Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

[VegasVic]

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.

Quite right plus! In reading the first couple of pages on this thread I am amazed at the ignorance and misinformation about nuclear power. I really shouldn't be suprised because I have heard it all before about 30 years ago in the U.S.. Back then it was the greenies protesting nuclear power and pushing the political agenda against it, the fallout (sorry for the PUN) was that many proposed nuclear power plants were never built and some in the middle of construction were abandoned. Its kind of ironic that those same protesters are now the ones sreaming about CO2 emissions and global warming, if the U.S. had only followed the path that France wound up taking and built those plants then there would be a considerable decrease of CO2 emissions by now. Thailand should indeed augment the nuclear plant with wind, solar, sugarcane and anything else that comes down the pike. Increasing the sugarcane crop is something that Thailand can do now, and if they learn from the Brazil model and perhaps even improve on it they could become energy independant in the next decade. Lets hope the new government makes the right decisions for the Thai people and the future of Thailand!

[grantbkk]

It is great to see that the Democrats are coming out against the construction of nuclear reactors in the Kingdom and are making every effort to secure safe, alternative energy sources to power future generations. If the Democrats fail to stop the proliferation of nuclear-power plants, there are several local labor pools and contractors that can be tapped to complete construction by the year 2021. The cost of the design will be negligible, as there are several off-the-shelf designs available for just a few dollars on the Internet.

When construction is slated to begin in 2014 or 2015, the rail line from Suvarnabhumi to Bangkok should be finished. All of those involved in that project are familiar with the Thai construction process and could immediately move as one finely tuned unit to begin building nuclear-power plants anywhere in the country. The newly hired quality-control people are very familiar with what to look for in inferior steel and concrete structures. The all important nuclear-reactor cooling system, which must work for a nuclear disaster to be avoided, can be contracted to the company that installed the cooling system for the CTX scanners at the airport. They know where they went wrong and probably won't repeat their mistakes.

The Science and Technology Ministry has already sent a delegation to Austria to observe the management of nuclear power there. No one needs to be reminded of the scandal with Steyr Daimler Puch of Austria in which 315 fire-trucks and 30 fire boats have been languishing unused at our docks for years while the government in power gets to the bottom of this equipment-for-chickens debacle. I mention this because by the time construction starts on the power plants, it would be a good time to start cannibalizing the instrumentation from the unused fire-trucks and boats and modify those instruments for use in the nuclear-reactor control rooms. Trained, out of work, automobile-factory employees would be a good choice for this project. Certainly a win-win situation for them and the country.

Safety is job number one at a nuclear facility. Science has progressed to the point where all of our out-of-work garment workers could be utilized to sew giant chemically treated fabric covers for the cooling towers. These covers would turn red as a warning for all to see when there is a radiation leak or meltdown at the facility. As a failsafe backup method of determining a leak, animals that have survived the Chiang Mai Night Safari could be penned up around the nuclear-power plants. Loud sirens are so last year and often fail to work when needed or go off on their own for no apparent reason. Good luck!

[apo]

Hi I spent a day looking for one of those small cheap gas torches (with the disposable tanks that twist on them) they sell these in every Ace Hardware store back home for about $5

Not one to be had on the whole island of Samui

the reason is the Thai sellers told me was Thais tend to burn down there homes with these cheap devices….

imagine what they would do with a nuclear power plant!

The worst idea I have ever heard of EVER in my life!

Is there something more stupid than stupid?

That is what this is…..

[grantbkk]

Hi I spent a day looking for one of those small cheap gas torches (with the disposable tanks that twist on them) they sell these in every Ace Hardware store back home for about $5

Not one to be had on the whole island of Samui

the reason is the Thai sellers told me was Thais tend to burn down there homes with these cheap devices….

imagine what they would do with a nuclear power plant!

The worst idea I have ever heard of EVER in my life!

Is there something more stupid than stupid?

That is what this is…..

I agree that this is an incredibly stupid idea but not the stupidest. This project, like other mega project are designed to squeeze money from the lower classes in an organized fashion. An underlying reason for going nuclear could be to thin the heard. Poor people are expensive and a constant drain on the coffers destined to be used for personal enjoyment. No one with the cash to get away is going to be located within 100 miles of these homebuilt reactors. The poorest people will think they are in heaven (wherever) when they find all those abandoned farms and buildings near the beach no less, inside the death zone. When one of them goes it will be just another oops on page two of the Bangkok Post and a two week rant by us on TV.

