Thailand Urged to Embrace Nuclear Power to Meet Carbon-Zero Goals

[webfact]

Picture courtesy: We are CP

 

At the recent Bangkok Post Conference 2024, Suphachai Chearavanont, CEO of CP Group, made a compelling case for Thailand to adopt nuclear power and artificial intelligence (AI) to achieve its carbon-zero and sustainable development goals. This recommendation comes as Thailand faces increasing challenges to meet its environmental targets.

 

Suphachai pointed out the urgency of these measures by referencing the United Nations' grim forecast that the world is on track to meet only 12% of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. With Thailand ranking 43rd among 166 countries, time is of the essence.

 

Global warming looms large, with predictions that temperatures could rise by 3.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 if current behaviours continue. To avert this, global carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to 33 billion tonnes annually by 2030, a significant drop from the current 37 billion tonnes. This task is complicated by the anticipated 53% increase in electricity demand from 2020 to 2050.

 

"Nuclear power is a viable alternative," Suphachai said, emphasising its practicality compared to other carbon-free energy sources like hydrogen. In 2021, nuclear power contributed 9% to global electricity production. Between 2022 and 2025, 32 new reactors are planned globally, with 19 in Asia alone.

 

 

 

McKinsey and Company projects that global energy capacity will surge from 26,000 gigawatts (GW) in 2020 to 40,000GW by 2050, with nuclear power expected to contribute 23% of this capacity. Leading the charge, countries like the United States, France, China, Russia, and Korea are already heavily invested in nuclear energy.

 

To close the gap on SDG targets, Suphachai proposed a comprehensive public policy roadmap for Thailand. This includes carbon taxes, corporate adherence to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices, and leveraging AI for digital transformation.

 

As Thailand's energy consumption climbs, the need for a sustainable and renewable power grid becomes increasingly critical. By turning to nuclear energy, Thailand could not only meet its carbon-zero goals but also align with global trends in sustainable development.

 

In summary, addressing the growing energy demands through nuclear power, combined with robust public policies, could pave the way for a carbon-free Thailand by 2030.

 

 

-- 2024-05-31

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[OneMoreFarang]

Nuclear power is a very good alternative to oil, gas, coal, etc.

But somehow many of the green do gooders don't like it. Sad. 

 

[Emdog]

If conservation was practiced seriously, wouldn't need a reactor or other power source

Australia considered nukes, but studies show it costs twice as much as renewables and wouldn't be ready til 2040, if then

Would you trust Thai business to build, let alone run, a reactor? I wouldn't

[gargamon]

Good idea. Just don't let the Russians do the maintenance.

[lordgrinz]

Thai's operating a Nuclear reactor?! What could go wrong? 🤪

[SpaceKadet]

51 minutes ago, Emdog said:

If conservation was practiced seriously, wouldn't need a reactor or other power source

Australia considered nukes, but studies show it costs twice as much as renewables and wouldn't be ready til 2040, if then

Would you trust Thai business to build, let alone run, a reactor? I wouldn't

It's already been discussed in another post that Thailand would be interested in deploying SMR's. 

They would not be build in Thailand and have no immediate operational requirements. Kind of plug'n'play.

I would definitely trust Thailand to deploy SMR's safely. If need be, I would build my house next to one.

[SpaceKadet]

49 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

Thai's operating a Nuclear reactor?! What could go wrong? 🤪

Why not? Currently, they operate gas fueled power plants. We haven't heard of any incidents there.

IMO, the chemical plant complex in Map Ta Put is far more dangerous than a NPP.

[lordgrinz]

2 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Why not? Currently, they operate gas fueled power plants. We haven't heard of any incidents there.

IMO, the chemical plant complex in Map Ta Put is far more dangerous than a NPP.

 Based on what I see of their subpar building practices, and their lack of safety, I would never let them run a lemonade stand let alone a Nuclear reactor.

[SpaceKadet]

7 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 Based on what I see of their subpar building practices, and their lack of safety, I would never let them run a lemonade stand let alone a Nuclear reactor.

As stated earlier, SMR's that Thailand is interested in deploying, would not be manufactured in Thailand, and the civil infrastructure is no more complex than building a high rise condo block. We haven't had any high rises falling over yet, have we?

Heck, putting an underground in Bangkok's swampy soil is far bigger engineering challenge than deploying an SMR. 

 

You didn't read my previous post. The SMR's do not require any constant operation like the big NPP's do. Plug'n'play and fully automatic, with minimal maintenance requirement.

Edited May 31 by SpaceKadet

[SpaceKadet]

Oh, I see that uneducated ignorance is stamping confused emojis again. 

[John Drake]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Suphachai Chearavanont, CEO of CP Group, made a compelling case for Thailand to adopt nuclear power and artificial intelligence (AI) to achieve its carbon-zero and sustainable development goals.

 

I can see it now.

 

 

[Dibbler]

The day Thailand breaks ground on its first nuclear plant is the day all subcontractors scheme how they can build a thinner concrete wall around it and pocket the change.  All sensible citizens should be moving to the next country when that happens! 

[hotchilli]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Nuclear power is a very good alternative to oil, gas, coal, etc.

But somehow many of the green do gooders don't like it. Sad. 

 

In the hands of experts yes it's good, however.... 

[hotchilli]

28 minutes ago, Dibbler said:

The day Thailand breaks ground on its first nuclear plant is the day all subcontractors scheme how they can build a thinner concrete wall around it and pocket the change.  All sensible citizens should be moving to the next country when that happens! 

Preferably upwind.

[BritScot]

1 hour ago, SpaceKadet said:

It's already been discussed in another post that Thailand would be interested in deploying SMR's. 

They would not be build in Thailand and have no immediate operational requirements. Kind of plug'n'play.

