Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

[damocletian]

A blancmange of incoherence tricked out in the garb of charlatanism masquerading as social conscience in lieu of reason.

The above post could be a metaphor for our addled times when science and learning is traded for fashion.

Hey, if it feels good in the basking glow of self congratulatory populism it's got to be right, innit?

I think the world is flat and everyone agrees with me, so it is flat.

Amen.

[plachon]

A blancmange of incoherence tricked out in the garb of charlatanism masquerading as social conscience in lieu of reason.

The above post could be a metaphor for our addled times when science and learning is traded for fashion.

Hey, if it feels good in the basking glow of self congratulatory populism it's got to be right, innit?

I think the world is flat and everyone agrees with me, so it is flat.

Amen.

I understood it perfectly, so it must just be you with a comprehension problem. Perhaps if you weren't trying to be sooooo clever and superior, you could appreciate what Elkangorito was saying and avoid coming across like a pompous <deleted>. Or are you saying that if you disagree with nuclear power, you are somehow less learned than someone who supports it? Nothing to do with populism, but everything to do with rationalism and increasingly, survival.

[plachon]

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?

You obviously missed the point I was driving at about how governments often arrive at decisions that affect each and everyone of us, as it has much to do about your (unwarranted) faith in "think tanks" being neutral or scientists (whether in private organisations, government agencies or university departments) somehow being neutral in their research objectives and findings. It's called the "politics of knowledge" and is an academic discipline in itself, but that's by the by.

The point I was driving at about your idealistic (I'll drop the word "naive") view that western governments "listen to the people" and are guided by "good science", was the decision made by US and UK governments to go to war with Iraq on the basis that they were developing WMDs, which as it turned out and ignored the UN Weapon's Inspection panel (Scott Ritter et al.), was based on the erroneous information contained in one MSc thesis that Saddam was trying to access uranium from Niger. Now, if a whole country can be dragged into a seemingly intractible and certainly unwinnable war, despite the availability of all these "neutral think tanks", then is it not inconceivable that governments can also make ill-considered decisions about the wisdom or not of deploying nuclear power over other forms of energy alternatives? To suggest otherwise, would be to question the wisdom and intelligence of a/ non-nuclear countries (presently the majority thank goodness), and b/ your frankly arrogant stance that if one "knows shit about photon entanglement", the one is unqualified to judge the wisdom or not of pursuing a nuclear future in any given country. You should try asking Gordon Brown or Samak how much they understand about "warmholes" (surely that must be referring to Bangkok?), but those are the people who make the decisions about our futures.

[damocletian]

I understood it perfectly, so it must just be you with a comprehension problem. Perhaps if you weren't trying to be sooooo clever and superior, you could appreciate what Elkangorito was saying and avoid coming across like a pompous <deleted>. Or are you saying that if you disagree with nuclear power, you are somehow less learned than someone who supports it? Nothing to do with populism, but everything to do with rationalism and increasingly, survival.

You may well have understood Elkan's post, given that you two appear to be on the same wavelength albeit on a frequency unhampered by reality, but it is clear you have failed to grasp my points.

Nevertheless, we can agree to differ on our opinions but you don't have to be so rude in expressing yours.

I am a sensitive soul, after all.

[brahmburgers]

this posters response to an article in the Nation, titled; 'GE Energy signs up clients for power'

By Achara Deboonme. May 29, 08

Smart planning for Thailand's future energy generation is, of course, a good idea. The article mentions several sensible (and obvious) concepts such as "maximum efficiency," and "keeping fuel costs to a minimum," etc.

Perhaps the article's loudest statement is what it doesn't say. GE is a global leader in supplying nuclear power plants. Could their cheery engagements with EGAT and other Thai energy providers be a smoke screen for bringing in nuclear? Thai industry people can be expected to look mainly to their 'bottom line,' but regular Thais might do well keep an eye out for a latter day Trojan Horse. EGAT still hasn't announced where it plans to site the four nuclear power plants it wants. The plants will likely be along the sea coast. Shouldn't nearby townspeople be notified when a nuclear plant is planned for their vicinity?

[Ijustwannateach]

Plus,

Why would you trust economists to forecast scientific risks (and I doubt that "hundreds" have been working on Thailand's specific case)? They can't even get the economy right! You're right that I'm saying that they could get it wrong, especially if in their accounting model they don't include the risks of the presence of millions of years of radioactive waste (in fact, I rather assume that any economic model which says nuclear is a good investment by definition ignores those risks).

