Thai Nuclear Power Plant Faces Strong Resistance

[bowbells]

I am all for it.

Build it in the deep south.

Sell the excess electricity to the neighbouring countries.

As a bonus; If anyone decides to blow it up, it will ultimately resolve the extremist situation.

Only downside; We would be short of electricity again.

But it would also dissolve Phuket, Krabi and Samui the same day.

Generally not considered prudent to put Nuke facilities

over seismic faults and in terrorist zones of activity...

The fact that so many people equate possible Nuclear Power Plant problems to Hiroshima type atomic explosions shows how truly ignorant they are. The worst that could happen is radiation contamination of the surrounding area. Not entire cities and provinces being blown to bits .. or "dissolved" There was no 2 kilometer wide "hole" at Chernobyl. When the rods of uranium pellets go critical .. they just melt .. and release a lot of radiation .. they don't explode. No mushroom clouds .. end of story. 

Ok you want to be an asshol_e and show what a jerk you are by sending me little messages calling me an IDIOT.....educate yourself on the facts....and it will be clear who was the idiot was on this matter! If you find any evidence making it clear that Nuclear Power is not the safest and cleanest feesible form of human generated power as of 12/09 I would love to see it. In the meantime you can use this fact report as colon probe!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

Edited December 9, 2009 by bowbells

[Spee]

Looking at the Build quality of the airport and crumbling runways.

A nuclear power plant in the Land of Kickbacks and corner-cutting. It's a scary thought

I have a background in nuclear power from a prior life in the US Navy. I'm a strong proponent of nuclear energy as a means of generating electricity.

Unfortunately, I have to put a lot of credence in these kinds of statements when it comes to Thailand. Well done concrete/rebar work, as well as welding, installation and other construction tasks are critical to the finished product. And it's not like a highway where one can fix buckled pavement. There is no margin for error in construction of a nuclear generating facility. It has to be built to last 30-40 years without failure.

Also, as was demonstrated in the Seabrook plant in the US, corruption can be a very dangerous thing. With all the corruption in Thailand, I would question whether or not constructing a nuclear power plant could be accomplished without some major potential failure lurking in the workmanship.

And as was demonstrated at 3-Mile Island, cutting operational corners and procedures can result in serious problems as well. I would question whether or not a safe operating environment could be implemented and maintained over a 30-40 year life cycle.

As for all the other hysteria about radiation, spent fuel rods, etc., .... well ..... it's just hysteria. Spent fuel rods aren't designed to be stored. They are designed to be reprocessed, as anyone in the French nuclear industry will attest. For radiation, a coal or oil fired electrical plant pours tons of radioactive carbon into the air, just because a certain amount of naturally occuring carbon is a radioactive isotope. A properly operated and maintained nuclear plant emits no radiation to the surroundings. The US Navy has proved that for going on 50 years.

I wish I could feel differently, but in all honesty, I can't. It would be great if a group of people could prove me wrong. It would be great for Thailand to 30-40 years of a gigawatt or two of additional reliable electrical capacity. Look at a place like the UK, where industry and the free market are being prevented from generating growth because there is insufficient electrical capacity in many parts of the country.

[RickBradford]

^

Wouldn't the whole process, from building to operation, be overseen by the IAEA or some other such responsible body? Or am I being hopelessly naive?

[Spee]

^

Wouldn't the whole process, from building to operation, be overseen by the IAEA or some other such responsible body? Or am I being hopelessly naive?

In theory, yes. No, you're not being hopelessly naive. It's a valid question.

To go back to the case of Seabrook, the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, now part of DOE) was the regulatory body responsible for overseeing the construction. But that didn't stop union hacks from going in and destroying approved work so that it had to be redone. It didn't stop faulty welds.

The welds and concrete are really the key. Nuke plants require a nuclear qualified welder and in turn, require a great deal of quality testing in order to ensure the weld is good. The concrete is key because it forms the primary containtment.

