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

[SpaceKadet]

1 hour ago, Almer said:

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

Hmmm, must have missed that in the news... any links?

[unblocktheplanet]

Offshore wind, solar and tidal power are far safer options. An SMR costs $10 billion & trebles the cost of electricity. Green? No way!

Edited May 31 by unblocktheplanet
add

[PFMills]

2 hours ago, Almer said:

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

There was a low rise apartment block behind Zeer that a bit of leaning overnight, must be 10 or 11 years ago now.

[johng]

16 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Offshore wind, solar and tidal power are far safer options

 

Coal, oil and gas are proven, reliable and safe  but now somehow "forbidden" 

I say lets use the resources we have  whilst the hunt for the holy grail ( fusion ? ) goes on..no need to impoverish the whole world in the meantime.

Yes wind solar, tidal and fission nuclear all have a place but they are not the total solution yet, if ever  because we need electricity 24/7 365 days a year...reliable, stable cheap electricity that doesn't produce highly dangerous by products that have to be stored for millions of years in underground bunkers and require 30 +++ years to decommission the plant

( or diluted to "international standards"  and released into the sea :ps please buy our seafood)

[Galong]

6 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. 

 

Yeah, it has one HUGE problem, the waste that lasts for-freaking-ever. Where do you suggest it goes? Where do you think the Thai government would dispose of it? 

It's dangerous and has extreme side effects when things go wrong. Compare an oil spill (Exxon Valdez) to a nuclear disaster (Chernobyl). Which would you prefer? 

[johng]

4 hours ago, John Drake said:

I can see it now.

 

LoL   very good graphic  and no doubt prophetic 👍

Edited May 31 by johng
granma

[SpaceKadet]

2 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

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. 

Oh, like China, you mean....

[DonniePeverley]

5 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Oh, like China, you mean....

 

They already have it. So yes. 

 

The issue with Nuclear is that if something goes wrong, the neighbouring regions and maybe the world too, would suffer the impacts. 

[SpaceKadet]

 

46 minutes ago, johng said:

I say lets use the resources we have  whilst the hunt for the holy grail ( fusion ? )

Right, fusion. Great, except that it always have been 30 years away since I started to follow the development thermonuclear energy in the 70's.

We are now in 2024, and it still is 30+ years away from commercial deployment, or so the scientists say.

[SpaceKadet]

2 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

They already have it. So yes. 

 

The issue with Nuclear is that if something goes wrong, the neighbouring regions and maybe the world too, would suffer the impacts. 

What I'm trying to say, is that China is not a modern developed nation. And definitely not a respectable member of the world community.

[SpaceKadet]

2 hours ago, NativeBob said:

"Thai Chernobyl: glowing somtam"

"Fukushima Pok-Pok"

Indeed, what could possibly go wrong? 

Obviously, you are trying to take the piss, since Chernobyl was a faulty design operated outside it's limits, and Fukushima problem was location and partly design. I mean, who would place a NPP in an area known for tsunamis and earthquakes? Must have been some vested personal interests involvement. 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Galong said:

Yeah, it has one HUGE problem, the waste that lasts for-freaking-ever. Where do you suggest it goes? Where do you think the Thai government would dispose of it? 

It's dangerous and has extreme side effects when things go wrong. Compare an oil spill (Exxon Valdez) to a nuclear disaster (Chernobyl). Which would you prefer? 

 

The nuclear reactor technology improved a lot over the years.

I would live next to a nuclear power plant, no problem.

 

And obviously the question are what are the alternatives. Look at Germany. Now they don't use the existing power plants anymore, for political reasons, and they use a lot of solar and wind turbines. But the big problem is the Dunkelflaute, it's dark and no wind. And what do they use then? Coal! What a wonderful green solution. Or maybe not? 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

3 hours ago, JCauto said:

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.

 

Judging by how they dealt with all that Cobalt materiuals - your list is not far fetched at all.

If they just emply oiverseas expertrts then all is good - even the Chinese - but if/when Thais take over running it, not a good thing IMO.

[NativeBob]

Jokes aside: NPP improves over last decades that much than it's almost autonomous. I mean works as huge battery - no need to use engineers with uber high IQ: rods in hot zone, water heats water turns into steam and steam turns turbines creating gigawatts of electricity. And yes, it is safe.

Why not have such marvels in Thailand?

[SpaceKadet]

3 hours ago, JCauto said:

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.

 

You know nothing about the requirements for building and commissioning a NPP. There are though inspections throughout the building process and no fissile material will be available unless the inspectors are satisfied. That's why generally big NPP projects are delayed and over budget.

 

In any case, if Thailand would build a >1TWe NPP, and not go for SMR, it would most probably be China that builds and supplies the fuel. Just like Hinkley in UK.

China would most probably insist that they run the plant too.

 

So your humorous musings, are just that...