One good local terrorist gets a bomb in the storehouse- radioactive dust scatters over 10s or 100s of square km- unusable for centuries. That's a fact. A few kilograms of waste leak out and pour into the aquifer/canal system under Bangkok- you have to import drinking water for years. Another fact.

How is it that economists are stating these risks on the balance sheet? What could the possible insurance be to cover it? Who would be crazy enough to provide such insurance? Who could pay for it? Which is more likely, that such insurance really exists, or the bean-counters have ignored this risk in order to rubber-stamp a government's plans and get their bonus?

"S"

[ronz28]

There are cheaper and safer alternative energy options. BlackLight Power, Inc. just claimed it has created a commercially competitive, nonpolluting new primary source of energy. The radioactive waste from nuclear plants, their tremendous infrastructure costs, and security and accident risks may be avoided. The press release is here http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...nergy-solution/

and further details here http://www.blacklightpower.com/applications.shtml

To me, building a Nuclear Power Plant in Thailand would be a massive waste of money with these new breakthroughs happening.

[A_Traveller]

^ Hm. Sorry, whilst I do have strong views on the potential of 'over unity' devices hydrinos do not figure in them. The European Space Agency reviewed Mill's underlying theory and found that it was inconsistent, not even predicting the existence of hydrinos.

Regards

By the by earlier in this thread a claim was made about the allegation of attempted sourcing of yellow cake from Niger by Iraq. In the post it was claimed that this was based on a thesis, this is incorrect. The evidence came via a number of sources and according to Lord Butler, who reviewed pre-war intelligence, the forgery notwithstanding, that there was evidence of such sourcing contacts also with the Democratic Republic of Congo and that they were 'well-founded'.

Edited May 31, 2008 by A_Traveller

[ronz28]

It sounds like further developments have occurred since Mills reported his theories and they are getting a lot of new venture capital to get this into production. See http://venturebeat.com/2008/05/30/blacklig...-this-for-real/

There are a lot of skeptics. However, I suspect with all the financial backing they have had they are going to soon end up in jail for fraud or revolutionize life on our planet.

[A_Traveller]

^ The ESA review was in 2006, and is notably ignored by Black Light. The issue here is that there is no, to the best of my knowledge, experimental evidence, outside of Mills own work, which confirms these findings, and please note there are mathematical 'issues' with the approach taken. However, the quantum model is subject to evidential review, by multiple institutions, who find they are able to repeat and validate findings.

Einstein famously did not 'like' the quantum model, but over the last 60 years work has confirmed both his findings and the quantum model, though no one has been successful in brining the two into a single unified theory.

Regards

PS Ponds and Fleischman, remember them, have still not produced anything workable.

[brahmburgers]

EGAT fully intends to get their 4 nuclear power plants. A big reason: Vietnam and Indonesia will probably get plants, and Thailand doesn't want to appear to be behind the curve. Even Burma is talking seriously about getting one.

Concentrated solar is a much better option for every reason: it's cheaper, it's safer, it's more efficient, it's cleaner, the fuel is free, there's no waste storage problems.

The problem is, it's not as 'sexy' a technology in EGAT's view, and it doesn't offer the type of mega project kick-backs that nuclear offers. Also, EGAT's top brass simply don't want to consider other alternatives - it requires thinking & research (yikes!).

EGAT's managers are products of a Thai eductaion system that relies on rote learning and blindly following elders - and stifles creative/innovative thinking. The bosses' minds are firmly made up, and their underlings have no other choice than to follow their bosses - or else risk losing their jobs, or worse.

details: http://sabaibooks.com/nuke1.pdf

[Tomkagai]

this posters response to an article in the Nation, titled; 'GE Energy signs up clients for power'

By Achara Deboonme. May 29, 08

Smart planning for Thailand's future energy generation is, of course, a good idea. The article mentions several sensible (and obvious) concepts such as "maximum efficiency," and "keeping fuel costs to a minimum," etc.

Perhaps the article's loudest statement is what it doesn't say. GE is a global leader in supplying nuclear power plants. Could their cheery engagements with EGAT and other Thai energy providers be a smoke screen for bringing in nuclear? Thai industry people can be expected to look mainly to their 'bottom line,' but regular Thais might do well keep an eye out for a latter day Trojan Horse. EGAT still hasn't announced where it plans to site the four nuclear power plants it wants. The plants will likely be along the sea coast. Shouldn't nearby townspeople be notified when a nuclear plant is planned for their vicinity?

