US to help Thailand develop small nuclear reactors

[Henryford]

Maybe they use them to power their engineless submarines.

[Purdey]

For a country that can’t even maintain roads this looks like a shakey idea.

“Where’s Somchai? He’s supposed to be checking the heat regulator.”

”His mother called and said she was making his favorite food for lunch. He decided to take an early break.”

”Did Sombat relieve him?”

”Not yet, he isn’t around.l

”So who is watching the heat regulator?”

”Well, it was fine thirty minutes ago.”

Boom

[Hanuman2547]

Thailand with nuclear reactors?  I see nothing but problems with this scenario.  

[steven100]

Thailand in charge of a nuclear reactor ....  what could possibly go wrong 

[steven100]

as long as they build it next to walking street ....  it should be fine  !   it can power all those lights ....

 

 

[metisdead]

Some posts with trolling memes have been removed.

[bangon04]

On 11/19/2022 at 5:34 AM, ozimoron said:

Not one word of that contradicts anything I said so pull your head in and stop flaming. That document is only a procedural guide. It doesn't address the problem of radiation leakage over or after the next 10,000 years.

hands up who honestly believes that the planet will still support life in 100 years..... let alone 10000 years.......

[jacko45k]

3 minutes ago, bangon04 said:

hands up who honestly believes that the planet will still support life in 100 years..... let alone 10000 years.......

Twelve billion population by then? Something will have to give.....

[SunsetT]

On 11/19/2022 at 10:59 AM, huangnon said:

Fight "climate change" with nuclear power

Advocated years ago by the late 'Green' scientist James Lovelock as the only way to produce enough zero carbon energy on a large enough scale to halt climate change. He believed that developing and producing Green energy would take far too long and amounts to no more than p i s s i n g in the wind anyway (my metaphor not his):

 

Nuclear power

See also: Nuclear power and climate change

Lovelock became concerned about the threat of global warming from the greenhouse effect. In 2004 he broke with many fellow environmentalists by stating that "only nuclear power can now halt global warming".^[46] In his view, nuclear energy is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels that has the capacity to both fulfil the large scale energy needs of humankind while also reducing greenhouse emissions.^[47] He was an open member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.^[4]

In 2005, against the backdrop of renewed UK government interest in nuclear power, Lovelock again publicly announced his support for nuclear energy, stating, "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy".^[48] Although those interventions in the public debate on nuclear power were in the 21st century, his views on it were longstanding. In his 1988 book The Ages of Gaia he stated:

I have never regarded nuclear radiation or nuclear power as anything other than a normal and inevitable part of the environment. Our prokaryotic forebears evolved on a planet-sized lump of fallout from a star-sized nuclear explosion, a supernova that synthesised the elements that go to make our planet and ourselves.^[49]

In The Revenge of Gaia (2006), where he put forward the concept of sustainable retreat, Lovelock wrote:

A television interviewer once asked me, "But what about nuclear waste? Will it not poison the whole biosphere and persist for millions of years?" I knew this to be a nightmare fantasy wholly without substance in the real world... One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites of the Pacific, and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not perceive radiation as dangerous, and any slight reduction it may cause in their lifespans is far less a hazard than is the presence of people and their pets... I find it sad, but all too human, that there are vast bureaucracies concerned about nuclear waste, huge organisations devoted to decommissioning power stations, but nothing comparable to deal with that truly malign waste, carbon dioxide.^[50]

In 2019 Lovelock said he thought difficulties in getting nuclear power going again were due to propaganda, that "the coal and oil business fight like mad to tell bad stories about nuclear", and that "the greens played along with it. There's bound to have been some corruption there – I'm sure that various green movements were paid some sums on the side to help with propaganda".^[51]   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Nuclear_power

[Reigntax]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:51 AM, FritsSikkink said:

Clean nuclear energy? What is clean about radioactive waste?

Considering life only exists because of a nuclear reaction that’s pretty naive 

 

especially as it’s been operating for a few billion years without any maintenance

[OldBird]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:54 AM, Moonlover said:

Yup. Just what many countries need. There's an interesting web site right here. The problem with renewables is that there will always be an energy storage problem for when the source is not around, like nighttime for instance.

Not to mention that Solar and wind are not so green at all. Where does all the material and rare earths come from to make a solar panel? From tearing up the earth, how do you tear up the earth? giant machines that burn what?  Diesel!