I understand the mega greed associated with this mega project. I still think the Stupidest Idea Award goes to A. Everybody check you mobile phone at the movie theater to prevent piracy or B. The call by the government to pull all of our camouflage clothing of the closet and dye it to prevent terrorism. TIT.

Edited May 3, 2008 by grantbkk

[VegasVic]

Hi I spent a day looking for one of those small cheap gas torches (with the disposable tanks that twist on them) they sell these in every Ace Hardware store back home for about $5

Not one to be had on the whole island of Samui

the reason is the Thai sellers told me was Thais tend to burn down there homes with these cheap devices….

imagine what they would do with a nuclear power plant!

The worst idea I have ever heard of EVER in my life!

Is there something more stupid than stupid?

That is what this is…..

Well I guess that it is a good thing for Thailand that they will be hiring college educated engineers to run the plant, and not some uneducated backward island hicks from Samui When you referenced "something more stupid than stupid" were you refering to the new Nuclear power plant to be built in Thailand, or your post

[brahmburgers]

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.

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.

Senor 'Plus,' I think we agree on most points. However, prices for solar are lowering week by week. It's an exciting fast-moving field with lots of competition and innovations. Some large scale solar arrays are producing 1 baht per Kw! The limits to scale are only limits re; how much the sun shines, how much area for collectors, and inititall investment. Multi-megawatt plants are getting built as we speak. And efficiencies are going upwards over 50% ! Solar can work 24/7, because there are ways to store the energy from the daylight hours to use at night (and cloudy days). I recommend anyone interested in the issue of what's best for Thailand's electricity generating future check out the latest in 'concentrated solar' - some of that info is at http://sabaibooks.com/nuke1.pdf

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned they had spoken with a bigh-up gov't official (with EGAT?) who appeared to have the attitude that nuclear will happen for Thailand no matter what. Those type of people don't give a hoot about the latest innovations in solar. I believe that attitude is prevelant among EGAT and BKK's power brokers. That's why it's so important for the 'little people,' particularly ordinary Thais, to get abreast of this info and what's at stake.

Once the footings start to get poured for nuclear reactor #1 (out of four) nothing will stem the tide. Certainly no public uprising against nuclear will ever accomplish more, in Thailand, than getting a lot of peoples' heads bashed.

As for 'implementing solar solutions when they are ready.' (after nuclear is established) ....that's not seriously likely.

Solar doesn't allow for under-the-table pay-offs on a grande scale like nuclear does.

Allowing nuclear to get established in Thailand , is like allowing a charming stranger to come and stay at your house for awhile. Later, when you ask the stranger to leave, he suddenly becomes the opposite of charming, and you see his really ugly side.

[aivarx]

Building Nuclear pow.plant means really high responsibiluty. That is the question.

But I like Thailand and Thai people.

I rellay enjoyed trip in thailand:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DuZTICaykE4

[Tomkagai]

Hi I spent a day looking for one of those small cheap gas torches (with the disposable tanks that twist on them) they sell these in every Ace Hardware store back home for about $5

Not one to be had on the whole island of Samui

the reason is the Thai sellers told me was Thais tend to burn down there homes with these cheap devices….

imagine what they would do with a nuclear power plant!

The worst idea I have ever heard of EVER in my life!

Is there something more stupid than stupid?

That is what this is…..

I agree that this is an incredibly stupid idea but not the stupidest. This project, like other mega project are designed to squeeze money from the lower classes in an organized fashion. An underlying reason for going nuclear could be to thin the heard. Poor people are expensive and a constant drain on the coffers destined to be used for personal enjoyment. No one with the cash to get away is going to be located within 100 miles of these homebuilt reactors. The poorest people will think they are in heaven (wherever) when they find all those abandoned farms and buildings near the beach no less, inside the death zone. When one of them goes it will be just another oops on page two of the Bangkok Post and a two week rant by us on TV.

I understand the mega greed associated with this mega project. I still think the Stupidest Idea Award goes to A. Everybody check you mobile phone at the movie theater to prevent piracy or B. The call by the government to pull all of our camouflage clothing of the closet and dye it to prevent terrorism. TIT.

