Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

[Cobalt60]

I can see the problems as described above with disposal, there was a case not that far back where some local scrap 'merchants' found themselves exposed to Cobalt 60 from a discarded source, found on a heap, they saw the Stainless encapsulation, saw the chance for a quick baht and opened it up to find the pretty blue glowing stuff inside.Of course no one knew how it got there or where from.

I work in the most tightly regulated and licensed safety conscious industry I can think of, and rightly so. But you will always have the problem of human ignorance and greed, that always seems quite willing and able to find its way around the safe guards and regulations.

[animatic]

I can see the problems as described above with disposal, there was a case not that far back where some local scrap 'merchants' found themselves exposed to Cobalt 60 from a discarded source, found on a heap, they saw the Stainless encapsulation, saw the chance for a quick baht and opened it up to find the pretty blue glowing stuff inside.Of course no one knew how it got there or where from.

I work in the most tightly regulated and licensed safety conscious industry I can think of, and rightly so. But you

will always have the problem of human ignorance and greed, that always seems quite willing and able to find its way around the safe guards and regulations.

And with that combination being so endemic to Thailand the idea of nuclear reactors

and the attendant disposal of waste products is BLINDINGLY ill advised here....

[Cobalt60]

I would not be so concerned with the big stuff, its closely monitered by the world and his dog.

Be more concerned with the small sources, as in the article above, fly tipping/ disposal of small sources can save the 'less caring' operator many many thousands of pounds, if not done with care can also cost the carrier dear too though, in personal injury or death. You may be suprised just how much of this stuff is about.

Its a good artical re the end of life/disposal of small medical sorces, it is well within the bounds of probability, especially at the errrm.... tactful now....bottom end of the market.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Cobalt60

[animatic]

I would not be so concerned with the big stuff, its closely monitered by the world and his dog.

Be more concerned with the small sources, as in the article above, fly tipping/ disposal of small sources can save the 'less caring' operator many many thousands of pounds, if not done with care can also cost the carrier dear too though, in personal injury or death. You may be suprised just how much of this stuff is about.

Its a good artical re the end of life/disposal of small medical sorces, it is well within the bounds of probability, especially at the errrm.... tactful now....bottom end of the market.

Actually it's construction corruption that worries me most.

Who is going to ABSOLUTLY monitor EVERY single item used to build the sucker...?

I met an American bridge building engineer here a year or so back.

His biggest worry was over-riding and OVER-RULING the construction companies

attempts to short specs, so they could afford the pay-offs to the politicians who gave them the job.

This may seem like just another mega-project to some of these naybobs in office.

Just another graft source. And THAT it the truly scary part.

Edited November 11, 2008 by animatic

[Cobalt60]

You raise very valid points, I will have to refrain from further comment in public.

[brahmburgers]

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.

Even if a respectable construction firm from Japan or the West were in charge, they will be mandated to employ and/or sub-contract to Thai companies. Thai subcontractors can do good work much of the time, but there's the possibility of a subcontractor cutting corners to save some time or some money on materials. Even a Japanese built reactor built recently had a mishap during operation, and radioactivity was released. There are many things that can go wrong - sh!t happens.

Who foresaw the problems with the runways at SUV airport? When it was first mentioned in a newspaper, the gov't of the time (our friend Thaksin) forced the newspaper to fire the reporter. Building a nuclear power plant takes a lot more technical skill than building an airport runway. Then there are the Thai military arsenals that blow up every two years or so. Sure, there are excuses, right after such things happen, but when a nuclear power plant releases radioactivity that spreads over cities and in to neighboring countries, we won't want excuses.

There are a plethora of other problems that can befall a nuclear plant, some of which are foreseen, some aren't. Some of those problems are financial (supply of yellowcake fuel is controlled by supplier countries, as is its shipment and price per kilo). Security poses potential problems (much of Thailand's coast is in majority Muslim areas, lax guards, etc.). Some of the problems are future (disposal of spent rods , decommissioning plant, vast off-limits dead zones for 150,000 years, etc.)

There is a viable, clean, relatively cheap way to supply power. It's a 5-letter word that starts with the letter S.

Its fuel is free and there are no disposal or security challenges. For just the cost of EGAT's feasibility study on nuclear (with its foregone conclusion) a concentrated solar plant could be built that would power several dozen Thai towns.

Nuclear plants, with their megabucks bloated scale, offer juicy opportunities for kickbacks, plus there's the 'face' aspect (Thailand can't see Vietnam building a plant, without having some plants of its own). For those reasons and many others, some Thai fatcats and EGAT are still pushing nuclear.

Thanks sincerely, ronz28, for your informative post - it's a wealth of data that I wasn't aware of! Next time I'm in an elevator, I'll think twice before pressing a button.