I would definitely trust Thailand to deploy SMR's safely. If need be, I would build my house next to one.

How long have you been in Thailand? Maintenance and Thai sould never be used in the same sentence. Please list even one thing Thailand services properly as specified? Just one! Didn't they get into bother about aircraft maintenance! 

[SpaceKadet]

3 minutes ago, BritScot said:

How long have you been in Thailand? Maintenance and Thai sould never be used in the same sentence. Please list even one thing Thailand services properly as specified? Just one! Didn't they get into bother about aircraft maintenance! 

Obviously you don't know much about SMR and Gen IV reactor designs. The SMR's are closed designs, no serviceable parts inside. The only items requiring maintenance are external components, like steam generator or electric generators. Parts that Thai engineers already service in the existing oil and gas powered power plants. Seems they are doing pretty well in that area. Yes, we do experience blackouts, but that is in the distribution, not generation part.

[Almer]

2 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

As stated earlier, SMR's that Thailand is interested in deploying, would not be manufactured in Thailand, and the civil infrastructure is no more complex than building a high rise condo block. We haven't had any high rises falling over yet, have we?

Heck, putting an underground in Bangkok's swampy soil is far bigger engineering challenge than deploying an SMR. 

 

You didn't read my previous post. The SMR's do not require any constant operation like the big NPP's do. Plug'n'play and fully automatic, with minimal maintenance requirement.

Don't remember any high rise problems, but plenty of overhead motorways dropping out of the sky

[JCauto]

What could possibly go wrong when the Thai commission, build and operate a nuclear power plant? Let's think for a second....

1. To showcase national pride, they hire local graduates from the Physics Dept. to design a new Thai-style nuclear power plant that will be "unique and the first of its kind in the entire world".
2. They treat it like every other infrastructure project and it turns into an aircraft carrier-sized nightmare of epic proportions as mismatched and sub-standard parts are procured on separate contracts and critical systems are cut out by the lowest bidders. A Frankenstein's Monster is the resulting design.
3. They actually build the thing and turn it on.
4. The idiot third cousin twice-removed of the local bigwig gets assigned to the safety officer position and proceeds to use all the budget to fund his string of girls and fancy cars while no safety measures are actually put in place. He gets promoted to run the place after an inquiry while the only technical person involved in the entire project has it pinned on him and gets sent to prison. 
5. The contaminated materials get carelessly disposed and local charlatans latch onto it and start packaging the waste as skin whitener so widespread radiation contamination occurs throughout the country.
6. They have a party for the New Year and wreck the place in a drunken free-for-all while forgetting to turn the coolant stream back on after they leave so it melts down.

 

[freeworld]

1 hour ago, Dibbler said:

The day Thailand breaks ground on its first nuclear plant is the day all subcontractors scheme how they can build a thinner concrete wall around it and pocket the change.  All sensible citizens should be moving to the next country when that happens! 

Nonsense. You know there are international comittees of experts that monitor, review, approve and inspect these plants, same with hydroelectric dams.

Edited May 31 by freeworld

[Photoguy21]

Thailand should no go Nuclear. The technology is great but does Thailand have 1. the knowledge, 2. people who are capable of running a nuclear plant and 3. maintenance workers who can provide the required support?

I would say no to all of the above. If they want to bring in foreigners to build, operate and instruct Thais then yes but I would doubt if Thailand would want to be dependant on foreign workers.

[freeworld]

3 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

Thailand should no go Nuclear. The technology is great but does Thailand have 1. the knowledge, 2. people who are capable of running a nuclear plant and 3. maintenance workers who can provide the required support?

I would say no to all of the above. If they want to bring in foreigners to build, operate and instruct Thais then yes but I would doubt if Thailand would want to be dependant on foreign workers.

Usually the US, the French or Russians would be involved in design and supply and construction and training on the plants.

Edited May 31 by freeworld

[Photoguy21]

1 minute ago, freeworld said:

Usually the US, the French or Russians would be involved in design and supply of the plants.

Hopefully the operation also

[johng]

No none mentioned yet that there has been a nuclear research facility in Bangkok for years

a member on this here Thaivisa forum used to ( still does ?? )

work there though I can't remember his/her username.

[freeworld]

6 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

Hopefully the operation also

Yes, this is quite common for a number of years until the necessary knowledge and skills have been acquired.

Edited May 31 by freeworld

[0ffshore360]

Judging by so many of the comments here it would seem that the Highrise industry in Bangkok should be devoid of any so much wiser farang who live in the expectation of wholesale collapse of condos, shopping  malls and office blocks !

 

[natway09]

But can they be trusted ????

[DonniePeverley]

Nuclear power plants in my opinion need to be kept to modern developed nations, who have the capabilities to tackle any major issues that could occur. 

 

The risk of something going wrong in a less developed nation is too risky. 

[NativeBob]

"Thai Chernobyl: glowing somtam"

"Fukushima Pok-Pok"

Indeed, what could possibly go wrong? 

[placnx]

4 hours ago, Emdog said:

If conservation was practiced seriously, wouldn't need a reactor or other power source

Australia considered nukes, but studies show it costs twice as much as renewables and wouldn't be ready til 2040, if then

Would you trust Thai business to build, let alone run, a reactor? I wouldn't

Small modular reactors would be a good solution for Thailand. As of 2020 there were many ideas. Some are small enough to fit the modules in shipping containers. There is some construction to prepare the site, of course, but the complications of a major reactor are avoided.

SMR_Book_2020 table of contents.pdf SMR_Book_2020.pdf

[ChrisY1]

I doubt they've asked the IAEA if it's ok for Thailand to play with Nuclear Power? 

As I understand, they have been limited to very small research reactors...the Atom for Peace, Kesetsart University and I think Chulalongkorn University.....