I'm not saying everything couldn't come together perfectly, and if it would be possible, I wish it would because it could be a great benefit to the country's growth. I'm just questioning whether the risk is worth the reward.

On an aside note, there is also the whole political issue with the nuclear non-proliferation lobby, many of whom are just flat-earth enviro-wackos who want to keep developing nations in the dark ages.

[brahmburgers]

Looking at the Build quality of the airport and crumbling runways.

A nuclear power plant in the Land of Kickbacks and corner-cutting. It's a scary thought

There is no margin for error in construction of a nuclear generating facility. It has to be built to last 30-40 years without failure.

Ok, let's assume a Thai nuclear reactor was very well built (by an outside construction outfit), with just a moderate amount of kickbacks, no-bid contracts, 100%+ cost overuns, construction delays, and such that would be expected with any large project within Thailand. Let's also assume that there were no maintenance glitches, no security breaches, no asleep-at-the-wheel scenarios, and (gasp) no radiation leaks. Then the 40 year lifetime of the reactor was reached. Would EGAT (Thailand's electricity corp) agree to simply close it down? No way. They'd figure, hey, we invested trillions of baht in this baby, it hasn't had a major problem in four decades, ...why quit a good thing?! So, they keep the reactor going, and then, one sleepy day, BOOM! the containment sarcofagus has a major breach. The wind happens to be blowing toward Phuket that day. The next day, it's found that there was no real insurance policy to cover the bazillion baht that will have to be paid out for damages.

It will make the tsunami damage look like a bad hair day in comparison.

As for spent fuel rods. Ever since nuclear reactors produced radioactive garbage, there's been problems with how best to deal with it. The US has probably the best solution: bury it deep within a secluded mountain - however even that comparatively best solution isn't quite good enough. What will Thailand do with spent fuel rods, sell 'em to the N.Koreans or Iranians to process in to something that makes a big bang? ...or have an unmarked truck dump them in bog beside a sleepy hamlet during the night? (not outlandish to people familiar with how things are really dealt with in Thailand).

[Spee]

Looking at the Build quality of the airport and crumbling runways.

A nuclear power plant in the Land of Kickbacks and corner-cutting. It's a scary thought

There is no margin for error in construction of a nuclear generating facility. It has to be built to last 30-40 years without failure.

Ok, let's assume a Thai nuclear reactor was very well built (by an outside construction outfit), with just a moderate amount of kickbacks, no-bid contracts, 100%+ cost overuns, construction delays, and such that would be expected with any large project within Thailand. Let's also assume that there were no maintenance glitches, no security breaches, no asleep-at-the-wheel scenarios, and (gasp) no radiation leaks. Then the 40 year lifetime of the reactor was reached. Would EGAT (Thailand's electricity corp) agree to simply close it down? No way. They'd figure, hey, we invested trillions of baht in this baby, it hasn't had a major problem in four decades, ...why quit a good thing?! So, they keep the reactor going, and then, one sleepy day, BOOM! the containment sarcofagus has a major breach. The wind happens to be blowing toward Phuket that day. The next day, it's found that there was no real insurance policy to cover the bazillion baht that will have to be paid out for damages.

It will make the tsunami damage look like a bad hair day in comparison.

As for spent fuel rods. Ever since nuclear reactors produced radioactive garbage, there's been problems with how best to deal with it. The US has probably the best solution: bury it deep within a secluded mountain - however even that comparatively best solution isn't quite good enough. What will Thailand do with spent fuel rods, sell 'em to the N.Koreans or Iranians to process in to something that makes a big bang? ...or have an unmarked truck dump them in bog beside a sleepy hamlet during the night? (not outlandish to people familiar with how things are really dealt with in Thailand).

Better adjust your slip, dear. Your ignorance is showing.

You're the ultimate hypocrite Brahms. You want half of the world's population to die and the other half to go back to living in a Stone Age cave dwelling. All except for you.