Edited November 13, 2008 by brahmburgers

[Cobalt60]

Just wish with all your might that if they are going to get one, it comes from the west or Japan, seems like some country's are trying to get it in bit by bit disguised as elevator parts.

[h90]

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.

Never heard of that....What material where, why??

[merck]

When the early early reactors were built, people were told they would supply electricity 'too cheap to meter'.

Sellafield is a nuclear processing and former electricity generating site, close to the village of Seascale on the coast of the Irish Sea in Cumbria, England.

"...during the 1950s and 1960s there were protracted periods of known, deliberate, discharges to the atmosphere of plutonium and irradiated uranium oxide particulates."

"In the hasty effort to build the 'British Bomb' in the 1940s and 1950s, radioactive waste was diluted and discharged by pipeline into the Irish Sea. Some claim that the Irish Sea remains one of the most heavily contaminated seas in the world because of these discharges"

"The OSPAR Commission reports an estimated 200 kg of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea."

etc

Greenpeace very bravely tired to block the Sellafield discharge pipes in the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

[animatic]

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.

Never heard of that....What material where, why??

Several French plants are inland, but near large rivers for cooling water supplies.

They are NOT supposed to leak ANYTHING put into the rivers,. end of story.

IF in the event of a contaminated fluid escape it would be diluted is the only theory,

with the slightest worst case validity... God helps if that day comes!

Small scale water turbines in many locations, solar big and small, and wind power

at several different levels of scale can work here, no problems.

AND can employ MANY more, easily trainable, Thais in their installation and construction.

Win win and little risk.

There was a Western being filmed on location in Nevada; during the late 50's I think.

John Wayne and Agnes Moorehead in the cast amongst others.

This was the era of above ground nuclear testing still.

Seems the WHOLE film crew was down wind during one blast.

25 years later 80% of this cast and crew were dead of very similar, and untypical lung cancers.

A verifiable 'cluster', to use a more modern term. Including John Wayne and Agnes Moorehead.

TIT; nuclear is a monumentally bad idea here.

Edited November 13, 2008 by animatic

[CuttySark]

If evey country can have their reactor, why can't Thailand?

[Cobalt60]

But there are already several facilitys operating in the commercial sector using irradiation within Thailand. You have T.I.N.T to regulate all this dont worry, be happy.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Cobalt60

[brahmburgers]

If evey country can have their reactor, why can't Thailand?

I don't know whether that question was 'tongue in cheek' but, assuming it's a serious question, here are some answers:

>>>> Nuclear plants are very big and expensive - therefore corruption inherent within Thai contracts will be very big.

>>>> Thai construction companies/personnel will sub-contract, and a 'mai pen rai' attitude is not conducive to building radioactivity containment facilities.

>>>> Yellowcake costs are going up and its supply is not increasing. All that fuel comes from abroad. Thailand will have to compete with big international players for it.

>>>> All the power plants will need to be sited on Thailand's southern coasts. All potential sites are close enough to major population centers and/or Muslim insurgents and/or international boundaries. Radiation leaks are possible. Japan's largest nuclear reactor had one a couple years ago.

>>>> security, frank reporting on mishaps, dealing with spent fuel rods, eventual decommissioning - are just some of the important issues that Thai bureaucrats don't have aptitude for.

more details on why Thailand should not go nuclear.

[animatic]

To that lets add that:

Thailand's leaders tend to NOT read the books of instructions for use,

and

Don't tend to LISTEN to advisors, if their cronies bottom lines are negatively affected.

See Brahm's 1st two lines above.

Cobalt is correct there are low level radiation sites at work now here.

But none of them can go critical and burn a hole through the floor

down down down till hitting the earths core...

A reactor by it's nature is an unstable entity held in check by

ABSOLUTES of technical and logical engineering...

Mai pen rai and engineering are INCOMPATIBLE.

Edited November 21, 2008 by animatic

[henryalleman]

If evey country can have their reactor, why can't Thailand?

1- Thailand have exactly 3 engineers who are specialised in Nuclear technology, IMHO opinion they should arrange this first, and start to do R&D on Thai university's.

2- the current nuclear plants will be very soon outdated because the are developing the 4th generation who will be much more economical and have more options like desalting seawater, and will have no more nuclear waste because the can use in again. This technology will be available between 2025 and 2040.

3- if I see what mess they make of building something very simply like an airport, I not so sure about the quality of the construction.

4- I think they should first put their system of open air electric wiring in order. When I drive around I'm always afraid that one of this day's I will be electrocuted by some cable who break off. Why they don't put in the towns their wiring under the earth?

