5 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Fusion is just around the corner, maybe 10 years, or 20, or 50, or 1000.

yes agree, Fusion is the way to go BUT !! in the mean time ??

1 hour ago, wensiensheng said:

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

Check out how many people did go through in those ten years, not necessarily tourists - none of those died.

We learnt a lot from Fukushima as well - the hundreds or is it thousands of years these places were supposedly going to be radio active is clearly BS. Now days there are more nuanced understanding about radioactivity https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/radlife

Had a banana, X-ray or taken a flight recently? Obviously very low doses, but it helps dispel the fear of nuclear energy, especially when confronted with the prospect of disposing zillions of old solar panels, turbines and giant batteries in the decades to come.

3 hours ago, soalbundy said:

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

Probably correct by the time this comes to fruition there won't be many AN posters around, myself included!!!

Just make sure it isn't near any major town or city, far from the beaches, not near any tourist attractions, not near my house.

Maybe build it in Cambodia or Laos?

16 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Fusion is just around the corner, maybe 10 years, or 20, or 50, or 1000.

It's always 20 years away.

 

What's Thai for "Chernobyl"?

 

6 minutes ago, Donga said:

Check out how many people did go through in those ten years, not necessarily tourists - none of those died.

We learnt a lot from Fukushima as well - the hundreds or is it thousands of years these places were supposedly going to be radio active is clearly BS. Now days there are more nuanced understanding about radioactivity https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/radlife

Had a banana, X-ray or taken a flight recently? Obviously very low doses, but it helps dispel the fear of nuclear energy, especially when confronted with the prospect of disposing zillions of old solar panels, turbines and giant batteries in the decades to come.

Think, i would rather be disposing of old solar panels ect, than Nuclear waste !! look what the Thais do now with  contaminated waste !

What happened to the submarines?

At least one coup will happen before that, possibly with some parliamentary govt changes so things can change many times before anything happens.

 

Luckily in this case. 

1 hour ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Fusion is just around the corner, maybe 10 years, or 20, or 50, or 1000.

 

Part of thaksins plan for thai investment on technology, thai developed fusion reactor? 

6 minutes ago, Flemo said:

What happened to the submarines?

 

Still floating around without engines. Probably sunk soon. 

2 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

Nuclear is the only option 

Thailand looks to China’s small nuclear reactor for low-carbon energy," Nov. 5, 2024

https://www.nationthailand.com/sustaination/40042986

"Small modular reactors (SMRs) will help cut carbon emissions as well as electricity costs," says Egat governor Thepparat Theppitak.

"Egat is studying over 80 types of SMRs in 18 countries, including China’s Linglong One, located in Hainan, which is the world’s first above-surface commercial SMR."

Frankly, there are more issues within Thailand in its ability to transmit power efficiently throughout its electric grid than producing it.

Nuclear of some sort is essential for reliable base load power, whether as small modular reactors or more conventional plants. Even if it’s more expensive, I’d happily pay more for reliable power. The way we’re going with renewables, is that the wealthy will be OK, as they’ll be able to afford to install a large array of  lithium batteries in their home for backup power, whereas the poorer will just have to endure blackouts. 

 

I can’t understand the anti-nuclear hysteria. I read media reports of the ‘elephant’s foot’ puddle of radioactive fuel at Chernobyl, which apparently would kill anyone standing next to it for a short time. However, many of the substances routinely handled by  modern industry are so much more dangerous - for instance, a single drop of hydrofluoric acid on the skin will lead to a horrible death, yet this substance is used in the electronics industry without any apparent media hysteria.

 

I do have the anti-nukes to thank for one thing though - a few years ago, I realised that the highly successful campaign by the Greens against nuclear power meant that we’d be dependent on thermal coal for far longer. Bought some coal shares, and have so far multiplied my investment by a factor of 5.

 

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

Frankly, there are more issues within Thailand in its ability to transmit power efficiently throughout its electric grid than producing it.

If that’s the case, then renewables are the last thing Thailand needs, as they’re a nightmare for an electricity grid.

2 hours 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!

Been to a couple of floating solar panel hybrid hydro dams nearest to me. Floating motorised platforms provide food, drink and karaoke entertainment. Banana and donut boats for those who are able! Apparently, as I don't know how they know, fish enjoy the shade provided underneath the solar panels. I like the dual benefits these provide. Renewable energy plus extending the life of the dams built in the 1960's that are now suffering from low water levels. A feasibility study is planned for a new dam in my small town, if successful to be built around 2034.

One of the major reasons for using nuclear power is that Thailand does not have enough sunlight throughout the year.

 

Otherwise, solar would be a better option, combined with some form of storage.

 

But, alas, Thailand lacks enough sunlight compared to most other countries.

 

How will they manage nuclear reactors...because...

 

So far, the delivery of electric power to almost every home around here is very substandard.

 

So many outages.

So many micro-power-cuts.

 

They ought to just let China come in and completely take over the entire grid.

This is the only hope for improvements by the year 2050.

