Report Thailand's Nuclear Deal Sparks Debate on Energy Future

[snoop1130]

Photo courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

Thailand’s recent nuclear agreement with the US has ignited concern among local watchdogs, who argue there’s no immediate need for nuclear power in the country's energy mix.

 

Tara Buakamsri from Thailand Nuclear Watchdog expressed scepticism about the government's decision to pursue the 123 Agreement with the US, which allows collaboration on nuclear technology. He suggests this move might be intertwined with US-Thai tariff negotiations rather than a genuine energy need.

 

The US Department of State confirmed the agreement’s commencement on 9th July, introducing the potential for US-developed small modular reactors (SMRs) in Thailand. While these are touted for their low-carbon benefits, Mr Tara views the push as US-driven under the guise of trade cooperation.

 

“Despite being marketed as innovative, no SMRs are operating yet in the US,” Mr Tara highlighted. Globally, only China and Russia have commercial SMR plants, while projects elsewhere, including the US, remain under development, according to IAEA.

 

Public perception and cost are significant hurdles for nuclear energy in Thailand, Tara notes. “Nuclear power is often presented as cost-efficient, yet wind energy is cheaper and more viable,” he said, indicating that other renewables might better suit Thailand’s needs.

 

He stressed that nuclear energy is unnecessary for Thailand’s energy security or to keep electricity affordable. “We have ample alternative energy sources. Nuclear isn't essential right now,” he added.

 

In his May article, "Small Modular Reactors: Hope or Doubt?", Tara criticised the current push for SMRs, noting that they wouldn't make a substantial impact before 2037. By then, he argues, it will be too late to significantly curb emissions.

 

“Implementing SMRs requires substantial financial support, ultimately placing the burden on consumers,” he warned.

 

The 123 Agreement lays a foundation for peaceful nuclear collaboration, encompassing material and technology transfers while ensuring nonproliferation commitments. However, whether this aligns with Thailand’s immediate energy strategy remains a point of contention.

 

As discussions continue, the implications of this agreement will shape Thailand’s energy landscape, balancing innovation with practical needs and public sentiment.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Bangkok Post 2025-07-15

 

 

[newbee2022]

I hope it will never happen to see a nuclear plant working here.

If you got plenty of wind and solar energy it's wasted money.

One of the most stupid ideas here.

However, there are a lot of stupid ideas.

"Land bridge, Formular 1, Casinos, space exploration, satellites and now nuclear plants."

List is not complete I guess.

[hotchilli]

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Tara Buakamsri from Thailand Nuclear Watchdog expressed scepticism about the government's decision to pursue the 123 Agreement with the US, which allows collaboration on nuclear technology. He suggests this move might be intertwined with US-Thai tariff negotiations rather than a genuine energy need.

You think ..... more Thai deflection.

[Srikcir]

Thailand is not energy independent. That makes its domestic consumers vulnerable to imported energy prices and its own sovereignty can be at stake (something the Thai military is very protective), ie., Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, LNG imports from Myanmar (!), Russia's energy degradation from its war with Ukraine.

Thailand imports approximately 30% of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Middle East. Higher LNG prices would increase electricity costs.

The energy policy of Thailand is characterized by 1) increasing energy consumption efficiency, 2) increasing domestic energy production, 3) increasing the private sector's role in the energy sector, 4) increasing the role of market mechanisms in setting energy prices.

Nuclear power is expected to reduce Thailand's natural gas consumption in power generation from 70 percent to 40 percent. 

 

[DrPhibes]

10 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

I hope it will never happen to see a nuclear plant working here.

If you got plenty of wind and solar energy it's wasted money.

One of the most stupid ideas here.

However, there are a lot of stupid ideas.

"Land bridge, Formular 1, Casinos, space exploration, satellites and now nuclear plants."

List is not complete I guess.