Beg to differ....Framatome/EDF is the global leader in supplying NPS's to foreign countries...not GE (GE may supply the turbines and generators)....Is EGAT talking about 4 plants or 4 Units....there is a difference ?...If 4 Units would be at one location, not 4 locations....most likely 900MW units, Will be on the coast as plenty of water needed...if the sites havent even been decided yet..construction will be many years away as the enviromental impact studies need to be done (takes years) and during that process impact on location populations will be looked at, and those populations would be consulted...

[ronz28]

Another cheaper alternative to nuclear power has just been developed by MIT:

Energy Breakthrough: Stick This Where the Sun Don´t Shine!

North Star Writers Group

August 06, 2008

By Candace Talmadge

This is artificial photosynthesis from cheap, non-toxic, readily available components that works at room temperature at an affordable cost.

Yes! Finally! This breakthrough comes courtesy of the brainy types at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which announced the results in the July 31 issue of Science. The lead developer of this energy technology is Daniel Nocera, MIT´s Henry Dreyfus, professor of energy, with assistance from Matthew Kanan, a post-doctorate fellow in Nocera´s laboratory.

This development holds profound and positive implications for U.S. energy policy. First and foremost: No need for any more expensive, toxic-waste-producing nuclear plants. And far less need for any type of centralized electricity generation facilities, or for major, costly upgrades to the national power transmission grid.

Here´s how it all works. This new artificial process duplicates the natural photosynthesis that occurs within all green plants, splitting water and creating oxygen, while another catalyst results in hydrogen. The new catalyst consists of cobalt, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. Electricity from any source, such as photovoltaic (solar) cells, wind turbines, waves, biomass or even off the existing grid, powers the artificial photosynthesis.

The separated oxygen and hydrogen can be combined later in a fuel cell to produce carbon-free electricity to power buildings or vehicles. A home or business that uses solar cells or a wind turbine for daytime power when the wind blows can now store excess energy and have power even at night or when the sun stops shining or the wind dies down.

Most current solar cells have efficiencies ranging from 12 percent to 18 percent. The efficiency rating measures the percentage of sunlight hitting the cell that is actually converted into electricity. The U.S. Department of Energy announced late in 2006 a breakthrough solar cell that is 40.7 percent efficient, and now that artificial photosynthesis makes it possible to store all the energy that a solar cell generates, it probably won´t be long before such cells can be manufactured in sufficient quantities to make them commercially affordable.

In an MIT news release, Nocera said that within a decade, homeowners should be able to power their homes through solar cells, use excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power the household (or business) fuel cell. Electricity by wire from a central source may well be outmoded, he added.

Long-range planners for the electric utility industry or the oil majors may want to think about adjusting their business forecast models away from huge centralized capital investments in power plants or oil production/refining, and more toward hiring and training a crack workforce to service these new home- and business-based models of highly localized power generation.

Let us hope this development will help diffuse the excessive fear-mongering of the "man-made greenhouse-gasses-are-dooming-earth!" chorus.

Now we have a true technology focal point for a sustainable energy policy. What on Earth are we waiting for? The engraved invitation to a cleaner environment has arrived!

See video on MIT website at : http://newsoffice.techtv.mit.edu/file/1243/

[sriracha john]

UPDATE...it's full steam ahead with the plans...

US firm to do study on nuclear plant

The US consulting firm Burns and Roe Corporation has been chosen to conduct a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant in Thailand. The 180 Million Baht study would include a review of the project cost, location, safety standards, environmental management and technology, as well as operation and management training issues, said Chavalit Pichalai, the acting Deputy Director-General of the Nuclear Power Project Development Office. Burns and Roe will have 20 months to conduct the study, with completion set for May 2010. Thailand's first two nuclear plants have been scheduled to be built by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) in 2020 and 2021, with a combined capacity of 4,000 megawatts. By then, Thailand will have 12.58% of its power generated by nuclear plants while the capacity from gas-fired plants would remain the largest, at 57.25%, followed by 16% from hydro-power imported from neighbouring countries.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/230908_Business...p2008_biz38.php

[bangon04]

UPDATE...it's full steam ahead with the plans...

US firm to do study on nuclear plant

The US consulting firm Burns and Roe Corporation has been chosen to conduct a feasibility study for a nuclear power plant in Thailand. The 180 Million Baht study would include a review of the project cost, location, safety standards, environmental management and technology, as well as operation and management training issues, said Chavalit Pichalai, the acting Deputy Director-General of the Nuclear Power Project Development Office. Burns and Roe will have 20 months to conduct the study, with completion set for May 2010. Thailand's first two nuclear plants have been scheduled to be built by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) in 2020 and 2021, with a combined capacity of 4,000 megawatts. By then, Thailand will have 12.58% of its power generated by nuclear plants while the capacity from gas-fired plants would remain the largest, at 57.25%, followed by 16% from hydro-power imported from neighbouring countries.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/230908_Business...p2008_biz38.php

No doubt KING POWER will get the concession for shopping in the mall attached to the power plants..