5- where they going to find the capital to build it. We are talking about a few hundred thousand million baht.

[katana]

Cobalt is correct there are low level radiation sites at work now here.

But none of them can go critical and burn a hole through the floor

down down down till hitting the earths core...

Thailand has actually had a nuclear research reactor on-line since 1962. Its located in Vibhavadi Rangsit Road, near the airport.

Thailand was the first country in SEA to go nuclear.

http://www.oaep.go.th/english/trr1m1.html

[Lizard]

Thailand opts to build nuclear power plant

Thailand will proceed with a plan to build a nuclear power plant to serve the increased demand for electricity, according to Thailand's Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amaranand.

Addressing a speech on "Why should a nuclear power plant be built?", Mr. Piyasvasti said the nuclear facility is needed because of the rising consumption of electrical power.

Electricity use has risen 1.14 per cent in comparison with economic growth of one per cent, he explained.

The nuclear power plant is an alternative to produce electricity with no affect on the global warming, the minister said. The action plan to build the nuclear power plant will be finished at the end of this year and

preparation will take another seven years. Construction will be completed in 2020.

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) governor Kraisri Karnasuta said that construction of the nuclear plant is necessary, and that EGAT will clearly explain its necessity to the public before construction begins.

The project, however, is under way and EGAT is looking for an 800 acre site to build the 4,000 megawatt power plant.

The budget to build the nuclear power plant is estimated at US$6 billion.

When the construction is finished, the cost of producing electricity at the nuclear power plant will stay at Bt2.01 per unit, lower than the Bt2.05 per unit of the electricity produced by conventional coal-fired power plants.

Source: TNA - 11 June 2007

If they do have it built, they had better hire US or English worker to do the construction, if Thai workers do it, the world is in for big trouble, like Chernoble

[brahmburgers]

Any updates on this topic? What of the high-priced feasibility study paid for by EGAT - the Thai gov't organization that's very eager to go nuclear (so you can guess what sort of result they expect for the 'feasibility study' they're paying for).

[G54]

Build it in the middle of PAD territory then they do not have far to travel to take it over when they spit their dummies out

On a more serious note, the idea of the Thais actually building and running a Nuclear power station fills me with horror. The Yanks, the Brits and the Russians have all had problems in the past, so the imagination runs riot at the thought of the Thais managing this.

[spode]

On a more serious note, the idea of the Thais actually building and running a Nuclear power station fills me with horror. The Yanks, the Brits and the Russians have all had problems in the past, so the imagination runs riot at the thought of the Thais managing this.

I have to disagree. I am not a proponent of nuclear power - I think it is generally counterproductive, difficult to clean up after (waste materials), and potentially disastrous. But as an earlier poster pointed out, there already is one nuclear plant in Thailand, and it has not blown yet. Newer reactor technology is much safer than the old. But the consequences of an accident are much more severe than other energy options.

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

But there's one of the issues for me - "as far as we know". Whenever such plants are built, there needs to be a good information dissemination plan for notices and warnings - not just a disaster plan for the worst case scenarios. China does not have a good record for information openness, to put it mildly. Do you think Thailand will be better at that? I hope so.

Sorry for the somewhat rambling nature of the post - for some reason I felt an urge to respond, and now I've written too much to just cancel the post. Hopefully someone will find it interesting or entertaining.

-Spode

[Toany]

it is really just a way to get all the Farnags to leave the country. Only trouble is that the moon does nto have any expats

[Soutpeel]

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

Daya Bay was built by the French nuclear construction company Framatome and it is a PWR type facility, the safer of all the designs, since the 90's there have been two addtional units put in on the site for a total of 4 units, as far as I am aware there have been no incidents relating to Daya bay since its original commissioning.

The issue of iodine tablets for people living near a Nuclear power plant is a pretty standard MO as part of the emergency response procedures, although issuing them 70 km from plant seems a bit excessive, the norm is 10-15 km.

Back to the topic at hand....with the current economic meltdown and the ar*e falling out the oil price, would expect Thailands plans will be put on the back burner for now...

Even if Thailand started construction tomorrow, you would be looking at at least 6-8 years before they would be pushing the button on it...believe as of present EGAT hasnt even started the Enviromental impact studies on any proposed sites etc....so personally think you would be looking at 10-12 years before they would be starting anything up..

[brahmburgers]

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

Even if Thailand started construction tomorrow, you would be looking at at least 6-8 years before they would be pushing the button on it...believe as of present EGAT hasnt even started the Enviromental impact studies on any proposed sites etc....so personally think you would be looking at 10-12 years before they would be starting anything up..

