Thailand's Nuke Plan A Sham!

[george]

Nuke plan a sham!

Spend billions on safe, clean energy instead, says Greenpeace

BANGKOK: -- Environmental fighters Greenpeace Southeast Asia disrupted yesterday's Bangkok Climate Change Talks, demanding that Thailand scrap plans to build nuclear-power plants.

The group says the government will waste billions on the plants that could be better spent on "alternative energy sources".

Activists camped outside the United Nations Conference Centre venue for the international summit aimed at saving the planet from global warming.

Greenpeace campaigner Thara Buakhamsri says the government's nuclear-power sales pitch - that it's environmentally friendly - is bogus.

Meanwhile, environment ministry chief Saksit Tridej says Thailand should be paid for its forests. It wants the world to give it carbon credits for its trees. This idea will be at the top of the country's agenda for the five-day Earth-rescue convention.

Saksit says while credit for forest preservation and management is "complicated and difficult in practice, we hope the Bangkok Talks will be convinced to make its implementation more flexible".

Thailand will crow about its forest conservation and ask for carbon credits in return.

Monetary value

These credits are worth money. Greenhouse Gas Manage-ment Public Organisation director Sirithan Pairojborriboon says the forest-credit plan might just fly. Forests are both a source and a sink for carbon.

This country has just 15 clean development mechanisms registered with the UN climate change people and another 27 in the pipeline, Most are energy-from-waste stations.

But, Climate Action Network Southeast Asia activist Wanan Permpibul says the forest idea is wrong. Wanan wants Thailand to seek funding from the UN to pay for energy technology transfer and support.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change chief Yvo de Boer says the world is running out of time to set new emission controls.

"We have just one and half years in which to complete negotiations on what will probably be the most complex international agreement that history has ever seen," de Boer says. "And I'm confident that it can be done."

Scientists agree the world needs to stabilise emissions in the next 10 years and slash them by 50 per cent by 2050 to prevent temperatures from triggering devastating changes in the environment.

-- Daily Xpress 2008-04-01

[Seneque]

Like I said before as soon as there is a nuclear plant in thailand... i am going somewhere else ..... not because i don't trust nuclear power (it works as a charm in countries like France), but in Thailand where they cannot even change the defective bulbs at the international airport, and where maintenance is basically an unecessary cost ... makes me wonder !

[PhilHarries]

The group says the government will waste billions on the plants that could be better spent on "alternative energy sources".

Greenpeace, for all the good they do, are very good at coming out with meaningless soundbites like this one. When asked "What alternative energy sorces are you proposing" they spout out all the usual candidates wind, solar, tidal, wave etc etc. The truth is that none of these sources will ever supply a significant proportion of a nation's power needs to replace conventional or nuclear power.

I agree with their sentiments and would like to see a world free of nuclear power (and weapons but that's another subject) but this will never happen all the time we maintain our current energy wasteful lifestyles. Energy conservation is what they should be pushing, from the individual consumer to the mighty corporations we should all be using less energy. Even so it is unlikely that this, even if implemented to the maximum, will bridge the impending worldwide energy gap between supply and demand but it is a relatively easy starting point. All the technology to achieve the saving exists now and some, like running the a/c at 21C instead of 16, don't need any.

Like Seneque I am concerned regarding Thailand operating a nuclear power plant. There are a lot of very talented Thai engineers and technicians out there capable of doing the job but there are a lot with qualifications obtained by cheating or in positions because of daddy's status in the ministry. As for leaving Thailand if it goes ahead I would wait and see what system of control is imposed by the IAEA first.

[Big A]

Good God. Somchai in charge of a nuclear reactor!!

[steveromagnino]

Financially nuclear does not stack up anywhere as the cost of the real estate of disposal for 10,000 years; typically massive cost overruns and dodgy accounting and discount rates usually are tweaked to make it viable.

But ignore a few negative externalities, and skim a bit, and nuclear starts to look nice.

The true answer is in energy efficiency and better use of Thailand's existing fossil fuels plus new discoveries both in the Kingdom and in surrounding unexplored areas.

Plenty of opportunities for embedded wind, solar and other places for hard to reach places to counter the monster tranmission losses from the network using a single nuclear station (and I think they are talking about 4, not 1). Cogen, but most of all load management and energy efficiency.

Best way forward is a deregulated power industry - a proper one - not like the USA model. But.....no chance of that with the current clowns in charge.

[bonobo]

Thailand is not particularly suited for alternative energy production. Wind and solar can pick up some of the demand, but not actually much due to the lack of large areas of reliable and steady wind and the amount of cloud cover. Certainly, some of these can be installed which would help somewhat. (Greenpeace, however, decries wind-power in the US for killing birds and for being supposed eyesores.)

Tide and hydro-generated power are also not suitable for Thailand. As far as bio-fuels, well, even for cars, bio-fuels currently cost more in oil, gas, or coal in order to make it.

What does that leave? Coal, gas, oil, and yes nuclear. WHy does France have have a smaller per capita carbon footprint than other industrialized countries? Nuclear power. And nuclear power now costs less per kw than many other methods of generation.

Current technology for nuclear power is such that a catastrophic failure can lead to the destruction of the plant (with the enormous financial loss) but not an environmental disaster.

Personally, I am an environmentalist. I received my Ph.D. in an environmental activist subject. So i am "green," and I wholeheartedly believe in wind and solar power, in hybrid cars (I have a Prius in the US and will buy one here when they arrive this year), in energy-saving light bulbs, etc.

But Thailand in not Iceland with an easy source for power for its small population. Nuclear is a valid option here. I would rather have a waste storage problem than the carbon in the air I breath.

[naka]

Wind energy is the only viable alternative source, but the amount generated is small (for the cost) and unreliable.

There is also currently a major backlash against wind turbines in the UK as they are a blight on the landscape.

Solar is fine for producing hot water but totally useless as a source of electricity (other than a mountaintop repeater station)

due to the very high costs and the amount of energy required to produce them in the first place, not to mention the toxic waste

from the manufacturing process.

Tidal power ! Nah.

Naka.

Edited April 1, 2008 by naka

[funfun]

right then, Mondays, wednesdays an fridays we'll use it for power, Tuesdays, Thursdays an Saturdays we can use it for!!!!

[madjbs]

It's funny how they try to disrupt an event aimed at preventing global warming. If the government decided to build a wind farm you can be sure that Greenpeace will be out yet again protesting over the destruction of the natural habitat, if they propose some kind of wave or tide electricity generator then they will be out protesting about the destruction of sea life and coral, if they don't do anything Greenpeace will be out protesting about the use of too many fossil fuels. You can never win with these people.

Edited April 1, 2008 by madjbs

[bonobo]

It's funny how they try to disrupt an event aimed at preventing global warming. If the government decided to build a wind farm you can be sure that Greenpeace will be out yet again protesting over the destruction of the natural habitat, if they propose some kind of wave or tide electricity generator then they will be out protesting about the destruction of sea life and coral, if they don't do anything Greenpeace will be out protesting about the use of too many fossil fuels. You can never win with these people.

Amen to that!

I donate money to environmental groups such as the Nature Conservancy, but I am really tired of the righteousness of Greenpeace. No matter what, they protest, I think just to maintain headlines.

[plachon]

Financially nuclear does not stack up anywhere as the cost of the real estate of disposal for 10,000 years; typically massive cost overruns and dodgy accounting and discount rates usually are tweaked to make it viable.

But ignore a few negative externalities, and skim a bit, and nuclear starts to look nice.

The true answer is in energy efficiency and better use of Thailand's existing fossil fuels plus new discoveries both in the Kingdom and in surrounding unexplored areas.

Plenty of opportunities for embedded wind, solar and other places for hard to reach places to counter the monster tranmission losses from the network using a single nuclear station (and I think they are talking about 4, not 1). Cogen, but most of all load management and energy efficiency.

