Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

[mogoso]

Part of the 1.8 Billion baht

Have the authorities heard of Rancho Seco? That's the nuclear power plant near Sacramento CA that was closed down, even while functional, because the surrounding residents got smart to the myriad problems of nuclear.

Have you heard of France? 80% of their electrical energy is produced by nuclear reactors. It's safe and quite efficent. The enviornuts are a bane upon society as a whole. theres enviormentalist=good ,theres enviornut=stupidity

[Tony Clifton]

dam_n environment, takes up so much space and requires too much care.

[Ricardo]

dam_n environment, takes up so much space and requires too much care.

Also it gets so dark every night. Why can't they simply throw a little light on the subject, make it glow, or something ?

[Galong]

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.

Mr Bush, is that you?

[Plus]

Millions of Thais are not prepared to pay for solar energy at today's prices.

Government is not competent enough to do anything about it, nor is it competent to run a nuclear plant, but they can outsource the management.

[brahmburgers]

Part of the 1.8 Billion baht

Have the authorities heard of Rancho Seco? That's the nuclear power plant near Sacramento CA that was closed down, even while functional, because the surrounding residents got smart to the myriad problems of nuclear.

Have you heard of France? 80% of their electrical energy is produced by nuclear reactors. It's safe and quite efficent. The enviornuts are a bane upon society as a whole. theres enviormentalist=good ,theres enviornut=stupidity

Mogoso, I've been called a lot worse things than 'envionut' (did you forget to put an 'r' in there?) ...I think you meant to call me 'environut. Sounds like a good name for an edible energy bar.

Seriously though, what do the French do with spent rods and other radioactive debris? Do they ship it to Polynesia and clandestinely drop it on the coral reefs there? Do they have an iron-clad safety plan for the next 50,000+ years that the refuse will be dangerously radioactive? Plus, since France doesn't have Uranium, they'll be at the mercy of price spikes from sellers like Chad. Judging from recent news, Chadian gov't doesn't have a whole lot of love for the French - whether it be a voted gov't or a bunch of renegades who just took over Chad.

Thailand will probably buy U from Australia, and so, like any esssential raw material, will be subject to price spikes of dems dat control the spigot.

Incidentally, France is about the same size and has about the same population as Thailand. I wouldn't doubt that many French folks wish their gov't had invested in solar and wind - rather than nuclear - especially if/when the day comes (and I hope it doesn't) that there's a Chernobyl-scale catastophe. Plus, investment in 'concentrated solar' is much smaller than investment in nuclear power plants - for a commensurate KW yield.

As for Plus' comment, "Millions of Thais are not prepared to pay for solar energy at today's prices." It's understandable from the perspective that we (the educated and aware westerners) have thought for decades that solar is mostly an individual thing - where a homeowner puts up a couple PV panels. Solar is bigger than that now. It's gotten to where it can be viable on a municipal and even national scale. Does Plus think 'millions of Thais' are going to asked whether they're 'prepared to pay' for nuclear? No, the gov't vested interests are going to force the building of the reactors - one way or another. If the Thai people act like sheep, the fat cats won't have any resistance. If some Thais become aware of the dangers, then the fat cats will easily walk over such concerns. There are many methods available.

Edited February 4, 2008 by brahmburgers

[Plus]

I read that solar cost 7 baht per unit compared to 3 baht per unit they pay now. That's quite a difference Thais might not be prepared to pay.

[toptuan]

Government is not competent enough to do anything about it, nor is it competent to run a nuclear plant, but they can outsource the management.

Yeah, like reassign all the foreign engineers who supposedly work(ed) at Siam Water Park!

Edited February 4, 2008 by toptuan

[Tony Clifton]

I read that solar cost 7 baht per unit compared to 3 baht per unit they pay now. That's quite a difference Thais might not be prepared to pay.

The way things are going, couldn't solar still be at 7 baht or even much cheaper a unit thirty years down the road while the other fuels will have gone way higher?

[steveromagnino]

I read that solar cost 7 baht per unit compared to 3 baht per unit they pay now. That's quite a difference Thais might not be prepared to pay.

The way things are going, couldn't solar still be at 7 baht or even much cheaper a unit thirty years down the road while the other fuels will have gone way higher?