[Jai Dee]

Update: Search on for nuclear site

Powerplant survey will take a year

The government will be notified of the possi ble location of Thailand's first nuclear power plant late next year at the earliest, a panellist told a roundtable last week.

Samerjai Suksumek, director of the strategic energy policy and planฌning division of the Nuclear Power Programme Development Office (NPPDO), said during the discussion "Nuclear Power, an Alternative Against Global Warming" organised by Krungthep Turakij that the results of a study on the subject should be ready for the government in 2010 at the latest.

He said Thailand should give serious thought to building a nuclear-power plant to reduce its heavy reliance on natural gas.

"We are relying on natural gas too much, and the supply could last only 20 years, while coal is unacceptable on pollution grounds," he said.

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) will on Wednesday sign a contract with Burns and Roe Asia to conduct a threeyear feasibility study on the location, technology and size of the plant.

Samerjai said the ideal location would be in the South as the plant would require a lot of cooling water and it would need over 1,000 rai to accommodate future expansion.

According to the 15-year power-development plan (2007-2021), Thailand is expected to build two nuclearpower plants with a comฌbined capacity of 4,000 megawatts. Due to safety concerns, Egat has been chosen as investor and operator of both plants, which will cost around Bt400 billion to build.

Dr Kamol Takabut, Egat assistant governor for powerplant engineerฌing, said the feasibility study would cost Bt1.34 billion, with Bt750 milฌlion from the Energy Conservation Fund and the rest from Egat.

He agreed that the government should be informed of suitable locaฌtions in 2009 or 2010 and that the plants should be in the South.

Stressing the necessity of the plants, Kamol said natural gas now accounted for 70 per cent of elecฌtricitygeneration fuel, besides oil, coal and hydropower. Nuclear would reduce fuel risks, he said, but the plan could be cancelled if new technology or a new source of power becomes available.

He said the consultant would choose whether to use boilingwater, pressurisedwater reactor or Candu (Canadian deuteriumuranium) reactors.

Pressurised water is the most popular, representing 61 per cent or 265 plants from a total of 442 operating nuclearpower plants around the world, he added.

Kamol argued that although nuclearpower plants cost more than power plants run on other fuels to build, the generating cost was lower, at Bt2.08 per unit compared to Bt2.12 for coal and Bt2.63 for bioฌmass. Solar power is the most expensive at Bt20.20.

Supin Panyamak, chairman of the nuclearpower infrastructurepreparation subcommittee on public understanding, said that once the location was known, the subcommittee would start raising public awareness, particularly on safety.

He said the public should understand that nuclear-power plants were safer than in the past.

"We will start the publicawareฌness programme when we know the location. We have to rely on marketing tools both above the line and below the line to inform the public of the benefits of nuclearpower plants," he said.

Source: The Nation - 03 November 2008

[brahmburgers]

I've already done some research and drawn a map (several months ago) - designating the most likely sites for Thai nuclear power plants.

>>>> http://sabaibooks.com/nukmap.htm

[animatic]

Of course that puts likely sites near insurgent areas,

near Cambodia and Myanmar, dubious neighbors at best.

AND near the bread and butter high income tourist areas too.

Not disputing the need for weening from oil and gas... but.

Nothing like making a target and then

placing it close to a group that wants to send a violent message

and that can wipe out lots of visiting farangs in the process.

International incidents with little concern for long term consequnces

are classic terrorist motus operandi.

Edited November 3, 2008 by animatic

[Jai Dee]

Thailand commissions nuclear power plant study

Thailand's state electricity firm said Wednesday it had signed a contract with a US company to conduct a feasibility study for what would be the nation's first nuclear power plant.

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) signed a 4.97-million-dollar contract with engineering firm Burns and Roe Asia for a 20-month study and will decide whether to press ahead with nuclear power in late 2010.

"The feasibility study will cover nuclear power plant safety, radioactive waste, location, environmental impact, personnel planning and development, as well as suitability for nuclear technology," the statement said.

EGAT said it was searching for alternatives to fossil fuels.

Currently Thailand relies on natural gas for about two thirds of its electricity production. The rest comes mainly from coal and hydropower.

Thailand's power demand is higher than its production capacity, forcing the kingdom to import electricity from neighbours such as Laos and Malaysia, leaving it particularly exposed to price volatility.