What a crock of sh*t.....The only sensible way to go regarding Thailands future power needs will be commercial nuclear......I remember may years ago a lot of the expats working on nuclear construction in southern China, were making the same sorts of comments about the Chinese running their own power stations....15 years down the line the Chinese stations we were working on are better run than most "western" power stations....The poster has absolutely no clue about what he is commenting on..."death Zone" I ask you.... .....The western track record is nothing to be proud of...Three mile Island and Chernobyl...in both cases human error not design problems..... people taking short cuts....

O&G in Thailand has about 20-25 years left maximum, so some sort of viable alternative needs to be found....my apologies to the tree huggers on this forum but solar, wind or tides is not going to cut it...

Considering an average 900Mw unit takes about 6-8 years to construct and commision if Thailand has planned for 4 units, you may be looking at the overall project taking 10-12+ years to complete and will come on stream as the O&G is tapering down...

Are commerical nuclear stations potentionally dangerous..Yes...can they be run safely....yes..can they explode like a nuclear bomb..No

I have worked in both nuclear and O&G and where do I feel safer....?......on a nuclear any day

[MarkBKK]

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.

Er ... what, like the last time there was a bad radiation accident in Bangkok?

[Plus]

However, prices for solar are lowering week by week. It's an exciting fast-moving field with lots of competition and innovations.

They don't need exciting and fast moving. They need reliable long term power supply solutions.

As for 'implementing solar solutions when they are ready.' (after nuclear is established) ....that's not seriously likely.

Nuclear will supply only about 10% of the total demand. The other 90% can (and will) come from anywhere else, including independent producers. No one can stop them from investing into solar and selling the power on the market.

[brahmburgers]

Tomkagai says, "Chinese stations we were working on are better run than most "western" power stations."

The Chinese will have 40 nuclear power plants in a few years. Who, outside China, will believe what the Chinese say about their internal affairs - particularly if something related to their national security or their gargantuan national pride goes awry? The only reason they report major bad news is when they can't keep it under wraps - same with the former USSR when Chernobyl breached. Chinese reactors could have had problems and will likely have future problems, but you won't hear about them openly from their politburo or news agencies. At best, you'll about it belatedly because western journalists or intelligence services broke their bubble of secrecy.

Chinese don't produce yellowcake (refined Uranium needed for reactors), so where are they going to get the stuff? Same few mines (in Australia, Kazakstan, or Canada) where all the other nuclear reactor running countries get theirs. Same for Thailand. Where will Thailand be in the queue for yellowcake? in front of Japan, India, US, EU countires? Plus the price for yellowcake is increasing dramatically (supply and demand). If for only that reason, Thailand's power brokers should look to more sensible options for electric generation. The other reasons (for not going nuclear) are well known: inferior Thai construction skills, danger factor, location problems, a history of lax security, cost overruns, corruption, how to deal with radioactive waste.... that's just a partial list.

Edited May 4, 2008 by brahmburgers

[Tomkagai]

Tomkagai says, "Chinese stations we were working on are better run than most "western" power stations."

The Chinese will have 40 nuclear power plants in a few years. Who, outside China, will believe what the Chinese say about their internal affairs - particularly if something related to their national security or their gargantuan national pride goes awry? The only reason they report major bad news is when they can't keep it under wraps - same with the former USSR when Chernobyl breached. Chinese reactors could have had problems and will likely have future problems, but you won't hear about them openly from their politburo or news agencies. At best, you'll about it belatedly because western journalists or intelligence services broke their bubble of secrecy.

Chinese don't produce yellowcake (refined Uranium needed for reactors), so where are they going to get the stuff? Same few mines (in Australia, Kazakstan, or Canada) where all the other nuclear reactor running countries get theirs. Same for Thailand. Where will Thailand be in the queue for yellowcake? in front of Japan, India, US, EU countires? Plus the price for yellowcake is increasing dramatically (supply and demand). If for only that reason, Thailand's power brokers should look to more sensible options for electric generation. The other reasons (for not going nuclear) are well known: inferior Thai construction skills, danger factor, location problems, a history of lax security, cost overruns, corruption, how to deal with radioactive waste.... that's just a partial list.

First of all get your facts right...yellow cake is not the refined form of U-236 needed for reactors...yellow cake is just one step in the process of making U-236 fuel rods, assuming Thailand intends to build a PWR type plant.