Electricity REAL PRICING has a number of elements; specifically the cost of generation (calculated by fuel used to generate plus some aspect of depreciation of the generation equipment), the cost of the lines to transport it to the local grid and the cost of running the local grid. Line usage calculation is not easy; you cannot use a set price per unit without taking into account load losses, time of day, time of year, etc. Lines usage is primarily a monopoly service; generation can be a competitive business.

Without a deregulated market, the true costs tend to be disguised; in particular the cost of the use of lines - how should it be charged - that is not an easy question to answer. Because electricity cannot be stored, and because lines have to sized to maximum demand periods, the general logic worldwide is that the peak period line usage should be more expensive; non peak less expensive - based on some sort of low risk return rate to the person owning the lines; being a natural monopoly, this is usually regulated somehow, benchmarks or similar plus potentially government ownership. And there are economies of scale in billing, metering etc when dealing with a large industrial client vs. a home.

An example of a tarriff (speaking as a former pricing manager):

House 15c / kWh (energy generation 7c, transmission/network 8c)

Industrial user 7c / KWh (energy generation 4c, transmission/network 3c)

With solar or cogeneration or other embedded generation, the advantage is avoiding the line changes and line losses; often as much as 50% of the retail cost of power; let's say my house can use solar, then I can eliminate 8c of the cost of my power; so even if it costs me 12c to generate, I am still ahead.

The reason for the differences is the time of day/time of year; industrial users might run 24 hours daily all year round, using the wires at full capacity and linking to power generated from hydro (cheap). Home users tend to heavily use power in the early evening, all at the same time, and mostly in hottest/coldest months, meaning the wires have to be sized to handle maximum loads then being unused most of the year. Power cannot be stored, and it is at night, so solar etc aren't possible; it has to be peak generation using coal, gas, etc.

Nuclear can only be used for base load as it is a constant stream of power; therefore comparing as the govt is doing is a total waste of time.

You cannot really say solar is cheap or expensive compared to average power rates; you can only compare it 'to what' and in this case during the day generation is probably cheap; peak time is probably early evening when all the aircon units kick in.

The real benefit in power generation and transmission comes when you start using peak load management and go to a more constant load factor without peaks and troughs. Easiest way to do that is with massive price signals. And the only way you can do that is with a deregulated market and/or no cross subsidisation between energy user groups.

For sure, nuclear is a terrible solution, and there is nil proof that it will be good for THailand; in the event of another coup, you might have USA/EU/UN step in and deny fuel. We have plenty of gas and need to develop more remote generation capability with biomass, solar, wind power and other solutions. Plus load management.

But there isn't a lot of corruption possible doing that.

Which is why nuclear will probably get built. GE and their mates already know how to pay the bribes, they did it with CTX.

[Plus]

Thailand will run out of gas in twenty years. After that it's import of gas from Burma or hydropower from Laos. Biomass is not going to be a complete solution, I think that is obvious. Solar power might be promising with cheaper technology but it's not wise to rely on optimistic forecasts.

I doubt we'll have solar panels in every house, so transmission rates can't be deducted completely. And the fact that you can't run solar duting peak demand in early evening also makes it a completementary solution at best.

I also believe that people planning these things and doing cost benefit analysis aren't stupid, and they aren't bought up by nuclear companies yet, now it's the right time to get unbiased opinions.

The way nuclear and solar power production are going to used appears to be different, they'd rather complement each other than compete.

It's a pity Thailand is not ready to deal with it, the only reason I personally against going nuclear.

[Jai Dee]

Thailand launches nuclear power study

Thai Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand, on his last day office, officially launched a three-year study of nuclear power in the country.

The $33 million study of nuclear power will be conducted by the new Nuclear Power Development Office, and the working panel will be chaired by Norkhun Sitthiphong, Amranand's deputy permanent secretary, the Bangkok Post reported.

The plan includes a feasibility study, site selection, public acceptance plan and development of the required technical skills for local personnel.

Amranand said amendments to national laws will be needed to expand the permitted usage of nuclear beyond food, medical and military research application, but Thailand already has a small research reactor.

The legislation will also cover safety standards to comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The study will be paid for by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and the Energy Conservation Fund, with nuclear specialists from various public agencies involved.

Source: UPI - 04 February 2008

[brahmburgers]

'Plus' says, "I doubt we'll have solar panels in every house,..."

To go solar, you don't need individual PV panels in each house. Look up 'concentrated solar' and see how it can be done on a municiple basis - with incredible yields per rai of electricity - at relatively low cost.

Speaking of cost, I think the only hope of sinking the Thaitanic ideas of building nuclear here, is to look at it from money angle. The safety issues don't mean a thing to the corporate heads that are poised to build it and the politicians with their palms held out - ready to be greased.

Yellowcake is is U308 = Uranium in its fuel stage of processing - needed to fire a nuclear plant.

Current worldwide production of Yellowcake is about 65 percent of current reactor requirements. The availability will go down further, and here's why.

Dozens of new reactors are planned worldwide, China alone has plans for forty. And already, supplies of yellowcake are diminishing rather than increasing - most of that is due to the many steps required to mine and refine the stuff. Even in the best case scenario, Thailand will be beholden to Australia (or some unstable coutry like Kazakstan) to supply the fuel.

From 2003 to the present, the spot price of uranium went from $7 to $130 per pound without declining once. That's a 1,700%-plus increase over a five-year span. In further 5 year increments, the price could go to $500 to $1,000 to $2,000 or more per pound. Anyone who thinks that's outragous probably thought $100/barrel oil was outragous if they heard that number a few years ago (when it was $17/barrel). Those are the same people who might think $1000/barrel oil is preposterous, but at the rate oil (and unranium) prices are rising astronomically, such price surges are completely possible.

The sun's rays are free, and they don't pollute.

[brahmburgers]

here are some of the URL's from which I sourced the info in my previous post:

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/uraniumreport.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70321092710.htm

for details on 'concentrated solar: http://motherearthnews.com/ ...and other sites

[ace]

To me solar power is a no-brainer.

Whichever methods are utilized to harness the power, the fact is we have an unimaginably huge fusion reactor sat there 93 million miles away generating 400 trillion trillion watts.

Broken down from Wikipedia:

* The total solar energy available to the earth is approximately 3850 zettajoules (ZJ) per year.

* Oceans absorb approximately 285 ZJ of solar energy per year.

* Winds can theoretically supply 6 ZJ of energy per year.

* Biomass captures approximately 1.8 ZJ of solar energy per year.

* Worldwide energy consumption was 0.471 ZJ in 2004.

(1 zetta joule = 10^21 joules)

So we need to harness about 0.01% of the total input.

BTW it's these kinds of numbers that sometimes make me a little sceptical about global warming, the slightest change in the suns output can have a massive effect on the Earths environment. But that's a bit OT.

[Plus]

To go solar, you don't need individual PV panels in each house. Look up 'concentrated solar' and see how it can be done on a municiple basis - with incredible yields per rai of electricity - at relatively low cost.

I was saying that you still need transmission lines precisely because PV panes won't be in every house. Maybe if it's run on "municiple" basis it will be cheaper, but then again, you'll probably have to build new power grid for each municipality. I think it was you who said you can deduct transmission fee from solar power.

The rest of the numbers only look convincing. Experience shows that in this kind of debate every side can produce enough scientific arguments backed by research to convince any neophite like me. It's not the struggle for truth, it's the struggle for my attention, once you have me listening, you can convince me that killing my mother would be in my best interests because of some fancy cost-benefit analysis.

I, personally, prefer to rely on unbiased expert opinions rather than on my own mental capacities. So far the outcome is far less certain than in human warming debate. I can take "wait and see" approach, I'm not in a hurry on this matter.

Governments need to commit themselves now, they can't wait any longer.

[Frotting]

...ups the table got shot

I get the picture. The building project is given to a 'friend' and the navy get a new and improved navy base - also has to be built by a 'friend'. The money goes around and everybody's happy - except the poor buggers who own/lease property in Chon Buri. Looks like we're <snip - expletive deleted> boys.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jai Dee
innappropriate language for news forum deleted

[steveromagnino]

Thailand will run out of gas in twenty years. After that it's import of gas from Burma or hydropower from Laos. Biomass is not going to be a complete solution, I think that is obvious. Solar power might be promising with cheaper technology but it's not wise to rely on optimistic forecasts.

I also believe that people planning these things and doing cost benefit analysis aren't stupid, and they aren't bought up by nuclear companies yet, now it's the right time to get unbiased opinions.