Putting potential problems off until later doesn't lessen the seriousness of them. In 10-12 years the Thai population will be considerably higher and more dense, and that's just at the start-up. Any 'feasibility study' paid for by EGAT (who has shown unmitigated eagerness for nuclear plants) will undoubtedly show scenarios in their most glowing perspective (pun intended). Same for Environmental Impact Reports. EIR's in Thailand are clouded in secrecy, if they're done at all. From what I've seen and heard about mega construction projects in Thailand, especially those with a danger factor, the idea of one or more nuclear power plants along the coast - with large populations nearby, looks to be fraught with dire consequences.

Concentrated solar is a better option in every way: cheaper, cleaner, proven technology, lower insurance, less likely to cause rifts with neighboring countries, less security, less maintenance, free fuel, no decommissioning costs, no disposing of radioactive fuel rods in the ocean, no radioactive sarcoficus (sp?) lasting tens of thousands of years, no chance of fuel (yellowcake) cost spikes or problems with transport/theft/corruption related to fuel supply. details

[Soutpeel]

Putting potential problems off until later doesn't lessen the seriousness of them. In 10-12 years the Thai population will be considerably higher and more dense, and that's just at the start-up. Any 'feasibility study' paid for by EGAT (who has shown unmitigated eagerness for nuclear plants) will undoubtedly show scenarios in their most glowing perspective (pun intended). Same for Environmental Impact Reports. EIR's in Thailand are clouded in secrecy, if they're done at all. From what I've seen and heard about mega construction projects in Thailand, especially those with a danger factor, the idea of one or more nuclear power plants along the coast - with large populations nearby, looks to be fraught with dire consequences.

I do agree with your sentiments but, if Thailand intends building commerical power plants they need to comply with all the rules set out by the international nuclear regulatory bodies (EIA's are included in this process) otherwise they will not get the licenses. Supply of fuel rods is limited to but a few countries and if there is any perception of "funny" business by EGAT/Thai Gov, they will not be supplied with fuel.

As an example citing the example of the Daya Bay P/S in China, about 1000km away from that plant there is a Russian facility (Chenoble type reactor) which was constructed and never commissioned due to what happened in the Ukraine and the subsequent pressure from the International regulatory bodies for Russia not to supply fuel rods or commission the facility for China.

The bottom line is, if Thailand wants to play in the commerical nuclear game, it has to follow the rules set out under the international treaties..

[DaleBlue]

If evey country can have their reactor, why can't Thailand?

CuttySark, you may have been out at sea for too long.

If the Thai government and the Royal Thai Navy lie about leaving a few hundres refugee to slow death (even with CNN photos), do you expect the government to sincere with the the villagers aound the plant when there is a leak?

[henryalleman]

Thailand opts to build nuclear power plant

Thailand will proceed with a plan to build a nuclear power plant to serve the increased demand for electricity, according to Thailand's Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amaranand.

Addressing a speech on "Why should a nuclear power plant be built?", Mr. Piyasvasti said the nuclear facility is needed because of the rising consumption of electrical power.

Electricity use has risen 1.14 per cent in comparison with economic growth of one per cent, he explained.

The nuclear power plant is an alternative to produce electricity with no affect on the global warming, the minister said. The action plan to build the nuclear power plant will be finished at the end of this year and

preparation will take another seven years. Construction will be completed in 2020.

Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) governor Kraisri Karnasuta said that construction of the nuclear plant is necessary, and that EGAT will clearly explain its necessity to the public before construction begins.

The project, however, is under way and EGAT is looking for an 800 acre site to build the 4,000 megawatt power plant.

The budget to build the nuclear power plant is estimated at US$6 billion.

When the construction is finished, the cost of producing electricity at the nuclear power plant will stay at Bt2.01 per unit, lower than the Bt2.05 per unit of the electricity produced by conventional coal-fired power plants.

Source: TNA - 11 June 2007

If they do have it built, they had better hire US or English worker to do the construction, if Thai workers do it, the world is in for big trouble, like Chernoble

Sorry to say but the most advanced nuclear technology is in Europe, more than 60 of France energy is Nuclear. In belgium almost 50 %, The Scandinavian countries are building a few new ones with the newest HI Tech.

[SNGLIFE]

Somchai and Lek at the controls of a nuclear power plant. Picture that. I'm outta here.

[spongeman]

Imagine the PAD getting in. Then the redshirts lobbing a few grenades in..............

[JoeThePoster]

Thailand Opts To Build Nuclear Power Plant

Beaches that glow in the dark and 3-headed soi dogs. That should be good for tourism.

[DaleBlue]

3-headed soi dogs. That should be good for tourism.

If there is a 3-headed soi dog, millions of Thai will be queuing for lucky numbers. Very good for the Thai economy.