Nuclear Power/coal/solar/wind ?

[gennisis]

Perhaps,someone can tell me why,with compact nuclear power plants running US Battleships and submarines...all apparently quite safely with people working just a few yards away(with shielding)..why no country seems to consider a number of these smaller plants to provide the local areas. I appreciate they need water for cooling but Thailand had plenty of coastline and plenty of rivers.The Nuclear generating plants are not large and could be installed in many locations. I am not talking of the Huge generating plants but much smaller installations.

Their safety appears to be good,Im not aware of American sailors suffering from radiation problems,so to me the generating units appear to be safe.

I am sure there will be someone out here who knows a lot more about this than I do...so please explain.

Also,another question.

You dont get something for nothing,if you take away something there has to be less remaining..yes??.....so if we take energy from the wind or waves eventualy there can not be any left....so no breezes...no waves. Why am I wrong?

[highchol]

Perhaps,someone can tell me why,with compact nuclear power plants running US Battleships and submarines...all apparently quite safely with people working just a few yards away(with shielding)..why no country seems to consider a number of these smaller plants to provide the local areas. I appreciate they need water for cooling but Thailand had plenty of coastline and plenty of rivers.The Nuclear generating plants are not large and could be installed in many locations. I am not talking of the Huge generating plants but much smaller installations.

Their safety appears to be good,Im not aware of American sailors suffering from radiation problems,so to me the generating units appear to be safe.

I am sure there will be someone out here who knows a lot more about this than I do...so please explain.

Also,another question.

You dont get something for nothing,if you take away something there has to be less remaining..yes??.....so if we take energy from the wind or waves eventualy there can not be any left....so no breezes...no waves. Why am I wrong?

terrorists

[soundman]

I think the nuclear issue for Thailand is more of concern over the quality of construction & competance level of the staff employed to run the plant.

Hydro is a good way to go or carbon neutral crop fuels.

Solar barring a major tech. breakthrough is cost prohibitive.

Wind would only work in some parts of Thailand a few months per year.

Cheers,

Soundman.

[Mid]

I think the nuclear issue for Thailand is more of concern over the quality of construction & competance level of the staff employed to run the plant.

add the airport scanners to the list of cites ..........

[peter991]

Solar barring a major tech. breakthrough is cost prohibitive.

I am amazed that solar hasn't taken off in Thailand - even just for hot water. Considering the cost of electricity and the availability of sunlight, it should make sense to have solar hot water systems in all hotels and homes in Thailand.

Parts are getting cheaper every year and the labour to build solar panels must be cheaper here than in the West.

Peter

[Crossy]

Portable nuclear http://www.nuclear.com/n-plants/index-Floating_N-plants.html

[jdinasia]

Also,another question.

You dont get something for nothing,if you take away something there has to be less remaining..yes??.....so if we take energy from the wind or waves eventualy there can not be any left....so no breezes...no waves. Why am I wrong?

Because the energy for 'wind and waves" ... comes from the sun ....

Nuclear has scads of issues with it ... but is still a good choice ... but expensive hard to refine fuel. and the danger of earthquakes and security come to mind ...

[chuchok]

nuclear fusion could be the way to go in the future. An experimental fusion reactor is being built in france now.Apparantly very safe with a small amount of waste that will lose it's radioativity over a 100years or so.

[soundman]

Solar barring a major tech. breakthrough is cost prohibitive.

I am amazed that solar hasn't taken off in Thailand - even just for hot water. Considering the cost of electricity and the availability of sunlight, it should make sense to have solar hot water systems in all hotels and homes in Thailand.

Parts are getting cheaper every year and the labour to build solar panels must be cheaper here than in the West.

Peter

Don't get me wrong. Solar is great. We have a solar hot water heater at our house in Bkk. Just takes years to pay for itself.

Went past the Bkk Cable Company's factory in Bang Pakong recently & they have installed about 15 rai of solar panels on their front lawn. I'm assuming that they use that to supply some of the energy needs of their factory.

One of the negatives of generating your own power in Thailand is that you have to make about 85% of what you generate available to the national power grid at very cheap rates (almost giving it away). If the electricty department would pay a little better, maybe more comapnies would follow suit.

Cheers,

Soundman.

[rychrde]

nuclear fusion could be the way to go in the future. An experimental fusion reactor is being built in france now.Apparantly very safe with a small amount of waste that will lose it's radioativity over a 100years or so.

yes, unfortunately the keyword there is 'experimental'. The physics of both fusion and fission were developed at the same time (witness the two different bombs also developed). However, fusion has been a nightmare of engineering - just cannot get that plasma stable enough to have a net energy output. The JET fusion reactor in the UK has been experimental for decades. Let's hope the French make some further advances.

rych

[soundman]

Let's hope the French make some further advances.

rych

Lets hope its someone else otherwise they'll try to prove their theory that France is the centre of the universe!

