Pandemonium Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 hi georgewhere would they store the spent radio active rods? Well they may try loading them in the Rohingya refugee boats and tow them 500 km out to sea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samuidave Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) How can a nation seemingly incapable of enforcing something like helmet laws -- accordingly one could conclude it is simply unconcerned with its citizens safety -- think the development and maintenance of a nuclear plant is a good idea? I love Thailand but something are certainly beyond its cultural/educational/infrastructural capabilities at this time. A nuclear plant is clearly one of them. Edited November 12, 2009 by samuidave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RKASA Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The Chinese will fund and develop a plant in Cambodia and sell power to Thailand then. Just how far or close does it really matter? Its going to get built here or there and it may be easier and cheaper next door anyway. You can bet the NGO's won't have much to say about it there? Shooting self in foot comes to mind, even if the idea of N power in Thailand is unsettling to me, the idea of it in Cambodia just as close seems worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geekfreaklover Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Surprising how much ignorance there is regarding renewable energy and in particular nuclear power. Thailand, along with many other countries will have to consider the contingency of using nuclear energy in the future. Wind power, how much wind is there in Thailand? Solar is a perfect source, yet it hasn't really been used much here. Nuclear power is a good answer to a global problem. Any contract will be tendered to Western companies. I fail to see the problem if the plant is built and maintained properly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosha Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Is it true that they are employing somebody called Homer Simpson as chief safety officer? Shouldn't that be Somchai Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrtoad Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Is it true that they are employing somebody called Homer Simpson as chief safety officer? A frightening thought that this could actually get built. Just see ole Somchai eating his Som Tam and falling asleep as a load of alarms start ringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaihome Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 How can a nation seemingly incapable of enforcing something like helmet laws -- accordingly one could conclude it is simply unconcerned with its citizens safety -- think the development and maintenance of a nuclear plant is a good idea?I love Thailand but something are certainly beyond its cultural/educational/infrastructural capabilities at this time. A nuclear plant is clearly one of them. You have no idea what actually goes on in Thailand. There are many extremely complicated and potentially dangerous industrial plants safely built and operated every day in Thailand by Thais. A nuclear plant would be just another one. I do agree that the issue of spent fuel needs to be solved. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Thailand should be leading SE Asia in the inevitable move toward "Green Power"...sun, wind, thermal (if available), SE Asia isn't going that way. Vietnam already has a nuclear reactor in Dalat and is planning three nuclear power stations, the benefit in that country being that if villagers object, they send in the tanks. Indonesia has three experimental reactors and is planning a nuclear power plant. Malaysia is in the early stages of planning a plant. Brunei and Indonesia have masses of oil and gas. Singapore hasn't enough real estate for green power. Nuclear power has proved to be safe if the plants are built correctly and and run correctly. Whether those factors are present in Thailand is another question, although the poster above is confident they are. Edited November 12, 2009 by RickBradford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipperman Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Although a "properly" built nuclear energy plants have an excellent safety record overall, all it takes is "one" misfire and you have a major disaster that will last for years. Just ask the Russians. And even in the U. S. we've had a few close calls. And in "properly built", I mean "NO SHORT CUTS". I give the Thai people a lot of credit sometimes but in this case, an impossible task in Thailand. And another great question has been raised, "where are they going to store the spent rods?" They haven't even considered that I would bet and that is not a little chore.The technology is available but only a few countries that have it. And the real fact is "they" struggle with it and even hide some of the facts. I use to be for nuclear energy but Chernobyl changed my mind. I think it's a great idea they can also build a couple of crematoriums there in that area because it will save the need to have many Wat's for the people that will both on the construction and after effects when the waste escapes like many others around the world Thailand's safety control is very poor as it is ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOS2BKK Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Mai Pen Rai + Nuclear Power = YIKES!!! I am a big fan of nuclear power. But in a country where the elevator in my building stops 2 inches higher than several of the floors, so they put little ramps there, I am not sure if Nuclear power is the best option. What