Thai government officials have previously said that they could begin construction on a nuclear plant as early as 2014.

Source: AFP - 06 November 2008

[brahmburgers]

Of course that puts likely sites near insurgent areas,

near Cambodia and Myanmar, dubious neighbors at best.

AND near the bread and butter high income tourist areas too.

Not disputing the need for weening from oil and gas... but.

Nothing like making a target and then

placing it close to a group that wants to send a violent message

and that can wipe out lots of visiting farangs in the process.

International incidents with little concern for long term consequnces

are classic terrorist motus operandi.

Perhaps Animatic is referring to the map of potential nuclear power plant sites mentioned in the previous post to yours.

One prime reason for making that map, was to show how unnervingly close a Thai nuclear power plant would wind up being - to either Burma, Cambodia or Malaysia. For starters, all 'experts' agree that a major Thai nuclear power plant will have to be built very near Thailand's coast.

Though Thailand has quite a long coast, none of is more than a hundred Km or so from one or more of its neighboring countries. Similarly, there are significant Thai cities and towns dotted all along the Thailand's coasts. Given that things can go wrong with mega engineering projects (Japan's largest nuclear reactor recently had a radioactive leak, for example), there is no place along Thailand's coast that is further than a few dozen Km from large populations and/or international borders. Radioactive emissions know no borders. Depending on which way the wind is blowing during a mishap - can mean the difference between several hundred or several million people becoming affected - plus a possible international incident which could lead to 'saber rattling.'

Who will insure the four nuclear reactors that Thailand wants? Will the insurance policies cover a trillion dollars of damage - damage which may linger for decades (i.e. Chernobyl)?

Thailand's southernmost coasts are in controversial areas, re; insurgents. Will a nuclear plant be a plum target or what?

Will a nuclear plant get sited near Bangkok? ....Will one be sited near the Royal residence at Hua Hin? Of course not - which leaves few other regions along Thailand's coast with barely a whimper of likelihood for siting a nuclear power plant. EGAT and other Thai nuclear boosters would be a lot smarter to start looking to clean, renewable power sources - than to stick with hopes for nuclear - with its myriad problems and expenses.

[brahmburgers]

Thailand commissions nuclear power plant study

Thailand's state electricity firm said Wednesday it had signed a contract with a US company to conduct a feasibility study for what would be the nation's first nuclear power plant.

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) signed a 4.97-million-dollar contract with engineering firm Burns and Roe Asia for a 20-month study and will decide whether to press ahead with nuclear power in late 2010.

"The feasibility study will cover nuclear power plant safety, radioactive waste, location, environmental impact, personnel planning and development, as well as suitability for nuclear technology," the statement said.

Thai government officials have previously said that they could begin construction on a nuclear plant as early as 2014.

Source: AFP - 06 November 2008

Here is Roe Asia's email for their office in Bangkok: [email protected] [you can write them with your thoughts also]

Below is an email I just sent to them.

Hello at Burns & Roe Asia,

I heard your company has been hired to put together a feasibility report - to gauge the prospects for Thailand to build up to four nuclear power plants.

I can understand, that if The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) pays you nearly 5 million dollars for a 20-month study, that EGAT expects you to paint as rosy a picture as possible. My hope, and I venture it's the hope of many resident farang and Thais, and southeast Asians*, is that you do your study in as scientific and objective fashion as possible. In other words, if you happen to garner conclusions that point to nuclear as being a bad decision, that you report such conclusions to EGAT, without glossing over the drawbacks of Thailand going nuclear.

*I mention SE Asians, because they too will be affected by whatever Thailand's EGAT decides on the nuclear issue. For example, if there's a mishap anywhere on Thailand's coast (where reactors will be located), it's possible that radioactivity could affect Burmese, Cambodians, and/or Malaysians, - as well as Thai people downwind. A real feasibility study would involve neighboring countries as well.

5 million dollars could buy a lot of solar panels. Please send a copy of the feasibility study to my address as soon as it is done (if you dare), or send as email attachment. Thanks,

[my name and address not shown in this post]

Edited November 6, 2008 by brahmburgers

[Jai Dee]

Funding problem hits nuclear plan

Thailand's plan to embrace nuclear power has run into trouble due to funding delays, said a source at the Energy Ministry.

The source said that the Energy Conservation Fund had not yet allocated a budget of Bt750 million to the Nuclear Power Programme Development Office (NPPDO), despite the government's decision that the office should receive the funding. The office is tasked with preparations for nuclear power development.