Sorry, this ain't Vegas, there ain't no middle to play. Quit being a hypocrite. Pick your poison .... take yourself back to the Stone Age or .....

Your do as I say not as I do view of the world ain't playin' here.

[brahmburgers]

Looking at the Build quality of the airport and crumbling runways.

A nuclear power plant in the Land of Kickbacks and corner-cutting. It's a scary thought

There is no margin for error in construction of a nuclear generating facility. It has to be built to last 30-40 years without failure.

Ok, let's assume a Thai nuclear reactor was very well built (by an outside construction outfit), with just a moderate amount of kickbacks, no-bid contracts, 100%+ cost overuns, construction delays, and such that would be expected with any large project within Thailand. Let's also assume that there were no maintenance glitches, no security breaches, no asleep-at-the-wheel scenarios, and (gasp) no radiation leaks. Then the 40 year lifetime of the reactor was reached. Would EGAT (Thailand's electricity corp) agree to simply close it down? No way. They'd figure, hey, we invested trillions of baht in this baby, it hasn't had a major problem in four decades, ...why quit a good thing?! So, they keep the reactor going, and then, one sleepy day, BOOM! the containment sarcofagus has a major breach. The wind happens to be blowing toward Phuket that day. The next day, it's found that there was no real insurance policy to cover the bazillion baht that will have to be paid out for damages.

It will make the tsunami damage look like a bad hair day in comparison.

As for spent fuel rods. Ever since nuclear reactors produced radioactive garbage, there's been problems with how best to deal with it. The US has probably the best solution: bury it deep within a secluded mountain - however even that comparatively best solution isn't quite good enough. What will Thailand do with spent fuel rods, sell 'em to the N.Koreans or Iranians to process in to something that makes a big bang? ...or have an unmarked truck dump them in bog beside a sleepy hamlet during the night? (not outlandish to people familiar with how things are really dealt with in Thailand).

Better adjust your slip, dear. Your ignorance is showing.

You're the ultimate hypocrite Brahms. You want half of the world's population to die and the other half to go back to living in a Stone Age cave dwelling. All except for you.

Sorry, this ain't Vegas, there ain't no middle to play. Quit being a hypocrite. Pick your poison .... take yourself back to the Stone Age or .....

Your do as I say not as I do view of the world ain't playin' here.

So, according to your logic, if I go off in the woods and kill myself, then I'm being true to my belief that humans are grossly overpopulating the world.

Did I mention anything about the Stone Age? No.

As for a simpler, cleaner, more sane way of doing things, yes that gets my approval.

Incidentally Spee, you didn't address any of my concerns regarding possible problems stemming from Thais building nuke plants. Does that mean you grudgingly agree with what I mentioned? So grudgingly, indeed, that you're compelled to call names and toss crud around in your mini tantrum.

Get yourself educated and, with as much objectivity as you can possibly apply, learn about what's going on at the vanguard of concentrated solar technology. It's in use today on large scale. In every way it's superior to nuclear. It's cheaper, cleaner, safer, and the efficiency factors are improving week by week. Some might say nuclear is cheaper, but when all the factors are looked at, solar is a much better deal.

Other factors include:

>>> inevitable cost overuns in building the site

>>> insurance

>>> price and transport of U, which all comes from overseas

>>> piracy of U shipments and/or insurgents targeting the N site.

>>> security

>>> maintenance

>>> environmental

>>> decommissioning the site

>>> dealing with spent rods and other radioactive garbage

[Sturbuc]

I'm a little bit scared thinking about such countries having nuclear power plants - scaring about any nukes.

Why don't they support Power-plants run by wind or sun? Plenty of that in TH and many roofs...

[brahmburgers]

Can you just imagine the state of (dis)repair a nuclear power plant in Thailand will be in after a few years of operation - you just need to look round you to see good examples - roads, bridges, and the railway - bloody hel_l what a disaster - how the trains stay on track is luck not good maintance everyday an accident waiting to happen.