about hydro-electric? God knows Thailand has enough rivers, it is clean safe, and alot easier to maintain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaBuddha Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Ask the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl if nuclear power is dangerous or 'non-polluting'! Well the first two were intentional, and had nothing to do with nuclear power. Three Mile Island, (30 years ago) was a success story. The plants safety procedures worked perfectly, there was zero radiation released. No one was hurt. The accident was caused when foolish humans overrode the safety systems. Unfortunately it came two weeks after the movie "The China Syndrome," Together they forever damaged the image of nuclear power. After 3 mile island, the building of nuclear power plants in the US ceased entirely, and no new ones have been built to date. Chernobyl (24 years ago) was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up. Consider also that 5000 people die every year in coal mining accidents world wide. 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year from air pollution. Only 56 people died in the Chernobyl disaster, (with of course many more effected by the radiation which spread across eastern Europe) Reactor designs are several orders of magnitude safer now. For example, future reactors will likely be of the pebble bed design. Simple, safe and cheap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com/ http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebb...pebble_bed.html Unfortunately, the public panic concerning nuclear power is going to make us miss our window of opportunity. If your really interested, here is the entire book available free online, "Big Coal, The Dirty Secret Behind Americas Energy Future." http://books.google.com/books?id=GyPbVNMZc...ion&f=false Edited November 12, 2009 by Scubabuddha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backsoon Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Ask the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl if nuclear power is dangerous or 'non-polluting'! Well the first two were intentional, and had nothing to do with nuclear power. Three Mile Island, (30 years ago) was a success story. The plants safety procedures worked perfectly, there was zero radiation released. No one was hurt. The accident was caused when foolish humans overrode the safety systems. Unfortunately it came two weeks after the movie "The China Syndrome," Together they forever damaging the image of nuclear power. After 3 mile island, the building of nuclear power plants in the US ceased entirely, and no new ones have been built to date. Chernobyl (24 years ago) was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up. 56 people died in the Chernobyl disaster, with many more effected by the radiation which spread across eastern Europe. Reactor designes are several orders of magnitude safer now. Consider also that 5000 people die every year in coal mining accidents world wide. 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year from air pollution. For example, the pebble bed reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com/ http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebb...pebble_bed.html If your really interested, here is the entire book available free online, "Big Coal, The Dirty Secret Behind Americas Energy Future." http://books.google.com/books?id=GyPbVNMZc...ion&f=false For any book PRO N-power there can be qouted a book CON N-power. It may be cheaper in a long run, but how long will it run??? N reactors are accidents waqiting to happen. Like anything made by man. And the accidents did happen, nevermind the explanations postfactum. Anybody knows the accidents statistics in Thailand? I bet NO. Many things produced in Thailand look 'same-same', but are not working the same way. Stainless steel rusts, high rise buildings crack, maintenance sucks, funds are pilford before reaching destination. The problem with N-power is that the failure is too costly. But maybe not in LOS? Personally, I feel safe, as I expect to die before the buggers build it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaCheese Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 How can a nation seemingly incapable of enforcing something like helmet laws -- accordingly one could conclude it is simply unconcerned with its citizens safety -- think the development and maintenance of a nuclear plant is a good idea?I love Thailand but something are certainly beyond its cultural/educational/infrastructural capabilities at this time. A nuclear plant is clearly one of them. You have no idea what actually goes on in Thailand. There are many extremely complicated and potentially dangerous industrial plants safely built and operated every day in Thailand by Thais. A nuclear plant would be just another one. I do agree that the issue of spent fuel needs to be solved. TH Fully agree. Sure things, there's a lot of laisser-fair in this country, but not only. It would be pretty crass to think that the best brains are a privilege of Western countries... While the idea of a nuclear power plan is a potentially scary one per se, and someone has yet to come up with a "perfect" solution regarding safely getting rid of spent fuel rods, the idea of coal/petrol/whatever-fuelled power plants all over the country isn't exactly comforting either. While a nuclear power plant might one day have a meltdown (slim chance with today's technology), the CO2-generating power plants are a sure-fire way to a not-so-nice future (not-so-slim chance...). There are ample examples of Western shoddiness endangering not few lifes, such as the US road system with bridges about to collapse because they were badly built and maintenance was worse to non-existing (just one example, there a lots more, but they're not usually publicized -- wonder why). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Before they build it, perhaps they might get into practice by getting the footpaths in Sukhumvit Rd right THIS time. you've got to get off that Chang beer... your starting to hallucinate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Thailand having a nuclear power plant, now that really is a scary thought. it's worse than scary... and everyone is worried about Iran.. whoa... I swear, the longer I live here, the more Thailand reminds me of Mexico in the 50's. They have a long way to go before they even start to think about nuclear power plants... can you even imagine???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Come 'on you guys.... Nuclear power in Thailand would be perfectly safe.... Right until the plant blows up/melts down and takes most of southern Thailand with it.... (Could this be the Thai government's budding solution to the Southern Unrest problem??? ) hmmmm... you may be on to something here. before you leave the house, be sure and let everyone know your destination plans, in case you go missing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Ask the residents of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl if nuclear power is dangerous or 'non-polluting'! Thailand should be leading SE Asia in the inevitable move toward "Green Power"...sun, wind, thermal (if available), and especially massive planting of hemp! Growing and processing hemp plants could supply cheap fuel, revive the economy with foreign sales, has over 35 substantial commercial uses for local needs (such a fibers for ropes, clothes, construction materials, and is good for the soil), grows without the need for pesticides & chemical fertilizers, etc. Unfortunately, however, the greedy power-mongers (even Thailand has them) can't make as much money off cheaper, practical solutions that would help spread a little of the potential wealth of meeting non-polluting power demands of the future. This is one protest we ALL need to support---politely & by invitation, of course! I live here (8 yrs. now) and would love to see the Thais show some foresight about going GREEN for energy and solve most of the air pollution, garbage dumping, and widespread lack of meaningful jobs & wages! It could be so easy if the authorities would get over the American-exported paranoia about growing hemp; even though hemp has no THC to get you high like ganja (which should be grown also). The U.S. is so screwed up that it has to import hemp products from other countries! Might as well provide them with another booming market supplier... Ciao, Paul I like what your saying Paul.. but you and I have been here long enough to know, none of this is going to happen anytime soon. Maybe the next generation will get past this "mai bpen rai" attitude and actually do something for the good of all, not just the already rich and powerful.. hemp would be such a easy product to propose. Thailand could become the world leader in Hemp product, but there you go. Instead someone has convinced the populace that growing Sunflowers is good for business. give me a break.. I live out in the country in Lopburi province, and the plight of the really poor people out here, breaks my heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Surprising how much ignorance there is regarding renewable energy and in particular nuclear power. Thailand, along with many other countries will have to consider the contingency of using nuclear energy in the future. Wind power, how much wind is there in Thailand? Solar is a perfect source, yet it hasn't really been used much here. Nuclear power is a good answer to a global problem. Any contract will be tendered to Western companies. I fail to see the problem if the plant is built and maintained properly.. you must be sniffing glue again... do you actually believe the Thai's would stoop so low and to find someone outside Thailand who actually knows how to build a nuclear plant, to build it? And lose face in Asia? not hardly. It would get built like everything else in Thailand, with Burmese and Cambodian labor and some rich Thai politicians brother-in-laws construction company.. come on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibkk Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 creating a scare for nuclear is the bitch of oil and gas offcourse... they do not want to see their petro dollars disappear for something possibly cleaner (0 emission) as if it was not for the waiste that stays radioactive for 100.000 years, but plenty of places to drop those... look at us army, they put it into their tank shell munition and many iraqies and afgies now enjoy free light at light (from radiation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaowong1 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Should make a good photo when they are into construction. Imagine the dome of a nuclear power station surrounded by bamboo scaffolding! and burmese laborers pushing wheelbarrows of concrete from the cement truck to some guys with a rope winch hauling buckets of concrete up to the top.