[ozz1]

It's ok the Thais will be cooking with it before too long radiated pad Thai delicious

[steven100]

time for another beer ...  now where's that damn kerosene lantern .. I can't see to well in my room.

[drgoon]

And how are they cooled??  

[spidermike007]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:46 PM, SpaceKadet said:

SMR are the future of nuclear. Even for Thailand, as they require no maintenance throughout their lifetime, which can be be longer than 30 years. Just dig a hole, dump the reactor in it and forget about it for the next 30 years. No refueling, no direct maintenance, passive reactor safety. Designs already exist for sizes up to 50MWe, difficult for solar to beat that.

 

Additionally, being modular, you can easy connect more if you need more power. Also there are external "plug-ins" developed that will do desalination or H2 generation.

And what happens to the spent uranium? Where will it be stored? And what happens in the event of a safety issue? Who fixes it? That is the scariest part. 

 

And nothing in this world is maintainance free. That is a sales pitch. Not reality. 

 

 

[jacko45k]

7 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

And what happens to the spent uranium? Where will it be stored? And what happens in the event of a safety issue? Who fixes it? That is the scariest part. 

 

And nothing in this world is maintainance free. That is a sales pitch. Not reality. 

 

 

We tend to live in fear but do we need to?

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

[spidermike007]

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

We tend to live in fear but do we need to?

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

Yes. Absolutely. Nuclear energy is terrifying. Especially here. Reagan proposed se ding tons of high grade waste into space. Hard to fathom. There are many, many tons in the US, that they still have not agreed what to do with. From the same article you cite:

 

By contrast, high-level waste – mostly comprising used nuclear (sometimes referred to as spent) fuel that has been designated as waste from the nuclear reactions – accounts for just 3% of the total volume of waste, but contains 95% of the total radioactivity.

Edited November 20, 2022 by spidermike007

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Yes. Absolutely. Nuclear energy is terrifying. Especially here. From the same article you cite:

 

By contrast, high-level waste – mostly comprising used nuclear (sometimes referred to as spent) fuel that has been designated as waste from the nuclear reactions – accounts for just 3% of the total volume of waste, but contains 95% of the total radioactivity.

That is the attention grabbing first paragraph... I hope you read further...

 In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year.

 

Many countries live with nuclear power on their doorstep, The alternatives really are at the moment creating far more worries....

The US produces more nuclear power than any other country, followed by France. I am of the opinion it should be developed. We have yet to come up with other real contenders to supply our energy needs, while at the same time eliminating fossil fuels.

Source.

 

 

[ukrules]

This article is a worthy read : https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4555

 

It contains a lot about Thorium 'molten salt' reactors and how safe they are, how the reaction needs to be kept going instead of continuing on its own by default - hence no possibility of meltdown.

 

Also the waste product is not dangerous for 1000s of years, it actually has industrial uses.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by ukrules

[10baht]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:14 AM, Emdog said:

my "line in the sand" for leaving Thailand is them getting a reactor. We know how things are "maintained" here...

Yea, leave ASAP, Bye!

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post has been removed.

[10baht]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:51 AM, FritsSikkink said:

Clean nuclear energy? What is clean about radioactive waste?

Or EV batteries? ????

[Harveyboy]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:14 AM, Emdog said:

my "line in the sand" for leaving Thailand is them getting a reactor. We know how things are "maintained" here...

 

Yes Thailand and Nuclear Should definitely not Mix ..can you imagine..blue plastic pipe everywhere carrying waste   ha 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yme]

Yep. Much better choice for Thailand than all of this windmill and solar <deleted>. Time people got their heads out of dark places and stopped drinking the KoolAid. 

 

 

All extracted using diesel fueled trucks and processed using high temperature processes that can *only* be fuelled by coal. 
 

[SpaceKadet]

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

And what happens to the spent uranium? Where will it be stored? And what happens in the event of a safety issue? Who fixes it? That is the scariest part. 

 

And nothing in this world is maintainance free. That is a sales pitch. Not reality. 

 

 

The storage of the spent nuclear fuel is a separate issue. Just like storage of energy for renewables when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. You should be aware that the Gen IV nuclear reactor designs are much more efficient than the Gen II and Gen III designs that are currently in use. Some designs can even use the spent fuel from the current reactors, further reducing the storage requirement from millennia to a century.