The trains don't stay on track. Latest derailment, today.

I'm a little bit scared thinking about such countries having nuclear power plants - scaring about any nukes.

Why don't they support Power-plants run by wind or sun? Plenty of that in TH and many roofs...

Precisely. There are several reasons why Thailand (specifically EGAT) is so eager to go nuclear rather than opting for the much more sensible, cheaper, cleaner alternatives, .....here are some of the reasons. . . . . .

>>>> They want to join the nuclear club. They see neighboring countries, including Burma, move closer to nuclear, so Thailand doesn't want to be left out of the club.

>>>> Thais are not quick to catch on to new ideas. Fashion, music, food .....they're years/decades behind the eight ball. Thailand's leaders will show an interest in viable alternative ways to produce electricity in the future, after they've seen more progressive countries taking the lead. Thais won't be at the vanguard of adopting viable alternative power on a large scale. They'll follow, as they always have.

Unfortunately, they're in such a big hurry to go nuclear that, once they realize the sense of going with alternative power, they'll have already spent trillions of baht on U. So, they'll have no choice but to say, "sorry folks, we're all paid out now. Let's wait until the nuclear plants die, then maybe we can raise enough money to do it the right way next time."

>>>> Because nuclear is more expensive, and offers larger contracts, there are plum opportunities for graft pay-outs and no-bid contracts. Plus, there are graft opportunities for those getting involved with the fuel and its supply, in security operations, for disposing of nuclear waste, and for inevitable decommissioning of the plant - none of those concerns are an issue with alternatives (no fuel to buy, little security risks, no disposal of radioactive trash, and no decommissioning). Decommissioning leaves a fenced no-go dead zone lasting tens of thousands of years. Is that the legacy Thais want? Doubtful.

Edited December 18, 2009 by brahmburgers

[Bagwan]

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...

It is not a question of brainpower but that of a fund of knowledge of modern technology. Thailand can't even keep their trains on the track - or reasonably mobile.

[Bottlerocket]

There's a lot of people here who truly believe that it's safe, but that's your business. I wouldn't want to live close to a nuclear power facility. I can't blame the villagers for not wanting it built around them and I wish them the all the best in keeping it out of their communities if that's what they really want and need. It's ultimately up to the people who have to live around this thing. Accidents have occurred long before Chernobyl and have continued to the present. They are accidents that have had nothing to do with explosions, but the release of dangerous levels of radiation; many times with fatal results. A meltdown is one of the very last things you'd have to worry about and it seems the foremost concern in everyone's minds. Here's a list:

Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

[brahmburgers]

Sorry for the long technical post (lifted from Wikipedia), but it got me to realizing the large dimension of technical prowess that's required to safely operate something as complex as a nuclear power plant. Frankly, it's just not something that Thais are expected to be adept at, and one expects it will be Thais who will be operating the proposed plants. Much of the scenarios mentioned below (or glitches involving nuke plants) require quick thinking/acting along with technical expertise.

Perhaps not a fair comparison, but near my house there's a dam with eleven large gates operated pneumatically. Each gate has a telephone booth-sized operating room alongside. There's a window through which a maintenance person can see the dials (mostly pressure gauges). There are cobwebs throughout, doesn't look like the doors have been opened for years. Some gauges appear to be working, others are stuck at zero, or on numbers that appear off-kilter.

The incidents below mention some glitches at nuclear plants in the past years. Many of the glitches could have quickly become serious safety issues if they had not been dealt with quickly and expertly. Chernobyl in not mentioned, not sure why.