The commercial nuclear industry is regulated by an international entity, (including China, which is a signatory) and this is where the rules are set, inspection of facilities are carried out by this body and licesnses to operate are issues by them... and strangly enough the US are the biggest culprits when it comes to covering things up when there are issues with their nuclears..not China. (Russia in the Chenobyl days was not a signatory to this body)

As regards the other issues raised...ie inferior Thai construction etc....agree with you, but the problem is the Thai's will not be looking after the construction, it will be, someone like the French nuclear construction company...Framatome...who will take care of all the EPC functions

At the end of the a day all your arguments are flawed from the perspective you have got a clue about what you are talking about.....

[digitele]

What a crock of sh*t.....The only sensible way to go regarding Thailands future power needs will be commercial nuclear......I remember may years ago a lot of the expats working on nuclear construction in southern China, were making the same sorts of comments about the Chinese running their own power stations....15 years down the line the Chinese stations we were working on are better run than most "western" power stations....The poster has absolutely no clue about what he is commenting on..."death Zone" I ask you.... .....The western track record is nothing to be proud of...Three mile Island and Chernobyl...in both cases human error not design problems..... people taking short cuts....

O&G in Thailand has about 20-25 years left maximum, so some sort of viable alternative needs to be found....my apologies to the tree huggers on this forum but solar, wind or tides is not going to cut it...

Speaking of China and the wind power that isn't going to cut it...Maybe read this

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...al/?mod=WSJBlog

Considering an average 900Mw unit takes about 6-8 years to construct and commision if Thailand has planned for 4 units, you may be looking at the overall project taking 10-12+ years to complete and will come on stream as the O&G is tapering down...

Are commerical nuclear stations potentionally dangerous..Yes...can they be run safely....yes..can they explode like a nuclear bomb..No

I have worked in both nuclear and O&G and where do I feel safer....?......on a nuclear any day

[elkangorito]

This is the latest report from EGAT. It mentions Thermonuclear plants.

[apetley]

One can only hope that the Thai NSA will be as conscientious as the French if they do decide to go the Nuclear route.

With problems of quality control already coming to light in the new airport it will need a vast improvement in the quality of inspections if the building of a Nuclear plant does go ahead.

Flamanville nuclear plant concrete work stopped after inspection finds anomalies

PARIS (Thomson Financial) - Concrete pouring at the site of the future EPR

nuclear reactor in Flamanville was stopped May 21 after an inspection found

"anomalies", France's nuclear safety authority said.

"The anomalies pose no safety problem, but they demonstrate an unacceptable

lack of rigour at the construction site," said Thomas Houdre, head of the

authority's Caen office, said at a press conference.

The authority, the ASN, requested that EDF stop new concrete work until

internal controls are improved.

[email protected]

gk1/ajb

COPYRIGHT

Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.

The copying, republication or redistribution of Thomson Financial News Content,

including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior

written consent of Thomson Financial News.

[apetley]

And here's the decommissioning costs that the British tax payer will now have to pay for their aging nuclear power stations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7421879.stm

[Plus]

From that article:

"At the largest site, Sellafield, on the Cumbrian coast, I saw for myself one of the "ponds" in which an unknown mass of radioactive material was dumped in the 1950s."

They did lots of awful stuff back in the 40s and 50s. No wonder they'll have to pay a lot for cleaning that mess, and it doesn't mean that new reactors built half a century later will have the same problems.

[apetley]

From that article:

"At the largest site, Sellafield, on the Cumbrian coast, I saw for myself one of the "ponds" in which an unknown mass of radioactive material was dumped in the 1950s."

They did lots of awful stuff back in the 40s and 50s. No wonder they'll have to pay a lot for cleaning that mess, and it doesn't mean that new reactors built half a century later will have the same problems.

I agree but the decommissioning costs will still be huge and the storage of the waste will also be very longterm ie thousands of years and that doesn't come cheap either.

Nuclear is not a cheap option, longterm it is just about the most expensive option there is and I just don't think that for Thailand it is a good idea. Very bad in fact when there are plenty of alternatives.

[Plus]

Governments study all the available options form all different points of view, and many of them came to a conclusion that investing in nuclear power is necessary.