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxe1200 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Thailand having a nuclear power plant, now that really is a scary thought. Other countries, mainly the more developed countries are considering (and doing it already) the pullout from nuclear energy, and Energy Minister Piyasvasti Amranand wants four nuclear plants. Has nobody learned from the "almost" MCA at Forsmark, Sweden, lately; the Tschernobyl nuclear desaster, the core meltdown at Three Mile Island, PA, U.S.A.? And where does Thailand wants to dump the nuclear waste, into the Southern provinces? Malaysia wouldn't like that. Or as the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Mr. Kasem put it: "....we use solar energy for smallscale use." May I ask where? I have seen only two thermosyphons on a Thai house for the production of hot water. This house belonged to a Farang. When truly every possible step towards energy reduction and energy saving has been accomplished, and there is still a high demand of electric power, then the governing body of Thailand can still think about, if they need to join the nuclear club. With a half life of 24.000 years for nuclear waste, I am sure this Government will still be remembered for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Is it true that they are employing somebody called Homer Simpson as chief safety officer? Negative! The man used to have the same responsibility in Chernobyl so he is regarded very qualified. So no worries there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Let them start building ...............it will take probably 100 years andstill not finished ? Think you are wrong. Would be much quicker. And they would race the building time so the financiers could see their investments form. Of course, no investers will put money into security so that bit won't be much considered. Used fuel rods? No problem, they have a cave south of Hua Hin just right for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitalia Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Should make a good photo when they are into construction. Imagine the dome of a nuclear power station surrounded by bamboo scaffolding! Worse still, when the construction companies, in collusion with politicians, cut corners on the quality of concrete and amounts of re-bar etc. Unless this project is managed and run by expatriate project managers, we will end up with another Suvarnabhumi. All falling down. Sorry to sound cynical but I have been here way too long to have any faith in the transparency of mega projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I don't really understand all the negativity towards building Thailand's first nuclear plant. What a bunch of Luddites we have here. Could we please look clearly at the facts without all the emotional hysteria? Facts - all resources are already in place: * The nuclear reactor cement sarcophagus could be built by the same (or equivalent) team that made the world-famous Suvarnabhumi airport runway. Cement can be expensive, so natural resources such as sand from the local Surat beaches would help keep costs down. * The complex nuclear plant could be operated by the competent team from MaxNet. * Fuel rods could be delivered to the plant by fast trucks operated by our fine mini-van drivers. * Disposal - nuclear waste rods could be cut up and dispersed as road fill, as currently done with asbestos roof tile waste. * Infrastructure and safety around the nuclear site could be planned and organized by the same fine people that have planned the magnificent infrastructure around Koh Samui and Koh Pha-Ngan. * Security against terrorist attacks could be handled by our finest, the Thai police from the islands. As for any potential radiation discharge to the environment, any fool can understand that if you can't see and feel it, it can't hurt you. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. And in the unlikely case of any of this harmless radiation getting out, our fine Thai Public Health Minister would take care of it in the same way he dealt with the melamine contamination of milk from China. Now, let's move forward and make Thailand the nuclear hub of Asia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
321niti123 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 there are so many other sources of energy, why do they have to choose one where there is a risk of high damage failure + a high chance of something going wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitalia Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Mai Pen Rai + Nuclear Power = YIKES!!!I am a big fan of nuclear power. But in a country where the elevator in my building stops 2 inches higher than several of the floors, so they put little ramps there, I am not sure if Nuclear power is the best option. What about hydro-electric? God knows Thailand has enough rivers, it is clean safe, and alot easier to maintain. Agree. Nuclear is certainly cleaner (in terms of air pollution) and cheaper. Thailand cannot really take advantage of hydro electricity and even if they could, they probably could only manage very small output. Thermal energy was considered but it turned out that the thermal springs were not hot enough (so I am told). Solar, bio and wind are nice ideas but not practical for large scale power generation. I just hope they contract with a professional organization with lots of experience in nuclear energy. The Canadians have been trying for years to start something up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The Canadians have been trying for years to start something up here. Yes, the Canadians have been exporting their asbestos to Thailand for years, so their advice and experience would be invaluable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacovl46 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 welcome to springfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loong Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Somchai Simpson makes sure that everything runs smoothly after his 4 hour Lao Khow break Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now