Plans for Thailand's first nuclear power plant

Hummin · March 29

7 minutes ago, gearbox said:

The Chinese are at the forefront of the nuclear technology, the only Gen 4 commercially working reactor in the world is there.

However the Thais are probably better off having wind farms in the gulf, and there are plenty of opportunities in residential solar too. The cost of the solar panels and wind turbines has gone down a lot.

The downside is the areal consuming technology like solar panels and windmills, as well needs infrastructure.

To deliver the power where its needed for the high consuming industry.

Every house and building can provide little bit, but, still far away from whats needed.

Hummin · March 29

17 minutes ago, quake said:

How about Koh Samui.

Can get rid of them pesky foreigners.

a win win.

underwater cables then to deliver to mainland, and no more need for a bridge? Win win

Emdog · March 29

I wouldn't too much about up keep.... initial construction could keep me awake nights. Cheating on every sort of inspection and quality of concrete, steel, you name it. Too many buildings here have fallen/collapsed before they are even finished to everyone pitching in to make a dismal product. Silver lining might be it built so bad cannot even start it up....

If Russians help out, maybe name it "Chup Chern Nobyl"?

BE88 · March 29

It's a nightmare if that happens

Aussie999 · March 29

14 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Between Thailand preparing for nuclear power plants (engineers anyone?) and Oz preparing for building, manning & running its own nuclear-powered submarines in the 2040s, I'm not sure where the worst risks lie.

Where do you get your info... Australia certainly isn't planning any nuclear power stations, get you "facts" right... lies don't help.

Aussie999 · March 29

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

Less waste with modern technology, and really not as big problems and affect us and enviroment less than plastic just to make an comparison

So you would be happy to live close to it.

mfd101 · March 29

13 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

Where do you get your info... Australia certainly isn't planning any nuclear power stations, get you "facts" right... lies don't help.

And where did I mention Oz building nuclear power stations? Get your reading up to scratch. Lies don't help.

Hummin · March 29

14 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

So you would be happy to live close to it.

nope, depending on what close means? I already stated in next post, very limited places in Thailand where it is possible to make a nuclear plant.

but if you look at statistics, nuclear powerplants is relative safe with very little risk. Plastic is worse for the enviroment right now than nuclear waste.

SpaceKadet · March 29

11 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

Nothing scares me more than knowing Thai's might try running a Nuclear Power plant.

Doesn't scare me more than knowing that Russia is running NPP's

SpaceKadet · March 29

9 hours ago, Joe Farang said:

No need to worry. China will built the plant for them.

But no one will sell them a reactor. Maybe it will get lost in translation and they will spend the budget on tractors.

China is making it's own reactors.

Mr Dome · March 29

It took the Fins 18 years to build their last one (unit 3 at Olkiluoto). Just sayin' 😏

newbee2022 · March 29

The price in Europe is 13 billion Euros and it takes 12-13 years of construction.🙏

Fruit Trader · March 29

Perfect....

Hummin · March 29

5 hours ago, quake said:

It's one of the ways forward.

Go for it Thailand.

Phuket would be a good location for the first one.

could be a good place next to the Thai/Chineese Kra canal thinking of water supply and already going to industrilize a larger area

newbee2022 · March 29

59 minutes ago, BE88 said:

It's a nightmare if that happens

If you're still alive. It takes more than 10 years to build and cost 13000000000 Euro at least.

Hummin · March 29

Kra canal

Edited March 29 by Hummin

quake · March 29

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

could be a good place next to the Thai/Chineese Kra canal thinking of water supply and already going to industrilize a larger area

Most places Inside the gulf of Thailand should be ok.

Hummin · March 29

8 minutes ago, quake said:

Most places Inside the gulf of Thailand should be ok.

Im thinking more of innland and not to close to the beaches risking the already challenged and exploited fauna around Thailands coastline.

Along The Kra canal could be a good placement

Edited March 29 by Hummin

newbee2022 · March 29

6 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Be scared.... be very scared.

I'm 77. I'm not scared at all. It takes more than 10 years to build. Then I'll watch it from the sky🙏

quake · March 29

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

Im thinking more of innland and not to close to beaches with risking the alrsdy challenged and exploited fauna around Thailands coastline.

Fair enough.

Hummin · March 29

A longer clip of the canal plans which could provide a safe location and also essential cooling water, and resoars for diluted water

SpaceKadet · March 29

I don't think many here watched the video before posting.

Thailand is talking of deploying SMR's, which are typically 10-100 MVe, not some huge TWe monstrosity that takes 20 years to build.

SMR's can be deployed in a standard size container. They are fully build at a factory, and after deployment do not require maintenance or re-fueling for 20-30 years, also have much lower security requirements. Once the fuel is spent, they can just be replaced with another unit, and the old one goes back to the factory to be rebuilt.

IMO, SMR is the way to go with nuclear deployment.

Currently, there is much scaremongering by the green/leftists about the nuclear power. Most of it from people that do not even know how to spell "nuclear".

Peterphuket · March 29

6 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

I don't think many here watched the video before posting.

Thailand is talking of deploying SMR's, which are typically 10-100 MVe, not some huge TWe monstrosity that takes 20 years to build.

SMR's can be deployed in a standard size container. They are fully build at a factory, and after deployment do not require maintenance or re-fueling for 20-30 years, also have much lower security requirements. Once the fuel is spent, they can just be replaced with another unit, and the old one goes back to the factory to be rebuilt.

IMO, SMR is the way to go with nuclear deployment.

Currently, there is much scaremongering by the green/leftists about the nuclear power. Most of it from people that do not even know how to spell "nuclear".

Totally agree with you, safety has greatly improved since Chernobyl and France has been proving for years that it is the perfect solution.
It is a matter of time and coming up with reasonable arguments to convince humanity that it is a good solution.

ourmanflint · March 29

Lots of big obstacles to overcome to build a Nuclear Power Plant. Where in Thailand would be suitable? Constant water supply for cooling and away from areas subject to sea level rise

Burma Bill · March 29