Thailand Sets Sights on Nuclear Power Integration by 2037

[webfact]

 

File photo for reference only

 

Thailand is gearing up for a transformative shift in its energy landscape with plans to integrate nuclear power by 2037, focusing on the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).

 

This move is part of the country's upcoming Power Development Plan (PDP), which intends to harness cleaner energy sources to meet its future energy demands. However, the rollout of this plan is currently facing delays.

 

Small modular reactors are compact nuclear power units capable of generating up to 300 megawatts each, about a third of the capacity of traditional nuclear reactors. They are being considered as a viable option for Thailand due to their smaller size, potentially increased safety, and flexibility in deployment.

 

The forthcoming PDP, which outlines Thailand's energy strategy from 2024 through 2037, has yet to receive official endorsement. According to the Royal Gazette, a collaborative effort between the Energy Regulatory Commission and the Office of Atoms for Peace is anticipated, focusing on nuclear safety and energy grid security.

The two agencies are poised to tackle essential issues, such as legal frameworks and technological challenges associated with SMRs. An unnamed energy official has indicated that government endorsement of the SMR project is unlikely until these agencies conclude their groundwork, offering a clearer picture of nuclear energy's role in Thailand's future.

 

Currently, the PDP outlines plans for the development of two SMRs, each contributing 300 megawatts, to become operational towards the end of the planning period.

 

These reactors may potentially be managed by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand. However, the plans for SMRs could shift if alternative clean fuel technologies become available, offering similarly low-carbon electricity solutions.

 

The primary thrust of the PDP is to significantly boost the use of clean energy. By 2037, Thailand aims for renewable energy to account for 51% of its energy mix, up from 20% at the close of 2023.

 

In contrast, reliance on coal and gas is expected to decrease sharply to 48%, compared to nearly 80% in early 2024. The remaining 1% will be provided by nuclear power and emergent low-carbon energy solutions.

 

Despite its ambitions, the PDP has encountered delays partly due to disagreements among energy experts. Critics argue that the current renewable energy targets may not sufficiently support Thailand’s anti-carbon emission goals, and the proposed energy demand projections impose a considerable financial burden on the government.

 

As discussions continue, the nation watches closely to see how Thailand will navigate the complex journey towards cleaner and more sustainable energy solutions, reported Bangkok Post.

 

-- 2025-01-15

 

 

[CallumWK]

And you guys thought getting your income taxed was the worst that could happen, and give you reasons to leave.

[bokningar]

Thai maintenance and nuclear power what can go wrong?

But by then the chines might have taken over.

[JoePai]

Can only hope the operators understand a littlemaintenance  needs doing from time to time on these reactors

[MikeandDow]

Absolutely stupid !!!  the cost of SMRs can cost between $50 million for microreactors and $3 billion for larger units. 

Most G7 turbines cost in the $2-4 million dollar range so for the equivalent output ( need 3, G7 ) would be approx 6 mil

and a lot safer, Can you imagine the potential Danger !!!!!   spending that amout of money on SMR's they would have to raise the electrical cost !!!

[Gottfrid]

Who pushed the wrong button?

[edwinchester]

" The remaining 1% will be provided by nuclear power....."

 

So a huge cost to build these nuclear plants to produce a tiny fraction of Thailand's electricity needs. Factor in the huge costs for the management of nuclear waste for many generations to come and this plan seems madness to me.

[MikeandDow]

1 minute ago, edwinchester said:

" The remaining 1% will be provided by nuclear power....."

 

So a huge cost to build these nuclear plants to produce a tiny fraction of Thailand's electricity needs. Factor in the huge costs for the management of nuclear waste for many generations to come and this plan seems madness to me.

correct !! and how do they recoup the cost ??? Consumer !!

[lordgrinz]

Thai's in charge of Nuclear safety, what could go wrong?

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

And you guys thought getting your income taxed was the worst that could happen, and give you reasons to leave.

I don't care, I'll be dead by then.

[mfd101]

The Australian federal opposition (Liberal/National) is taking a plan for SMRs (starting later 2030s) to the federal election due in May. The argument is that modern economies require RELIABLE electricity - and more & more of it (eg AIs), which renewables - wind, batteries & hydro (the latter almost non-existent in Oz) - are incapable of. Gas & coal required for the transition to a nuclear & renewables longterm.

 

It will take a major blackout in NSW or Victoria or Queensland before the election to swing enough voters to the Coalition to change the government. The current Labor government is wedded to renewables-only and getting rid of coal asap. Recently however it has conceded that gas will have to continue longer as widespread blackouts threaten.

 

Interestingly, the polls show that younger voters (say 18-38) are very open to a nuclear future.

[MikeandDow]

22 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

The Australian federal opposition (Liberal/National) is taking a plan for SMRs (starting later 2030s) to the federal election due in May. The argument is that modern economies require RELIABLE electricity - and more & more of it (eg AIs), which renewables - wind, batteries & hydro (the latter almost non-existent in Oz) - are incapable of. Gas & coal required for the transition to a nuclear & renewables longterm.

 

It will take a major blackout in NSW or Victoria or Queensland before the election to swing enough voters to the Coalition to change the government. The current Labor government is wedded to renewables-only and getting rid of coal asap. Recently however it has conceded that gas will have to continue longer as widespread blackouts threaten.