Just one thing - where do you source the info gas is running out as quickly as 20 years - I have no idea on the timeframe - interesting point.

Sadly for me I have discussed this exact subject with the head of the overall committee leading the research for nuclear, and i can assure you in his mind it is a done deal. This is not a cost benefit exercise - this is a justification project of how to sell it. I don't think his mind is made up on the basis of bribes (although politicians will decide that way), he just wants it. After all he is a nuclear physicist.

And I have no doubt there are nuclear companies standing behind willing to pay the price to get the contract.

[Plus]

Just one thing - where do you source the info gas is running out as quickly as 20 years

Someone's interview in the Nation.

Ah, got it, it was a panel discussion organised by Krungthep Turakij:

http://nationmultimedia.com/search/page.ne...amp;id=30064343

Edited February 6, 2008 by Plus

[steveromagnino]

Just one thing - where do you source the info gas is running out as quickly as 20 years

Someone's interview in the Nation.

Ah, got it, it was a panel discussion organised by Krungthep Turakij:

http://nationmultimedia.com/search/page.ne...amp;id=30064343

Gotcha. That is probably a claim based on existing tapped fields. Because it is likely there a ton of hydro carbons in Thailand that are yet to be discovered - PTTEP and the govt agency who issues all the licenses for exploration have both told me that.

The whole angle to get nuclear in is as a done deal; all arguments on securing our energy supply are straight out the window unless Thailand has the technology and the raw materials to produce nuclear ourselves. Which we obviously do not!!

Coal, gas, alternative fuels - all are no worse than nuclear and a lot easier to do. But with a lower capital investment is less chance to be corrupt in getting the work done.

[Plus]

That is probably a claim based on existing tapped fields. Because it is likely there a ton of hydro carbons in Thailand that are yet to be discovered - PTTEP and the govt agency who issues all the licenses for exploration have both told me that.

But they would, wouldn't they, it's natural for them to drum up prospects for growth in their own business.

I don't know if opposing views were presented during that panel discussion, there's a chance that someone would have mentioned if 20 years number was not reliable.

No one has a working, reliable model of alternative fuel production. A model that can be transferred to Thailand and implemented easily.

Nuclear power with decades of international expertise has a clear advantage here.

[steveromagnino]

That is probably a claim based on existing tapped fields. Because it is likely there a ton of hydro carbons in Thailand that are yet to be discovered - PTTEP and the govt agency who issues all the licenses for exploration have both told me that.

But they would, wouldn't they, it's natural for them to drum up prospects for growth in their own business.

I don't know if opposing views were presented during that panel discussion, there's a chance that someone would have mentioned if 20 years number was not reliable.

No one has a working, reliable model of alternative fuel production. A model that can be transferred to Thailand and implemented easily.

Nuclear power with decades of international expertise has a clear advantage here.

LNG is also a proven model. Coal is also a proven model. Both imported, the same as nuclear; based on a number of assumptions, it could be quite possible that Nuclear is more expensive; all depends on the target WACC to build the sodding thing. Tip gas is a proven model, I can take you down to look at what they are doing in wellington NZ for that; cogen is also proven; not exactly alternative fuels but certainly alternative approaches.

Since most nuclear power stations don't factor in the cost of 10,000 years of storage of the waste or allow for the expected massive increase in cost of transport the stuff around or even to buy it, on paper nuclear still looks ok. And when they fail, it is all buried in the ROI anyway.

And that's ignoring the horrendous (based on basic numbers of failures vs. number of plants) failure rates of the nuclear systems and resultant cost.

As you may be able to guess, I kind of see through the nuclear argument; I am all for debating it, but just cannot see how what we are seeing is a debate when the head of the committee personally was telling me the purpose of the debate was to figure out the best approach to explain nuclear so that the citizens would not get scared of it.

[PattayaParent]

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.

Which is exactly the way coal fired, gas fired and oil fired power stations operate.

So your point is what excatly?

[brahmburgers]

here's a free 70 page e-book with illustrations - that talks in detail about Thailand's nuclear plans:

EGAT's THAITANIC

subtitle: Why Thailand Should Not Go Nuclear

Edited May 2, 2008 by brahmburgers

[plachon]

Thailand will run out of gas in twenty years. After that it's import of gas from Burma or hydropower from Laos. Biomass is not going to be a complete solution, I think that is obvious. Solar power might be promising with cheaper technology but it's not wise to rely on optimistic forecasts.