Best way forward is a deregulated power industry - a proper one - not like the USA model. But.....no chance of that with the current clowns in charge.

Agree with your sentiments entirely Steve, but when even the UK govt. decides that nuclear "looks nice" (and turn back the clock on a gradual phaseout), then it is hardly surprising that developing countries are trying to muscle their way on to the nuclear path. The biggest question and concern is where does Thailand decide to pick for its nuclear outfitter? On past record at Ongkharak it has played with US and Canadian technology and advice (and look at all the problems that caused!), but this time I would be concerned they go somewhere less, shall we say "dilligent", in kitting them out with the nuclear toy box. In fact, I can imagine South African, Indian, Pakistan, Chinese, Israeli, even Iranian door-to-door salesmen knocking at the Min of Energy's door rather frequently these days since Mr Samak got in. Wonderful thought, eh?

[Tomkagai]

[in fact, I can imagine South African, Indian, Pakistan, Chinese, Israeli, even Iranian door-to-door salesmen knocking at the Min of Energy's door rather frequently these days since Mr Samak got in. Wonderful thought, eh?

What a load of rubbish...

Why South Africa - Commerical nuclear P/S in South Africa was built by the French (pebble bed reactor - South african developed not proven technology yet)

Why Indian - Again French built

Why Chinese - Again French built for the newer generation, Russian on others (not commissioned), but currently developing own technology but not commerical yet..

All the above countries built their commerical P/S with Western technology agreements, and non of the Nuclear technology is home grown

So they basically couldnt offer their services to build one as they are tied into agreements with western countries and international licensing agreements...Also even if they did get one built...where would they get the fuel from, again very tight restrictions on where you can get the fuel from in the quantities required to operate commerically

Think you should get your facts right....

If Thailand ever decides to go commerical nuclear (been hearing this for the last 4 years) it will be with only really have options of 3 countries:

1.France (would guess Mr Samak would go this way as France have done more PWR's than anybody internationally)

2. USA - May be a good option considering the state of the North American Peso (Dollar) and would be cheaper than from France

3. Japan - possible due to Thai/Japanese relations

From breaking ground to commisioning a typical 1800MW PWR takes about 5-6 years to complete, after which Thai personnel would be under training for at least 3-5 years prior to given licenses to operate on their own...and before knocking the capabilites of Thai personnel operating a commerical plant...3 mile island - Human error, Cheynoble - Human Error...so the so-called western countries have done too well to date...

Is nuclear a viable option...?..Yes it is.... one of the few the world has left...!!

[mellow1]

Nuclear power is a good idea. The problem I see here in the LOS, is how well will it run. We have a big problem with just electricity here, many times when it rains the power goes out. Yesterday we had a storm, the power was out for 8 hrs straight, it went out in the early morning also. It doesn't matter if its electricity, internet, etc.. nothing seems to work very well here. I can live with that, but who will live and who will die, when the same type of performance is applied to a nuclear power plant.

[Tomkagai]

The question I would ask is how many people on this site fly Thai Airways ?...Its operated and maintained by Thai;s and dont see too many Thai Airways planes falling out the sky due to bad/no maintenance...so it can be done...

What people have to understand is Thailand basically cant develop commerical nuclear power in isolation without international input, in order to be granted operating permits and recognition by the international nuclear regulation bodies...they have to play by the rules..in other words...Mr Somchai cant go and pay some tea money to get a Nuclear operators permit...

If I had a choice of living next to an oil refinery or next to a commerical nuclear...would pick the nuclear anyday...

[clausewitz]

1.France (would guess Mr Samak would go this way as France have done more PWR's than anybody internationally)

2. USA - May be a good option considering the state of the North American Peso (Dollar) and would be cheaper than from France

3. Japan - possible due to Thai/Japanese relations

They said about 5 months ago that they will get the plant from France or Japan. USA was ruled out at that time due to high cost.