I read that currently about 40 countries are applying of licenses to build nuclear plants, including Finland, which is one of the most prudent countries in the world when it comes to these matters.

Naturally everyone thinks that his opinion is the right one, but I put trust into numbers crunched up by professionals.

One proponent said that Thailand's potential nuclear waste will require storage the size of a football field. That's surprisingly small, and it looks manageable.

[Ijustwannateach]

^What kind of study shows that Thailand's waste- *FOREVER*- has a fixed quantity? Nuclear material eventually becomes too inactive to use in the reactors, though still extraordinarily dangerous. The amount of storage needed will be proportional to the time the reactors are used.

It may be true that under perfect conditions there is little danger- until poor maintenance allows leaking which reaches the water supply, or the site is bombed over some petty shortsighted terrorist or political incident. A football-sized stadium full of highly radioactive waste, if blown up properly, would contaminate Bangkok in the same way as the aftermath of an actual nuclear blast (just without the bomb explosion itself) and make the entire city unliveable for centuries.

Oh, and the material remains dangerous for millions of years. An excellent investment!

"S"

[plachon]

Governments study all the available options form all different points of view, and many of them came to a conclusion that investing in nuclear power is necessary.

I read that currently about 40 countries are applying of licenses to build nuclear plants, including Finland, which is one of the most prudent countries in the world when it comes to these matters.

Naturally everyone thinks that his opinion is the right one, but I put trust into numbers crunched up by professionals.

One proponent said that Thailand's potential nuclear waste will require storage the size of a football field. That's surprisingly small, and it looks manageable.

An extraordinarily naive post Plus, if you don't mind me saying.

Put ten proponent professionals in one room and ten opponent professionals (and assume they have equal qualifications and intelligence), then allow them access to a supercomputer and allow them to crunch numbers to their hearts delight, and guess what? Hey presto and they come up with totally different datasets "proving" their point of view. Which set of professionals' numbers are you going to trust and hold up as "fact"?

The bottom line is that choices over nuclear power past and present have little to do with "good" science or "good" economics, but have been made by politicians being lobbied by narrow interest groups. It's not only about energy or construction or real estate lobby groups, but that most transparent and trustworthy of the lot, the weapons lobby group. As the Cold War and nuclear arms race has proved, common sense and common benefits, had little to do with it. Now the genie is out the bag, everyone wants one........................and you believe that crap about the nuclear waste being stored in an area the size of a footie pitch. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, let's just hope it's the MCFC Thai chapter one...................

[Plus]

Put ten proponent professionals in one room and ten opponent professionals

"Proponent professionals" is an oximoron, it means they are being paid to argue pro. Governments are supposed to commission studies from independent academic institutions. One government might be accused of succumbing to interest groups, two governments might be accused, but FORTY?

Finland, France, Japan - they are not the type that would usually do something like that.

Now we have emerging group of "opponent professionals", though - people who actively protest against all sorts of issues, and the only source of their knowledge is some blog entries. Very academic.

I suppose one football field of radioactive waste can be buried in a deep mine on some uninhabited island. Now there's also technology for recycling this waste, so the pile won't grow very fast.

It is doable, though still dangerous, and there are simply no alternatives. There are promises of potentially interesting technology but governments can't rely on promises and potential. They have increasing power demand that needs to be satisfied without "promises didn't deliver, potential wasn't realised" excuses.

It's like electric cars - yes, potentially they might become very cheap and run on solar power, but for now they need to continue building diesel pickups - it's not really a choice.

[Plus]

double post

Edited May 28, 2008 by Plus

[plachon]

Put ten proponent professionals in one room and ten opponent professionals

"Proponent professionals" is an oximoron, it means they are being paid to argue pro. Governments are supposed to commission studies from independent academic institutions. One government might be accused of succumbing to interest groups, two governments might be accused, but FORTY?

Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but the majority of scientists across the world are paid to argue for their employer. When did you hear a Monsanto scientist arguing for banning GMO's on the grounds they are environmentally damaging or a BAE scientist putting forward a case against the spread of weapons? It is not an oxymoron at all. Or are you saying all "professionals" come to the same conclusions, whether about the wisdom of nuclear power or the benefits of wind/solar/you name it. Of course not, professional whatevers, including scientists or energy analysts have different points of view and come to different conclusions, based on their own convictions and presentation of the evidence. Governments are supposed to do a lot of things, including not invading other countries on a whim, but as Iraq proved, in the end it comes down to the hunch or obfuscation of the truth (and blatant disregard for international law) of a few powerful people. Nuclear power is no different. So whether, it's 4 or 40 governments calling for more nuclear is irrelevant. Or are you saying the governments rejecting nuclear power have an agenda and their advisors/academic institutions/scientists/politicians are "less professional"?