 

The same goes for safety. All Gen IV and most Gen III+ designs employ passive safety. In case of disruption of cooling, the nuclear reaction will automatically cease by the physical properties of the construction materials as the reaction temperature increases, and without external interaction. Most of the Gen IV design operate at atmospheric pressure, preventing catastrophic explosion of the reactor vessel, like Chernobyl of Fukushima. So no need to fix anything here.

 

We are discussing reactor designs, not all the auxiliary equipment needed for electricity generation, desalination or H2 production. What is being said, is that the actual reactor does not require maintenance during its operational life. Other components outside the reactor itself might require maintenance, but that is nothing new. Business as usual there.

 

I’m quite familiar with Toshiba 4S 10MWe SMR. This design comes from the factory as sealed cylinder 3mx30m, and has 30+ years lifespan. The 4S is fast neutron sodium cooled reactor and has no serviceable parts inside the reactor vessel. At the end of its lifespan it is simply moved back to the factory where it’s decommissioned or refueled. Toshiba 4S is a detailed design, and was supposed to be deployed as Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Alaska, but was stopped by the coal and oil lobbyists.

 

You can educate yourself further by following the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_Book_2020.pdf

https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/4S.pdf

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by SpaceKadet
formatting

[placnx]

On 11/21/2022 at 3:42 PM, SpaceKadet said:

The storage of the spent nuclear fuel is a separate issue. Just like storage of energy for renewables when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. You should be aware that the Gen IV nuclear reactor designs are much more efficient than the Gen II and Gen III designs that are currently in use. Some designs can even use the spent fuel from the current reactors, further reducing the storage requirement from millennia to a century.

 

The same goes for safety. All Gen IV and most Gen III+ designs employ passive safety. In case of disruption of cooling, the nuclear reaction will automatically cease by the physical properties of the construction materials as the reaction temperature increases, and without external interaction. Most of the Gen IV design operate at atmospheric pressure, preventing catastrophic explosion of the reactor vessel, like Chernobyl of Fukushima. So no need to fix anything here.

 

We are discussing reactor designs, not all the auxiliary equipment needed for electricity generation, desalination or H2 production. What is being said, is that the actual reactor does not require maintenance during its operational life. Other components outside the reactor itself might require maintenance, but that is nothing new. Business as usual there.

 

I’m quite familiar with Toshiba 4S 10MWe SMR. This design comes from the factory as sealed cylinder 3mx30m, and has 30+ years lifespan. The 4S is fast neutron sodium cooled reactor and has no serviceable parts inside the reactor vessel. At the end of its lifespan it is simply moved back to the factory where it’s decommissioned or refueled. Toshiba 4S is a detailed design, and was supposed to be deployed as Galena Nuclear Power Plant in Alaska, but was stopped by the coal and oil lobbyists.

 

You can educate yourself further by following the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_Book_2020.pdf

https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/4S.pdf

 

The ARIS IAEA SMR book has over 200 reactor designs. On pages 255 (actually 265) and 267 (actually 277) are thorium designs. Bill Gates has a project in the works, but the Ukraine war is a complication: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/bill-gates-nuclear-startup-wins-750m-loses-sole-fuel-source

[Joseph98765]

Next Chernobyl disaster?? I can see it....

[Moonlover]

On 11/19/2022 at 6:46 PM, mrfill said:

Many hydro power set ups use low consumption times to pump water back to the reservoir, effectively storing the energy for later use.

Yes it's a good idea, but they are using power from conventional sources that is not being otherwise used during peak times. 

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

Yes it's a good idea, but they are using power from conventional sources that is not being otherwise used during peak times. 

So basically producing polluting emissions unnecessarily?

[Moonlover]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:26 PM, jacko45k said:

On 11/27/2022 at 10:56 AM, Moonlover said:

Yes it's a good idea, but they are using power from conventional sources that is not being otherwise used during peak times. 

 

On 11/27/2022 at 12:26 PM, jacko45k said:

So basically producing polluting emissions unnecessarily?

No, not necessarily. Many power plants, particularly nuclear ones, cannot be switched off anyway. There must always be some residual output no matter what. So they are simply utilizing that output to good effect.