[Tomkagai]

1.France (would guess Mr Samak would go this way as France have done more PWR's than anybody internationally)

2. USA - May be a good option considering the state of the North American Peso (Dollar) and would be cheaper than from France

3. Japan - possible due to Thai/Japanese relations

They said about 5 months ago that they will get the plant from France or Japan. USA was ruled out at that time due to high cost.

If they are smart they will get their technology from France as the French are capable of building whats know as "off the shelf" power stations and in my opinion the best technolgy thats availible...

[jstumbo]

Ha ha ha. Thailand with a nuclear power plant. This is another one of your April Fools Day jokes, right George

Edited April 1, 2008 by jstumbo

[MrPaddy]

Good God. Somchai in charge of a nuclear reactor!!

Homer Simpson is so why not ?

[Big A]

^^

DOH!!!

[geriatrickid]

The question I would ask is how many people on this site fly Thai Airways ?...Its operated and maintained by Thai;s and dont see too many Thai Airways planes falling out the sky due to bad/no maintenance...so it can be done...

What people have to understand is Thailand basically cant develop commerical nuclear power in isolation without international input, in order to be granted operating permits and recognition by the international nuclear regulation bodies...they have to play by the rules..in other words...Mr Somchai cant go and pay some tea money to get a Nuclear operators permit...

If I had a choice of living next to an oil refinery or next to a commerical nuclear...would pick the nuclear anyday...

Perhaps you may want to see where the major aircraft work is performed. Usually Lufthansa facilities with Air Canada providing backup. Singapore too. Star Alliance thing. Works well as they have 2 of the better major overhaul facilities.

What are they going to do with the spent fuel? It's not like the USA or Cananda where the countries are vast enough with nice rock formations where waste can be stored. Thailand's geography does not lend itself to storage I suppose they can always export the toxic waste to Africa and Bangladesh like the Europeans do with alot of their toxic crud.

Edited April 1, 2008 by geriatrickid

[madjbs]

They could sell the waste to Burma or Iran, make some extra cash to help recoup costs.

[Plus]

They can designate a small island if they want to. The area doesn't need to be large, about the size of a football field, if I remember correctly.

The real problem is that they can't stall it any longer - they have to make a commericially viable decision now. Can they take chances with cutting edge, untested technology? Can they buy working solar power solutions off the shelf?

Thailand is not the only country in the world that sees future in nuclear power. Countries far more advanced that this cannot rely on alternative sources, I don't expect Thailand to lead the world.

The reality is that if they don't build that nuclear plant, they'll be screwed, there's no real choice here, just get used to it and try to make the best of the nuclear deal.

It's not open for a debate anymore.

[doctormann]

Good God. Somchai in charge of a nuclear reactor!!

Homer Simpson is so why not ?

Well, actually Lord Buddha will be overseeing the running of the plant so, as we know, nothing could possibly go wrong. Much in the same way that Somchai can drive his m/cycle like a complete brainless idiot and never come to any harm!

Seriously, speaking as a retired nuclear engineer I do think that nuclear power does have a lot going for it, despite the valid concerns about waste storage and disposal. I must admit though that the mai pen rai attitude of your average Thai does not sit comfortably with the strict discipline required to run industrial plant, nuclear or otherwise, safely. More than a little bit of education will be required!

I would have thought that solar power should be a serious contender - after all, we do tend to get quite a lot of sunshine in Los. Windmills? Never likely to make a serious impact on anyone's energy budget. Tidal power? At least it's predictable but probably only viable where the tidal range is large and I don't think that this is the case in the Gulf of Thailand. Wave power? OK until the first storm trashes the equipment. Anyone remember Salter's Nodding Ducks? - failed UK experiment back in the mists of time.

Never mind, it will take a long time to make a decision on this and even longer to to build and commission the beast. The airport took 40 years and nothing particularly hi-tech about that! I'll probably be long gone.