Between 2008 and 2010, a feasibility study is scheduled to be completed along with other preparatory work. The budget for this is set at Bt1.34 billion, of which the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) will contribute Bt595 million.

The Surayud Chulanont government approved the nuclearpower project study, but the project has seen little progress since. Neither former energy minister Poonpirom Liptapanlop under the Samak Sundaravej government nor current minister Wannarat Charnnukul have gone ahead with disbursement of the budget.

There have been only two developments so far: the establishment of the NPPDO and the signing of a contract between Egat and Burns and Roe Asia to conduct the threeyear feasibility study.

In addition, the ministry might review the Power Development Plan (PPP) in order to reduce electricity capacity to match declining growth in gross domestic product. This may also lead to a delay in nuclearpower plant construction, which is currently scheduled for between 2014 and 2019.

According to the 15year PPP covering 2007 to 2021, Thailand is expected to build two nuclearpower plants with a combined capacity of 4,000 megawatts. Egat has been chosen as the investor and operator of both plants, which will require about Bt400 billion to build.

Source: The Nation - 07 November 2008

[Scott]

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.

[Los78]

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.

[clausewitz]

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.

The company that has the most chance of doing it is Mitsubishi in Japan. They have built many plants in Jpan and have a good safety rcord. They were also consideringa French comany with an equal amont of experience.

[merck]

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.

[sriracha john]

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, too, am a proponent of nuclear power as I've witnessed it's incredible abilities first-hand. But, I'm also a pragmatist and a realist in knowing that it is clearly it is well beyond Thailand's capabilities in my lifetime.

As a benchmark, is any other third-world country with a wretched history of public safety safely operating a nuclear power plant?

This is a disaster in the making with the only redeeming factor being that its reality will not be realized for at least another generation in Thailand. The company doing the study will collect their fees, the government figures will collect their kickbacks, and nothing will actually happen.

[plachon]

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, too, am a proponent of nuclear power as I've witnessed it's incredible abilities first-hand. But, I'm also a pragmatist and a realist in knowing that it is clearly it is well beyond Thailand's capabilities in my lifetime.

As a benchmark, is any other third-world country with a wretched history of public safety safely operating a nuclear power plant?

This is a disaster in the making with the only redeeming factor being that its reality will not be realized for at least another generation in Thailand. The company doing the study will collect their fees, the government figures will collect their kickbacks, and nothing will actually happen.

Yes, the original Dear Leader in North Korea claims a 100% safety record with his nuclear plants and the Burmese were apparently so impressed, they ordered one. This, and the fact those pals over in Viet Nam also have a wee reactor bubbling away nicely and before you know it, hey presto, Thailand is glowing green with envy and wants a shiny new reactor to play with.

This new itch for nuclear power has far less to do with the energy part of the equation, but far more to do with the power part.

You should ask the survivors (if there are any left) of Nagasaki and Hirsohima about its "incredible abilities" or maybe some of your compatriots who dropped it out the back of the Enola Gay or stood in the Arizona desert to watch the underground tests or the Brits who stood in the Oz desert watching the 'shroom cloud on the not-so-distant horizon........do we really want any more countries "going nuclear"????

[Plus]

Over thrity coutnries applied for licenses from IAA to build nuclear reactors, most of them "third world" like Egypt or Turkey.

Thailand is not ready to handle something this serious, but I"m afraid it's unavoidable.

[ronz28]

Radioactive Metal may already be in consumer products from India sold in Thailand

We have some heavy (maybe lead) Thai art objects with India stamped on them so I am wondering where I can get a cheap instrument to test those and everything else in the house to look for radiation contamination?

Radioactive Beer Kegs Menace Public, Boost Costs for Recyclers

Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) -- French authorities made headlines last month when they said as many as 500 sets of radioactive buttons had been installed in elevators around the country. It wasn't an isolated case.

Improper disposal of industrial equipment and medical scanners containing radioactive materials is letting nuclear waste trickle into scrap smelters, contaminating consumer goods, threatening the $140 billion trade in recycled metal and spurring the United Nations to call for increased screening.

Last year, U.S. Customs rejected 64 shipments of radioactive goods at the nation's ports, including purses, cutlery, sinks and hand tools, according to data released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. India was the largest source, followed by China.

``The world is waking up very late to this,'' said Paul de Bruin, radiation safety chief for Jewometaal Stainless Processing BV in Rotterdam, the world's biggest stainless-steel scrap yard. ``There will be more of this because a lot of the scrap coming to us right now is from the 1970s and 1980s, when there were a lot of uncontrolled radioactive sources distributed to industry.''