Solar uses up land that could be used for food production, Thailands strength.  Other countries have deserts or other non-productive areas that work well for solar.  SMRs are almost fool-proof in design but still should be run by qualified technicians.  Thorium energy production will be the next step in nuclear reactors.  Westinghouse wants to push really old design AP 1000 reactor designs to the US government that are way old and always ran way over cost to build.

[Yagoda]

25 minutes ago, DrPhibes said:

Westinghouse wants to push really old design AP 1000 reactor designs to the US government that are way old and always ran way over cost to build.

You mean the two they built?

[newbee2022]

38 minutes ago, DrPhibes said:

Solar uses up land that could be used for food production, Thailands strength.  Other countries have deserts or other non-productive areas that work well for solar.  SMRs are almost fool-proof in design but still should be run by qualified technicians.  Thorium energy production will be the next step in nuclear reactors.  Westinghouse wants to push really old design AP 1000 reactor designs to the US government that are way old and always ran way over cost to build.

There are many places for solar parks, eg water dams, mountains, aso. Windparks same.

Nuclear power is the most idiotic thing to build if you can catch sun and wind.

Also wasted money over hundreds of years 

[FlorC]

Solar panels on every roof and not at the rip off prices that 

globalhouse/homepro and others charge.

Paid through interest free loans.

[SpaceKadet]

20 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

There are many places for solar parks, eg water dams, mountains, aso. Windparks same.

Nuclear power is the most idiotic thing to build if you can catch sun and wind.

Also wasted money over hundreds of years 

Thailand is not a windy country. And as long as the government here is blocking the payback of electricity produced by the individual homeowners, there will be no substantial investment in solar. Besides, there are major quantifying issues with solar, not the least the local land prices. Additionally, constructions in mountains is complex and expensive. And, of course, there is no reliable energy storage for solar. While an individual house solar system can store enough energy in a few batteries, for the times when the sun is not available, try to scale it to 100-300MW and watch the problems.

 

The biggest issue is that laymen connect a solar panel to a battery and will say: "See! I can power my whole house need with solar, why the electric companies don't do that."

 

Nuclear fission is the future, until we get reliable nuclear fusion reactors in 60-100 years time, maybe. Nuclear is one of the base energy supplies, available 24/365. In fact, it's getting cheaper the longer it runs, as the cost of all the reactor fuel is paid at the inception.

 

Even Sweden, that have been investing heavily in alternate "green" energy, have admitted that it doesn't work, and is currently expanding its nuclear program. And Germany, after shutting down all its NPPs, is now forced to burn dirty brown coal to sustain its energy needs.

[blaze master]

20 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

There are many places for solar parks, eg water dams, mountains, aso. Windparks same.

Nuclear power is the most idiotic thing to build if you can catch sun and wind.

Also wasted money over hundreds of years 

 

You couldnt be more ill informed

 

Nuclear is the best current option to meet modern day energy needs. Although I wouldn't trust thailand to build or operate it correctly. 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=glM80kRWbes&pp=ygUaV2h5IG1vZGVybiBudWNsZWFyIGlzIGJlYXQ%3D

[brfsa2]

 

13 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

And as long as the government here is blocking the payback of electricity produced by the individual homeowners, there will be no substantial investment in solar.

 

At least in Bangkok, I'm getting paid almost 1000 baht a month for the excess I am selling from a solar setup  in a house I dont live anymore. It's up for sale.

 

Nuclear would be very good for Thailand. and good for the hungry Bitcoin monster 🙂 good for BTC holders for sure.

[newbee2022]

2 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

And Germany, after shutting down all its NPPs, is now forced to burn dirty brown coal to sustain its energy needs.

This is only one of your no sense points. (Actually your whole comment)

Germany creates around 60% of it's energy by renewable sources. For a transistion time there are GAS plants which are able to use GREEN hydrogen next.

Thailand: It's indeed windy in the mountains. (There are times of no wind, similar to the atlantic in front of Britain)

Solar: possible everywhere, where the govt is the land owner. And that's plenty. All dams can be used, hills everywhere in Thailand.