I also believe that people planning these things and doing cost benefit analysis aren't stupid, and they aren't bought up by nuclear companies yet, now it's the right time to get unbiased opinions.

Just one thing - where do you source the info gas is running out as quickly as 20 years - I have no idea on the timeframe - interesting point.

Sadly for me I have discussed this exact subject with the head of the overall committee leading the research for nuclear, and i can assure you in his mind it is a done deal. This is not a cost benefit exercise - this is a justification project of how to sell it. I don't think his mind is made up on the basis of bribes (although politicians will decide that way), he just wants it. After all he is a nuclear physicist.

And I have no doubt there are nuclear companies standing behind willing to pay the price to get the contract.

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected Steve. It's a done deal, meaning that $33 million (!!!!!!!!) earmarked for studies, can be used for purely PR purposes, greasing palms to buy allegiance and a general honey pot for bureaucrats and politicians to dip into when ever the need arises. Hmmmmm, what a sweet, bequerel tainted prospect for the Thai people to look forward in a few years time. It looks like the Canadian govt's. investment in turning a few bright sparks in Thai universities into nuclear engineer's and energy planners a decade or more ago has now paid off. Thanks Canada!

[Plus]

Hold on, whatever they decide to do, they are going to spend a lot of money. Coal or gas powered plants are no less prone to corruption, they probably know everyone's commission in that business already.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is a big unknown, every step is a potential for disaster - less chances for yahoos skimming on cement in their concrete or whatever.

>>>

Bottom line, as I see it - they needed to make a choice and they had several options on the table, including solar and wind power. It wasn't time to talk or dream or listen to promises, they had to shoose something working and reliable. There isn't a tested, time proven solar plant that would generate as much electricity as nuclear. It's all maybe..., in the future..., look at the recent progress...

Besides, the proposed plant doesn't prevent the country from implementing solar solutions when they are ready.

[Thaddeus]

Besides, the proposed plant doesn't prevent the country from implementing solar solutions when they are ready.

Especially when the residents of Bangkok start to glow in the dark.

[opengoal]

I think we are all missing the point here. PPP, Thai Rak Thai call them what you will have this love of " mega projects" simply because this means mega rip offs. There will be no nuclear reactor in Thailand but what there will be is a mega feasability study carried out at a cost of 1 billion dollars. from this 1 billion the usual suspects will cream off 0.6-0.7 of a billion. It will then be deemed not in the interest of the thai enviroment.

Everybody will then breathe a sigh of relief and believe they have a caring responsible government. Count up the amount of times you have heard the phrase Mega project since the election. The new terminal will gross them 100,000,000 in consultancy rake offs.

In Khon Kaen province they are talking about examining the possibilty of using an old runway 40 km outside Khon Kaen city to bring in cargo as part of the east west trade corridor while Khon Kaen Airport is situated 1 km from the the east west highway and has 3 planes a day. Can you see any logic.

Then all this rake off gets removed from these shores. Where I come from they would be known as F---ing thieves. Its obvious why wannabe politicians can spend 50 million getting elected because this will be repaid very quickly from the above activities.

[sriracha john]

Count up the amount of times you have heard the phrase Mega project since the election.

Its usage comes in at a respectable 3rd place as it is outpaced only by "Crackdown" and "Hub".....

[MustaphaMond]

Mogoso, I've been called a lot worse things than 'envionut' (did you forget to put an 'r' in there?) ...I think you meant to call me 'environut. Sounds like a good name for an edible energy bar.

Seriously though, what do the French do with spent rods and other radioactive debris? Do they ship it to Polynesia and clandestinely drop it on the coral reefs there? Do they have an iron-clad safety plan for the next 50,000+ years that the refuse will be dangerously radioactive? Plus, since France doesn't have Uranium, they'll be at the mercy of price spikes from sellers like Chad. Judging from recent news, Chadian gov't doesn't have a whole lot of love for the French - whether it be a voted gov't or a bunch of renegades who just took over Chad.

They recycle it , efficiently and apparenty, safely.

I agree prev post..

T- land will never get a reactor, this is about feasability of lining the pockets , ( best do it quick before another coup!)