On Oct. 21, the French nuclear regulator said elevator buttons assembled by Mafelec, a Chimilin, France-based company, contained radioactive metal shipped from India. Employees who handled the buttons received three times the safe dose of radiation for non-nuclear workers, according to the agency.

Operations at the factory are now back to normal and the company has cut ties with the ``source'' of the radiation, Mafelec said in a statement. ``In the worst-case scenario the exposure would have been under that of a medical scan,'' Chief Executive Officer Gilles Heinrich said.

1 Million Missing Sources

Many atomic devices weren't licensed when they were first widely used by industry in the 1970s. While most countries have since tightened regulations, it is still difficult to track first-generation equipment that is now coming to the end of its useful life.

Abandoned medical scanners, food processing devices and mining equipment containing radioactive metals such as cesium-137 and cobalt-60 are often picked up by scrap collectors and sold to recyclers, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear arm. De Bruin said he sometimes finds such items hidden inside beer kegs and lead pipes to prevent detection.

There may be more than 1 million missing radioactive sources worldwide, the Vienna-based IAEA estimates.

``We're passing by the first era of nuclear applications, so disused material is increasing,'' said Vilmos Friedrich, an IAEA inspector. ``Until recently, there hasn't been licensing'' for industrial devices.

`Alarms Will Go Up'

Smelting such items contaminates recycled metal used to make new products and the furnaces that process the material. Cleanups cost as much as $30 million, according to the Brussels-based Bureau of International Recycling, which represents metal, paper and glassmakers.

The danger increases when metal prices rise, pushing scavengers to pick up and sell more material, said Martin Magold, who led a Geneva-based UN team that tracked radioactive metal shipments in Europe.

Prices for scrap steel quadrupled to $665 a ton in Rotterdam over the past five years. After peaking on July 3, prices dropped to $115.50 last week as the slowing global economy eroded demand.

``Because of high scrap prices, any little piece is being sold for recycling,'' Magold said. ``Alarms will go up dramatically in coming years.''

Nucor Corp., the biggest U.S.-based steel producer, has spent more than $1 million installing and upgrading radiation detection equipment at its plants, said Steve Roland, environmental director for the Charlotte, North Carolina company.

``Orphaned sources are a significant problem worldwide for the recycling industry,'' Roland said. ``Anything governments can do to remove sources from commerce and hold people accountable for the loss is to our benefit.''

Cancer, Birth Defects

Chronic exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cataracts, cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A study of 6,252 Taiwanese people who lived in apartments built with radioactive reinforcing steel found that 117 cancer cases were diagnosed from 1983 to 2005. The research showed a statistically significant increase in leukemia and breast cancer.

``People don't understand the risk,'' said Dr. Peter Chang, a professor of environmental health at Taiwan's National Medical Center who developed the study. ``We have an extreme lack of education.''

Spanish Cloud

In 1998, equipment containing cesium-137 was smelted at a foundry in Los Barrios, Spain, operated by Acerinox SA, the world's largest stainless steel producer. Radiation spread over Italy and France, triggering concern that a reactor had melted down in Russia, according to an IAEA report on the incident.

While only six people were exposed to radiation, the cleanup, hazardous waste storage and interruption of business cost the company an estimated $25 million, the report said.

At the time, Acerinox had radiation detectors installed in parts of the factory and assumed the scrap it purchased had been inspected by the dealer, said Juan Garcia, a Madrid-based spokesman for the company. Acerinox has since improved security by spending about 100 million euros ($129 million) on ``advanced contamination-detection technologies,'' he said.

The event also led Spain to rewrite rules governing the scrap metal industry and to create an agency that helps recyclers dispose of radioactive materials.

The IAEA may recommend that governments increase monitoring of scrap shipments at international borders and recyclers screen all material entering their plants, according to draft guidelines circulated by the agency.

ArcelorMittal Scanners

Many large metal producers in the U.S. and western Europe say they already screen for nuclear material.

``All our steelworks are equipped to verify possible radioactivity contamination of the scrap shipments,'' Jean Lasar, a spokesman for Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest steelmaker, said in an e-mail.

Much of the contaminated scrap originates in or passes through countries with inadequate licensing regulations and detection equipment.

For example, about 1,000 radio-electronic thermal generating units were misplaced after the collapse of the Soviet Union, said Abel Gonzalez, a former IAEA inspector who helped retrieve such orphaned sources in Russia. The devices, used to power remote lighthouses, each contain as much radiation as was released by the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, he said.