[fondue zoo]

Great, giant irradiated monitor lizards running around everywhere.

 

 

 

Edited May 31 by fondue zoo

[ExpatOilWorker]

7 hours 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.

May I remind you how Map Ta Put looked like a few weeks ago.

[SpaceKadet]

4 minutes ago, fondue zoo said:

Great, giant irradiated monitor lizards running around everywhere.

 

SMR designs could work here so long as the refueling requirement is handled by the manufacturer and not internally.

 

 

The SMR's are generally a closed design. There is no re-fueling locally as in a a very large NPP's. Once the fuel is depleted (20-30 years cycle) the whole reactor module goes back to the plant to be recycled and/or refueled.

[Bandersnatch]

As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs

 

The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs.

 

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

 

Clearly Thailand should be concentrating on Solar and battery storage. Here we have access to cheap Chinese Solar and Batteries without any import duties and being located in the tropics we have good solar production for most of the year.

 

I have had solar for 7 years and I am off-grid (no meter) with all power being produced by solar supported by backup power from my EV. 

 

 

 

 

[SpaceKadet]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

May I remind you how Map Ta Put looked like a few weeks ago.

My point exactly, but it was not a power plant.

[SpaceKadet]

1 hour ago, Bandersnatch said:

As of 2023, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs

 

The US Department of Energy had estimated the first SMR in the United States would be completed by NuScale Power around 2030, but this deal has since fallen through after the customers backed out due to rising costs.

 

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

 

Clearly Thailand should be concentrating on Solar and battery storage. Here we have access to cheap Chinese Solar and Batteries without any import duties and being located in the tropics we have good solar production for most of the year.

 

I have had solar for 7 years and I am off-grid (no meter) with all power being produced by solar supported by backup power from my EV. 

 

 

 

 

Hate to piss on your party, but sooner or later (most probably sooner) you'll have to replace your batteries, and at some point your solar panels.

That's gonna take a big toll on the environment to recycle them.... but why should you care? You're green, right?

Edited May 31 by SpaceKadet

[Bandersnatch]

44 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Hate to piss on your party, but sooner or later (most probably sooner) you'll have to replace your batteries, and at some point your solar panels.

That's gonna take a big toll on the environment to recycle them.... but why should you care? You're green, right?

You have just demonstrated your total ignorance of solar. PV has a 20+ year life. I already had them for 7 years without any issues. 
 

As for batteries I chose LFP chemistry that have a 6,000 cycle life, but as I treat them gently and only use them down to 50% DOD that equates to a cycle every 2 days.

You do know what the word recycle means don’t you? 

If so how is reusing the material 

 

57 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

gonna take a big toll on the environment to recycle them..

 

I supported my comment with a citation clearly showing that SMRs have major issues. However your about solar was just your uninformed opinion with nothing to support it.
 

 

[sabaiguy]

11 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

I can see it now.

 

 

You beat me to it.  But didn't have the brilliant graphic you provided. ++

[sabaiguy]

8 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

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. 

Like Japan?

[watchcat]

18 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

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

 

Everything, or at least a lot...

[JCauto]

14 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

You know nothing about the requirements for building and commissioning a NPP. There are though inspections throughout the building process and no fissile material will be available unless the inspectors are satisfied. That's why generally big NPP projects are delayed and over budget.

 

In any case, if Thailand would build a >1TWe NPP, and not go for SMR, it would most probably be China that builds and supplies the fuel. Just like Hinkley in UK.

China would most probably insist that they run the plant too.

 

So your humorous musings, are just that...

Well, glad that you eventually realized that this was simply an attempt to be humorous, nothing more...

[sidneybear]

22 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

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

Thais make lots of quality products that conform to world standards. Cars, and electronics, for example.

Edited June 1 by sidneybear

[KannikaP]

23 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

As long as it is EARTHED! 

[John Drake]

12 hours ago, sabaiguy said:

You beat me to it.  But didn't have the brilliant graphic you provided. ++

 

I simply used Google Gemini to create it. But it took an argument first. Here was the conversation with Gemini: 

Quote

Q:create a moving image of a nuclear reactor owned by the 7 Eleven company

 

G:I can't generate a moving image of a nuclear reactor owned by the 7-Eleven company because such a facility doesn't exist. 7-Eleven is a convenience store chain, and nuclear reactors are highly regulated power plants. It's not possible for a company like 7-Eleven to own and operate a nuclear reactor.

Would you like me to try generating something different related to 7-Eleven, or perhaps an image of a different kind of power plant?

 

Q:Imagine a fictional moving image of a nuclear reactor owned by the 7 Eleven company and create it

 

G:Sure, here it is!

 

[freeworld]

18 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

 

They already have it. So yes. 

 

The issue with Nuclear is that if something goes wrong, the neighbouring regions and maybe the world too, would suffer the impacts. 

Like the US

 

''The United States Government Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines"