dangerous. So maybe than we will not be cut off electric everytime its raining hard.

2. Why they don't investigate the possibility of solar energy, Thailand have a lot of sun, and wind energy they have a lot of coast.

3. do first someting about cleaning up waste water and invest in a decent sewer system. Maybe than we can get rid off of the open stinking sewers and klongs.And clean up all the small stinking ponds full of garbage you see evererywhere

4. a decent railway system, so get rid off the small track.

And last but not least where they get the money for a nuclear plant, the investment is sky high.

I realy do think that there are much more urgent needs for this country than a nuclear power plant.

Edited October 10, 2009 by henryalleman

[heykki]

Producing energy with nuclear power is relatively environmental friendly way when compared to coal, oil or wind (for wind - huge space needed, ineffective, low-quality), but we have to ask is it really sustainable and how the price rises will affect in the future.

Modern nuclear plants are incredibly safe, and with proper care (yea yea Thai care isn't gonna blow it up) the risks can be minimized to a level where this is no longer a factor.

However, solar energy will soon enough be a cheaper and there's a clear trend suggesting the technology will improve to a point where it will be the best option (assuming they cannot commercialize fusion energy production in the next 10-20 years).

We are now about to finish the construction work of the latest reactor (yes, 5 million people but there are 5 reactors) in Finland and I do not think everyone are satisfied with the said 50 % increase in the construction costs.

I hope all options are carefully considered before making any hasty decisions and I do really hope no politics (or corruption) are involved with this. Has anyone seen any estimates and calculations about the alternative options?