Cesium-137 in Kyrgyzstan

In December, officials in Kyrgyzstan discovered cesium-137 that probably came from discarded food-irradiation equipment in a trainload of scrap bound for Iran. Four emergency workers were exposed to high levels of radiation when they responded to the incident, according to local media reports. Kyrgyzstan's delegation to the IAEA declined to comment.

Russia and the other former Soviet states accounted for 13 percent of the scrap exported worldwide last year, according to the World Steel Association, which represents about 180 metal companies.

Overall, 123 shipments of contaminated goods have been denied entry to U.S. ports since screening began in 2003, according to the Homeland Security data. Of those, 67 originated in India, 23 came from China and 20 were from Canada. This year, a total of 32 cases had been reported through early July.

`No Authority, No Control'

There is no guarantee materials rejected by the U.S. won't reappear in countries with less stringent monitoring.

``The only authority we have is that we don't let them into the U.S., so that ship was turned around and those components left the U.S.,'' said Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ``Where they went, we have no authority and no control.''

Homeland Security declined to give information on where shipments ended up after being turned away from the U.S.

At Kandla, India's biggest port by volume, most scrap is imported in shipping containers that are unloaded at one of 12 cargo docks. None of it is screened for contamination.

``There are no means as of today to check the radioactive material in the scrap that's imported or exported,'' said H.C. Venkatesh, a traffic manager at Kandla Port Trust.

India plans to install scanners at Kandla and three other ports that handle about 80 percent of the nation's container traffic. They will become operational starting in April.

A year ago, Dutch authorities seized a shipment of radioactive purses in Amsterdam and traced them to Maple Exports Ltd., a Kolkata-based leather goods maker, according to the inspectors who impounded the cargo.

`Rogue Supplier'

Gaurav Bhalotia, a director at Maple Exports, denied that any of his company's purses were contaminated, though he said, ``It's impossible for us to check every item.'' The merchandise belonged to another company that shared space in the same shipping container, he said in a telephone interview.

Maple Exports has become more careful about who it buys metal from and may buy a radiation scanner, Bhalotia said.

Competition discourages some manufacturers from asking questions about where metal originates, he said.

``People are driven so much by price, they buy from any supplier,'' Bhalotia said. ``They want to buy cheap, and when there is this rogue supplier the whole chain suffers.''

Some firms already screen products for contamination. Indian Union Manufacturers Pvt. sends samples of its bells, buckles and belts to Indian labs, said D. Roy Chowdhury, a director of the company based at Kanpur in northern Uttar Pradesh state.

Cobalt and Nickel

The problem for Chowdhury is that the nickel he uses to burnish his products is prone to contamination. Cobalt-60 and nickel are often melted together and are chemically suited to stick to each other.

``There is concern among exporters about the presence of radioactive substances,'' Chowdhury said. ``I have heard from my buyers in Kolkata about consignments coming back.''

India began probing the nation's scrap-metal handlers after the radioactive elevator buttons were detected in France.

``This is causing a big economic loss to the exporters,'' said Satya Pal Agarwal, head of radiological safety at India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. ``We are trying to trace the source. Most probably it is from imported metal scrap.''

Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Energy are funding a $60 million program to install radiation monitors at ports around the world. The Secure Freight Initiative started in October 2007 at three sites in the U.K., Pakistan and Honduras. About 800 ports worldwide handle cargo containers, according to London's Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd.

`You Die'

Similar equipment is already used in Rotterdam, Europe's busiest port, where 30-meter (100-foot) mountains of disfigured metal wait to be processed.

At nearby Jewometaal, De Bruin switched on a dosimeter, the modern equivalent of a Geiger counter. The device squealed as he entered the corner of a warehouse where radioactive metals are stored until they are sent to Covra NV, the Netherlands' state- run nuclear waste dump.

In his office, De Bruin donned gloves before selecting a pair of long tweezers and pulling a piece of cesium-137 the size of a match head out of a bottle.

``If you get a dose of this on your hands it's no problem,'' said De Bruin, a former customs agent who has worked in nuclear research reactors. ``If you get it in your lungs you die.''

Hours before, he'd sent a truckload of Venezuelan scrap to the Netherlands' nuclear waste dump.

Covra charges a one-time fee of 110 euros a liter (1.06 quarts) to watch over corroding cobalt and cesium metals.

``We should accept these orphaned sources rather than making a fuss over which country is responsible and who should bear the burden,'' said facility manager Henry Codee, in his office overlooking the mango-colored waste hangar. ``That's the only way to solve the problem.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at [email protected]; Subramaniam Sharma in New Delhi at [email protected]