Finland, France, Japan - they are not the type that would usually do something like that.

Not the "type" to do something like what? Do I detect a touch of snobbishness coming out there? Nuclear countries' govts' commission studies that justify nuclear power and call for more a surprise? Hahahaha. Sorry, Plus, but you really are naive if you base your support for nuclear power on a belief that "developed" countries that have nuclear power are proof that it must necessarily be the "right" thing to do. And do you really think there is unanimous support for nuclear in those countries (by scientists as well as ordinary non-professionals who can still inform themselves of the facts and form sensible opinion on nuclear power)? I think you may have a touch of the old blind faith in ye, matey.

Now we have emerging group of "opponent professionals", though - people who actively protest against all sorts of issues, and the only source of their knowledge is some blog entries. Very academic.

You are sadly misinformed here, if you think opposition to nuclear power is restricted to bloggers and Greenpeace supporters. I suggest you do some research on this and find that people from all professions and walks of life are anti-nuclear. FACT.

I suppose one football field of radioactive waste can be buried in a deep mine on some uninhabited island. Now there's also technology for recycling this waste, so the pile won't grow very fast.

Refer to earlier link from BBC about the serious and as yet, undealt with problem of the nuclear waste built up at Sellafield over 40+ years and the as yet, unknown cost or method of safely disposing of it. Sadly there are no deep mines on uninhabited islands left, and "out of sight" is not out of mind or out of our biosphere, when it comes to nuclear waste. It is a growing problem which we are at the moment accumulating with little idea with what to do with it and hoping some new technology will miraculously appear to spirit it away for future generations to deal with. Smart race us humans, eh, when we shit in our own backyards and pretend it don't smell?

It is doable, though still dangerous, and there are simply no alternatives. There are promises of potentially interesting technology but governments can't rely on promises and potential. They have increasing power demand that needs to be satisfied without "promises didn't deliver, potential wasn't realised" excuses.

Govts rely on "promises and potential" and skin of the teeth decisions day in day out. That is governance by governments, whether elected or not, worldwide. Look at Blair and Iraq again. Sorry to harp back, but that was a classic cock-up by Blair, which I am sure will come back to haunt him to his dying, lying day.

It's like electric cars - yes, potentially they might become very cheap and run on solar power, but for now they need to continue building diesel pickups - it's not really a choice.

It's not solar power the one to watch for cars of the future, but hydrogen cell technology, although solar power does have great, and as yet unrealised potential, for much of mankind's power needs into the future. When the oil gets a bit more pricey, there'll be such a boost to the solar industry and other alternative power supplies, that the costs of production of solar cells will come tumbling due to mass-manufacture. Nuclear is not the way forward, for the incredible hidden costs and not-so-hidden dangers inherent. It's definitely not the way forward for Thailand. But as Steveromagnino has already pointed out, the headhonchos in EGAT and certain other powerful state agencies, seem to have made up their minds already, including the colourful PM.

[Plus]

Oh dear, typical "I read it on the internet so it must be true" argument.

but the majority of scientists across the world are paid to argue for their employer.

Not when the governments employ university teams to come up with energy solutions. It might be the case somewhere in Egypt but not all across the globe. Even in Thailand there are independent think tanks.

They are not paid to approve nuclear, they are paid to provide accurate estimates of what would happen in each case - solar, wind, coal etc.

I suggest you do some research on this and find that people from all professions and walks of life are anti-nuclear. FACT.

"People from all professions and walks of life" know shit about deploying modern nuclear technology, just as they know shit about photon entaglement or warmholes. They take their opinions off the internet and newspapers, not scientistific studies.

Still, there are plenty of countries that usually listen to the people, and they still go with building nuclear plants as opposition is not strong enough.

Let me guess - it's a global conspiracy, every government and every university is in on it, right?