Soundman.

[chuchok]

Let's hope the French make some further advances.

rych

Lets hope its someone else otherwise they'll try to prove their theory that France is the centre of the universe!

Soundman.

Fusion reactor work gets go-ahead

Delegates toast after initialling an agreement to start work on the 10 billion-euro Iter project Image: AFP

The agreement gives the go-ahead for work to start

Seven international parties involved in an experimental nuclear fusion reactor project have initialled a 10bn-euro (£6.8bn) agreement on the plan.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter) will be the most expensive joint scientific project after the International Space Station.

Wednesday's agreement in Brussels gives the go-ahead for practical work on the project to start.

Fusion taps energy from reactions like those that power the Sun.

The seven-party consortium, which includes the European Union, the US, Japan, China, Russia and others, agreed last year to build Iter in Cadarache, in the southern French region of Provence.

The parties say fusion will lead to a cheaper, safer, cleaner and endless energy resource in the years ahead.

"We represent more than half of the world's population, and recognise that by working together today we stand a much better chance of tackling the challenges of tomorrow, so energy is an issue of concern for all of us," said EU science and research commissioner, Janez Potocnik, after the ceremony.

Project estimated to cost 10bn euros and will run for 35 years

It will produce the first sustained fusion reactions

Final stage before full prototype of commercial reactor is built

He said that the participants would aim to ratify their agreement before the end of the year so construction on the facility could start in 2007. Officials said the experimental reactor would take about eight years to build. The EU is to foot about 50% of the cost to build the experimental reactor.

If all goes well with the experimental reactor, officials hope to set up a demonstration power plant at Cadarache by 2040.

In a fusion reaction, energy is produced when light atoms - the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium - are fused together to form heavier atoms.

To use controlled fusion reactions on Earth as an energy source, it is necessary to heat a gas to temperatures exceeding 100 million Celsius - many times hotter than the centre of the Sun.

The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent decades developing, are immense; but the rewards, if Iter can be made to work successfully, are extremely attractive.

Investment costs

One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000kg of fossil fuel.

Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.

Officials project that 10-20% of the world's energy could come from fusion by the end of the century. However, environmental groups have criticised the project, saying there was no guarantee that the billions of euros would result in a commercially viable energy source.

"Investment in energy efficiency and renewables is the only reliable way to guarantee energy security," said Silvia Hermann, from Friends of the Earth Europe. "Giving billions of euros to a single nuclear project that is so far from reality is ill judged and irresponsible."

The European Commission said the investment costs were justified, explaining that the technology used in fusion reactor plants would be "inherently safe, with no possibility of meltdown, or runaway reactions."

The Cadarache site is also expected to boost Europe's role in developing new technologies and is likely to create about 10,000 jobs.

The consortium had been divided over where to put the test reactor, and competition was intense. Russia, China and the European Union wanted it at Cadarache; while Japan, the US and South Korea wanted the facility built at Rokkasho in northern Japan.

Japan withdrew its bid after agreeing to a bigger role in research and operations.

The Cadarache site lies about 60km (37 miles) inland from Marseille, and has been a nuclear research centre ever since President Charles de Gaulle launched France's atomic energy programme in 1959.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5012638.stm

[sriracha john]

Perhaps,someone can tell me why,with compact nuclear power plants running US Battleships and submarines...all apparently quite safely with people working just a few yards away(with shielding)..why no country seems to consider a number of these smaller plants to provide the local areas. I appreciate they need water for cooling but Thailand had plenty of coastline and plenty of rivers.The Nuclear generating plants are not large and could be installed in many locations. I am not talking of the Huge generating plants but much smaller installations.

Their safety appears to be good,Im not aware of American sailors suffering from radiation problems,so to me the generating units appear to be safe.

I am sure there will be someone out here who knows a lot more about this than I do...so please explain.

There are no battleships that are nuclear-powered, however, there are aircraft-carriers and cruisers, as well as all U.S. submarines that are.

Having served on a U.S. nuclear sub, the reactor vessel is indeed small... I would go more into the specifics, but it's mostly classified.

The issue is one of technology and supply of fuel, neither of which Thailand is up to speed on obtaining within the next decade.

The safety of these reactors is absolutely good. There's never been a serious incident onboard a U.S. sub, but that is more of a tribute to the standards that have been established and the personnel that operate them rather than anything else.

Edited June 24, 2007 by sriracha john

[johnsurin]

The fact that the USA might decide to invade if Thailand were thinking about using nuclear powered generators could also be a factor!!!

Oh and us Brits might come along with them!!!