 

Interestingly, the polls show that younger voters (say 18-38) are very open to a nuclear future.

And this is to do with Thailand ??

Well,Wa 15yrs ago must have been leading the country as they got rid of coal power then, and installed G7 dual fuel turbines

[Emdog]

1 hour ago, Gottfrid said:

Who pushed the wrong button?

all the buttons are wrong buttons....

[edwinchester]

"Interestingly, the polls show that younger voters (say 18-38) are very open to a nuclear future."

 

None of them were around when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were dominating World Headlines.

[MikeandDow]

18 minutes ago, edwinchester said:

"Interestingly, the polls show that younger voters (say 18-38) are very open to a nuclear future."

 

None of them were around when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were dominating World Headlines.

Well, What else is available, wind power (unreliable) wave power (limited ) solar (limited ) Geothermal (limited )

Until there is a Reliable power source  found  Nuclear is the only option 

[maddermax]

Six years ago I gave a five-day training course on LNG to EGAT middle managers. At the end of the course I suggested that they should also be thinking about solar power farms. They would have paid for themselves twice over by now!

[MikeandDow]

7 minutes ago, maddermax said:

Six years ago I gave a five-day training course on LNG to EGAT middle managers. At the end of the course I suggested that they should also be thinking about solar power farms. They would have paid for themselves twice over by now!

Solar power has not taken off in Thailand for some reason ?? "buy back" as used in some countrys is a great scheme,  not only benefits the consumer but also the supplier,

[Donga]

27 minutes ago, edwinchester said:

"Interestingly, the polls show that younger voters (say 18-38) are very open to a nuclear future."

 

None of them were around when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were dominating World Headlines.

Yep, good media scaremongering. 
 

No-one died from Three Mile, great movie though, and a few hundred from Chernobyl according to WHO. Have many tourists going through Chernobyl now, go figure. 
 

Think the tally for Fukushima is two and recall the extreme headlines and panic that ensued. 
 

Emo hype media to the vulnerable 😅


 

 

[Krabi King]

Hopefully to be built on some far away islands 🫣

[Marco51]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

The Australian federal opposition (Liberal/National) is taking a plan for SMRs (starting later 2030s) to the federal election due in May. The argument is that modern economies require RELIABLE electricity - and more & more of it (eg AIs), which renewables - wind, batteries & hydro (the latter almost non-existent in Oz) - are incapable of. Gas & coal required for the transition to a nuclear & renewables longterm.

 

It will take a major blackout in NSW or Victoria or Queensland before the election to swing enough voters to the Coalition to change the government. The current Labor government is wedded to renewables-only and getting rid of coal asap. Recently however it has conceded that gas will have to continue longer as widespread blackouts threaten.

 

Interestingly, the polls show that younger voters (say 18-38) are very open to a nuclear future.

aaah yes, the Morrison faction of " as long as we are making money who gives a <deleted>, god bless"................

[Marco51]

8 minutes ago, Donga said:

Yep, good media scaremongering. 
 

No-one died from Three Mile, great movie though, and a few hundred from Chernobyl according to WHO. Have many tourists going through Chernobyl now, go figure. 
 

Think the tally for Fukushima is two and recall the extreme headlines and panic that ensued. 
 

Emo hype media to the vulnerable 😅


 

 

hey Trump, what time is it? 1950 and counting backwards?

 

[ujayujay]

God avoid😨😱😱

[klauskunkel]

The Thai military through their proxy governments in charge of nuclear reactors that can be used to enrich Uranium and produce Plutonium?

Yeah, go for it! Enrich yourselves!

[wensiensheng]

2 hours ago, edwinchester said:

" The remaining 1% will be provided by nuclear power....."

 

So a huge cost to build these nuclear plants to produce a tiny fraction of Thailand's electricity needs. Factor in the huge costs for the management of nuclear waste for many generations to come and this plan seems madness to me.

But think of the available graft from construction. Maintenance? Not much graft there, so it won’t be done.

[wensiensheng]

23 minutes ago, Donga said:

Yep, good media scaremongering. 
 

No-one died from Three Mile, great movie though, and a few hundred from Chernobyl according to WHO. Have many tourists going through Chernobyl now, go figure. 
 

Think the tally for Fukushima is two and recall the extreme headlines and panic that ensued. 
 

Emo hype media to the vulnerable 😅


 

 

How many tourists went to those places in the ten years after the incidents? Less than one?

[smew]

I hope, no, I pray only international nuclear plant operators and supervisors are allowed inside these Thai plants for the first 75 years!!! 

[kanGBK]

3 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Who pushed the wrong button?

you

[rct99q]

Omg...words I'd never want to see in the same sentence...nuclear & Thailand.

 

One look at any Isaan rocket festival should be enough to ban anything nuclear around these people.

[hotchilli]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand is gearing up for a transformative shift in its energy landscape with plans to integrate nuclear power by 2037, focusing on the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).

Better than the polluting g factories they have now

[MikeandDow]

There are going to be Nuclear power plants and there will be accidents, ( human nature) ,it is the way of the future, untill something else comes along,