 

 

4 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

If that’s the case, then renewables are the last thing Thailand needs, as they’re a nightmare for an electricity grid.

Seem to work OK in my area.  We don't notice any flashes when our hybrid hydro dam switches between solar and hydro. Apparently, they go on battery power during the change overs. Never had a circuit board burnt out in an applicance in Thailand either. Happened several times when I lived in South America.

6 hours ago, JoePai said:

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

Their is nothing here that a bit of blue pipe can't fix. 

Unable to maintain even own State Rail tracks.

Rampant corruption and lack of management at all levels.

Nuke business, by 2037?

 

Another 12 years to reach Minimum Safe Distance...

1 hour ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Fusion is just around the corner, maybe 10 years, or 20, or 50, or 1000.

 

When and Where the Mushroom Cloud?

 

2 minutes ago, black tabby12345 said:

 

When and Where the Mushroom Cloud?

 

Fusion reactors cannot explode because they are not based on chain reactions. Fusion is a self-limiting process that automatically shuts off if it can't be controlled.

3 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

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 

Energy saving is highly reliable, the only way to go.

 

Adopt a zero growth policy to start.

1 minute ago, MikeandDow said:

Fusion reactors cannot explode because they are not based on chain reactions. Fusion is a self-limiting process that automatically shuts off if it can't be controlled.

 

Thank you for the technical interpretation. Understood.

16 minutes ago, The Fugitive said:

Seem to work OK in my area.  We don't notice any flashes when our hybrid hydro dam switches between solar and hydro. Apparently, they go on battery power during the change overs. Never had a circuit board burnt out in an applicance in Thailand either. Happened several times when I lived in South America.

Hydro’s the perfect, almost instantly available power source, just a pity that the world doesn’t have enough mountains and rain. I wasn’t just talking about grid frequency stability, but also the huge amount of extra ‘poles and wires’ that large scale wind and solar require.

14 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Fusion reactors cannot explode because they are not based on chain reactions. Fusion is a self-limiting process that automatically shuts off if it can't be controlled.

We should be clear that the explosion of the reactor at Chernobyl wasn’t a nuclear explosion from a chain reaction, but rather a steam explosion from the accelerating chain reaction of the fuel - a commercial fission reactor can’t be a bomb.

I think discussion of fusion reactors is moot, since they’re always 25 years in the future - they were in 1960, and they still are now.

6 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Hydro’s the perfect, almost instantly available power source, just a pity that the world doesn’t have enough mountains and rain. I wasn’t just talking about grid frequency stability, but also the huge amount of extra ‘poles and wires’ that large scale wind and solar require.

Yes Hydro is good BUT !! limited, would not say instantly available ( you have to build a dam) also only generates power when water is released another limiting factor

6 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

We should be clear that the explosion of the reactor at Chernobyl wasn’t a nuclear explosion from a chain reaction, but rather a steam explosion from the accelerating chain reaction of the fuel - a commercial fission reactor can’t be a bomb.

I think discussion of fusion reactors is moot, since they’re always 25 years in the future - they were in 1960, and they still are now.

I was replying to a posters question there was no mention of Chernobyl !!  you may think the disscution of Fusion is moot if so dont post in regard to fusion reactors

6 hours ago, JoePai said:

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

Oh for sure. They will ask the Supervisor when they can,t find the Spark Plugs.

51 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Nuclear of some sort is essential for reliable base load power, whether as small modular reactors or more conventional plants. Even if it’s more expensive, I’d happily pay more for reliable power. The way we’re going with renewables, is that the wealthy will be OK, as they’ll be able to afford to install a large array of  lithium batteries in their home for backup power, whereas the poorer will just have to endure blackouts. 

 

I can’t understand the anti-nuclear hysteria. I read media reports of the ‘elephant’s foot’ puddle of radioactive fuel at Chernobyl, which apparently would kill anyone standing next to it for a short time. However, many of the substances routinely handled by  modern industry are so much more dangerous - for instance, a single drop of hydrofluoric acid on the skin will lead to a horrible death, yet this substance is used in the electronics industry without any apparent media hysteria.

 

I do have the anti-nukes to thank for one thing though - a few years ago, I realised that the highly successful campaign by the Greens against nuclear power meant that we’d be dependent on thermal coal for far longer. Bought some coal shares, and have so far multiplied my investment by a factor of 5.

 

Yep with their anti-nuclear stance over the decades, The Greens delayed the nuclear renaissance to result in energy mayhem and in the countries that took them more seriously, massive energy cost increases and in Germany, recession.  The lessons are there.

I don't have a problem with Renewables as long as people realise the more we have, the more back-up is required, be it hydro, nuclear, gas or those batteries we keep hearing about. Then there's the reality that the solar panels and turbines will have to be replaced or hopefully refurbished at some cost 3 to 4 times during the life of a nuke reactor.

5 hours 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.

Uncertainties in estimating production costs of future nuclear technologies: A model-based analysis of small modular reactors

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544223015980