[Ijustwannateach]

I know a thing or two about warmholes, too, but that would be off topic... Seriously, though, there are plenty of folks who are pretty up on their physics who are not all that gung-ho about nuclear power. From my point of view, when you add in the risks of at least dozens of thousands of years of hazard from the waste and costs required to offset those risks or fix the associated problems, the true cost of nuclear power is much higher even than the carbon-adjusted cost of fossil fuels. Pretending that these costs don't matter is simply buying today's power against tomorrow's economy, which is dubious economically and really unfair to future generations.

There's nothing to stop solar power from becoming widely economic except getting over the hump of a bit more research and economies of scale- it's just that it's so easy (for the time being, until prices double again once or twice) to stay addicted to the oil.

[damocletian]

Nuclear power is sensibly accepted universally by those countries without indigenous natural resources as the most economic method of sustaining growth and meeting demand. It's a fact but the current hysteria over environmental concerns aided by the silliness perpetuated by the bogus argument supporting man made CO2's contribution to global warming inevitably generates an antipathy that owes more to propaganda than to any laws of science, technical or economic.

Of interest in this thread however, is the incipient racism that the Thai are generically incapable of building and managing a nuclear power station apparently for no other reason than that they are Thai.

Presumably those that throw up their hands in horror at the prospect are equally concerned about the facilities already existing in Pakistan and India, and that Indonesia, Bangladesh and Vietnam are all planning reactors imminently.

In approximately 12,500 cumulative reactor years in over 32 countries since the first reactor was built 50 years ago there have only been 2 significant accidents, notably Three Mile Island and Chernobyl neither of which were located in what could be termed Third World countries.

That the Thai should be singled out by board members probably attests more to their innate prejudices, no doubt based upon some inability to get their breakfast eggs cooked to their liking, than to anything else of substance.

If the Thai don't crack on with their 4 reactors now, their economic fortunes will be forever hostage to the political vagaries of their neighbours, particularly Big Brother to the North. Not a comforting thought but then such concerns pale into insignificance when cast in the light of the collective wisdom of TV members.

Edited May 29, 2008 by damocletian

[Farma]

Australia to help power Thailand

From Ron Corben in Bangkok

May 29, 2008 10:22pm

AUSTRALIA has indicated its readiness to supply Thailand with uranium and nuclear technology to aid the south-east Asian nation's moves towards energy diversification.

Australian Ambassador Bill Paterson conveyed the offer to assist Thailand in its energy strategy and development during talks today with Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej.

"The prime minister (Samak) told me that he is committed to looking at the nuclear future for Thailand, but in the interim period... he looks to Australia as a source of good high-quality steaming coal for that," Paterson said.

Continued here http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...5003402,00.html

[Plus]

when you add in the risks of at least dozens of thousands of years of hazard from the waste and costs required to offset those risks or fix the associated problems, the true cost of nuclear power is much higher even than the carbon-adjusted cost of fossil fuels

Maybe if YOU or ME add those things up it will be so.

What makes you think that hundreds if not thousands of top notch economists who did the research for dozens of governments got it all wrong?

It should have been "wormholes". Sorry to blow you off, IJWT.

[elkangorito]

My dearest & oldest friend in Australia is always "going on" (talking about) how he cares for his grandchildren & great grandchildren. In another breath, he will state why he liked/voted for a certain "Right Wing" Australian politician. This very politician (who has recently been dethroned, thank god) was more than happy to give money to the elderly (buy their votes) whilst endorsing the current American Administration policy of WAR! This same politician completely endorsed the use of Nuclear Energy in Australia & changed laws to reflect this.

My elderly friend, when confronted with, "Why did you vote for someone who endorses the murder of many people as well as nuclear energy?", was speechless. Also, he hates "illegal immigrants", of whom he knows nothing. He knows nothing about the plight of people in war torn countries or countries under ruthless dictatorships, except for what he sees on "the news". He has been to many other countries but has only seen these places from a bus window.

Everyday I see this hipocracy...people rave on about "children" etc & how much they care for them & in the next breath, they endorse a war monger, anti immigration laws or nuclear energy.

As someone recently said, "Nuclear Energy is the most dangerous discovery in the world".

Why isn't/doesn't Thailand watching/learing from these obvious mistakes? Answer: THE "SHORT TERM DOLLAR".

"God bless the stock market".