In addition pumped storage power plants.

New govt houses have to have solar tiles. All hospitals too.

Nuclear plants: the most idiotic plan if solar power is available unlimited!

Nuclear plants are wasted money over hundreds of years, not only for a decade or so. It's a backwards step and view.

 

[newbee2022]

1 minute ago, blaze master said:

 

You couldnt be more ill informed

 

Nuclear is the best current option to meet modern day energy needs. Although I wouldn't trust thailand to build or operate it correctly. 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=glM80kRWbes&pp=ygUaV2h5IG1vZGVybiBudWNsZWFyIGlzIGJlYXQ%3D

Do you have more stupidiness to show?

[blaze master]

Then let's talk about solar and wind shall we......

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc&pp=ygUVWWVsbG9zdG9uZSB3aW5kIHBvd2Vy

[blaze master]

1 minute ago, newbee2022 said:

Do you have more stupidiness to show?

 

Stop it. You didnt even watch the video. Your ignorance is astounding. 

[newbee2022]

5 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

Stop it. You didnt even watch the video. Your ignorance is astounding. 

No time for trolls

[blaze master]

Just now, newbee2022 said:

No time for trolls

 

 Stay ignorant it looks great on you. 

[newbee2022]

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

 Stay ignorant it looks great on you. 

perfect

[SpaceKadet]

6 minutes ago, newbee2022 said:

This is only one of your no sense points. (Actually your whole comment)

Germany creates around 60% of it's energy by renewable sources. For a transistion time there are GAS plants which are able to use GREEN hydrogen next.

Thailand: It's indeed windy in the mountains. (There are times of no wind, similar to the atlantic in front of Britain)

Solar: possible everywhere, where the govt is the land owner. And that's plenty. All dams can be used, hills everywhere in Thailand.

In addition pumped storage power plants.

New govt houses have to have solar tiles. All hospitals too.

Nuclear plants: the most idiotic plan if solar power is available unlimited!

Nuclear plants are wasted money over hundreds of years, not only for a decade or so. It's a backwards step and view.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by your highlighted sentence. 

 

Actually, nuclear is a forward step IMO. For too long we have been fed this dogma by the "greens" that the nuclear is filthy and wasteful. Now with the slow adoption of SMR and modern nuclear reactor design, we finally can  see a better future for the nuclear energy.

 

I dare you to go to Sweden, and say "What a beautiful country with those thousands of windmills everywhere doing a job of a small SMR."

The same goes for solar, so beautiful with hundreds of square kilometers covered by all those glistering solar panels. Oh, they do need maintenance? Didn't know that... Oh, only 45% efficiency? Oh, short lifespan, and then what? Landfills with all those toxic metals?

[newbee2022]

26 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Landfills with all those toxic metals?

Ah yeah, nuclear waste is not toxic? Sorry, you just disqualified yourself for any serious discussion.

Good bye.

[SpaceKadet]

"Ah yeah, nuclear waste is not toxic? Sorry, you just disqualified yourself for any serious discussion."

 

It is rather disconcerting when some people refuse to realize that we live now in the 21st century, and refuse to let go of their green piss propaganda BS brainwashing.

You might want to educate yourself on the modern nuclear reactor technology. Specifically Gen IV designs. But then, it would probably be wasted on you. Maybe you still know that 4+4 is 8, but can't understand why 5+5 is 10...

[newbee2022]

2 hours ago, SpaceKadet said:

"Ah yeah, nuclear waste is not toxic? Sorry, you just disqualified yourself for any serious discussion."

 

It is rather disconcerting when some people refuse to realize that we live now in the 21st century, and refuse to let go of their green piss propaganda BS brainwashing.

You might want to educate yourself on the modern nuclear reactor technology. Specifically Gen IV designs. But then, it would probably be wasted on you. Maybe you still know that 4+4 is 8, but can't understand why 5+5 is 10...

Stupid troll