DM

[madjbs]

The government has for years been giving grants to Thai students who wish to study overseas in fields related to nuclear power. I know a guy who studied in Japan, England and the U.S and all payed for by the government, unfortunately recent governments haven't pushed the nuclear power idea so most of the qualified Thais like him have had to find work overseas.

[steveromagnino]

The reality is that if they don't build that nuclear plant, they'll be screwed, there's no real choice here, just get used to it and try to make the best of the nuclear deal.

It's not open for a debate anymore.

Except that there is the issue of:

- whether they can secure raw nuclear fuel at current prices and whether nuclear stacks up compared to other traditional technologies (coal, NG, LNG)

- whether coal and natural gas can provide much of the energy required as occurs now using more advanced technology

- whether the predicted increase in energy consumption is realistic

- what gains could be made using energy efficiency and load management

- what changes in embedded and alternative generation (Cogen, wind, solar, bio fuel) could realistically be implemented in a 15 year time frame

- what likelihood Thailand has of having a deregulated cost reflective energy market by the time 4 nuclear power plants get launched

It is still VERY much open to debate IMHO; I've met the pro nuclear guys, and their answers to the above questions were so inept that I really wondered whether they are doing this because the country needs it, or because they just want to see a nuclear power station.

I am less worried on the controls and safety as i suspect that Thailand can handle that ok despite the fact that with 400 reactors worldwide, there have been (correct me if I am wrong) 2 catastrophic and 1 major fault.

Rather I doubt that it makes viable economic sense, especially since there is no functioning carbon market anyhow of which Thailand needs to take part; the true costs of power aren't passed to consumers as there is not a deregulated market and the FACT that nuclear power stations are massively capital intensive with a inbuilt reliance thereafter on a fuel stock that is from abroad and subject to likely increasing demand and a currently spiralling price. This is fascinating, given that one of the key reasons to go nuclear is the issue of energy security which apparently importing gas doesn't provide.

The single reason why this is on the table now is because nuclear is capital intensive.

[Plus]

Sure there are issues, but so does any other alternative. Besides it looks like the alternatives exist only in virutal reality, they are not ready for implementation yet.

[Martin]

Like several who have posted above, I despair of Greenpeace. They are an embarrassment to their cause.

What they should be pointing out is that Thailand doesn't need any more generating stations.

Not coal (polluting), not oil (overly, and ever more, expensive), not gas (ditto), not wind (big capital requirement relative to the small and unreliable output), not solar (horrendously ditto), not nuclear (capital requirement excessive) and not hydro (no suitable locations left).

What Thailand needs now is "Demand Discouragement".

Much of what EGAT generates is simply wasted, largely in unnecessary air conditioning and lighting.

Start cutting down on that (starting with profligate highway lighting) and wait for the industrial demand to dwindle, as it will this year once the countries of its manufacture-for-export start to feel the bite of a recession that will never recede.

Then Thailand will be seen to have enough generation for the short and middle term future.

In the long term, when gas is being kept for more important things and the coal has run out, hydro-generated electricity from environmentally-acceptable stations in Laos (on the tributaries, not the Mekong) will be available to Thailand for its electrified railways, and will give income to Laos for its necessary imports.

[Tomkagai]

What are they going to do with the spent fuel?

Spent fuel is sent out to be reprocessed and is not buried somewhere...what you are referring to as regards regards storage is low and medium level waste..ie contaminated overalls, tools and day to day waste and in comparison with the crap and toxic waste that comes out of Map-tu-phut, the quantities involved are relatively small...

As regards the capabilities of Thailand to run a commerical nuclear even with the mai pen rai attitude...remember years ago working on nuclear construction in China and the expats where making the same comments about the Chinese..ie where you going to be when they put the fuel in...10,000 miles away..!!!

All the years on and the Chinese boys running that plant have done a good job and its operated with standards equal to or better than western countries and in a lot of aspects its run a dam_n site better than some of the USA and UK's facilites I had the misfortune to work on in later years, and yes there was a "mai pen rai" attitude there as well