1975-03-22 0.200 Browns Ferry Unit 1 0 0 (ref NRC IE BULLETIN NO. - 75-04A) A fire broke out in Browns Ferry Unit 1, due to highly flammable material (urethane foam) accidentally used as firestopping that burnt the data cables between the reactor and the control room. The control room's supervisory control and data acquisition equipment was cut off from the reactor, however, heroic efforts by the plant staff made the reactor safe by manually actuating reactor depressurization valves and creatively initiating residual heat removal using a quaternary system never meant to be used for cooling: the control rod drive hydraulic pumps were aligned with the condensate storage tanks and used as a last-ditch manual coolant injection system.

1978-03-20 0.100 Rancho Seco 0 0 (ref LER 312/78-001) A loss of proper feedwater incident led to reactor trip and subsequently operators makeing an overestimate of secondary coolant in the steam generators, leading the steam generators to dry out, in an incident that served as a near-miss precursor to the Three Mile Island accident. HP ECC injected prior to core uncovery or damage, however. Ranco Seco was closed down prematurely after local ballot measure to that effect.

1977-09-24 0.070 Davis-Besse 0 0 (ref NRC LER 346/77-016) During a loss of proper feedwater incident, the power operated relief valve rapidly cycled between open and closed states, eventually leading to a stuck open power operated relief valve incident (in the classical fashion), and a consequent low water level in the steam generators, in another near-miss precursor to the Three Mile Island accident. HP ECC was injected prior to SG dryout, preventing full development of the situation.

1974-05-08 0.020 Turkey Point Unit 3 0 0 (ref NRC LER 250/74-LTR) No less than three auxiliary feedwater pumps failed to start when tested while the reactor was at power, due to improper maintenance, a highly suboptimal condition that could place the reactor at risk for further failures should an unscheduled contingent evolution occur.

1979-03-28 1.000 Three Mile Island Unit 2 0 ~1

Light water reactor core damage accident due to a combination of poor instrumentation design and operator error, along with the extremely common problem of stuck open power operated relief valves, Unit 2 at Three Mile Island suffered a loss of coolant accident compounded by operator mistakes that resulted in core damage. A loss of proper feedwater incident occurred and the reactor tripped; a stuck open power operated relief valve incident occurred (in the classical fashion); operators failed to isolate the PORV, inhibited auxiliary coolant pumps, and inhibited HP ECC due to a misinterpretation of instrument readings. Core uncovery and subsequent core damage were the inevitable consequences; after cohesive debris bed formation and consolidation (with zircalloy-induced coolant disassociation through reactive autocatalysis), operators found the gamma alarm going off, finally correctly assessed the situation and injected all available HP and LP ECC and AFW into the core at maximum rate, preventing melt-through of the RPV, though causing a FCI and subsequent deflagration event due to autocatalysis of coolant. Though no persons were immediately killed or injured, science estimates that perhaps 1 person will die before their normal age of death due to radiation-induced cancer caused by non-condensible gasses.

1985-06-09 0.010 Davis-Besse 0 0 Due to a loss of proper feedwater at power, combined with a stuck open power operated relief valve incident (in the classical fashion). This was compounded by operator errors in inhibiting auxiliary feedwater to the steam generators, leading to the reactor being placed in a dangerous state. However, operators rapidly realized that the PORV was stuck open, and correctly isolated it, eventually recovered auxiliary feedwater, and injected ECC at maximum rate.

1978-11-27 0.010 Salem Unit 1 0 0 A transformer failure led to a Main Bus 1B undervolt. As such, false signals were sent to control equipment tripping the reactor, and several AFW pumps were unavailable. ECC was incorrectly injected, leading to low coolant temperature in the reactor, and consequently further ECC injection.

1976-07-20 0.010 Millstone Unit 2 0 0 Due to a low voltage on offsite power (brownout), when a main circulator started, the reactor tripped due to the offsite voltage dipping below the high undervoltage setpoint and causing bus isolation, and subsequently loss of offsite power. Further, due to the high undervoltage setpoint, whenever a load was connected to the emergency diesel generators, the emergency diesel generators tripped due to undervolt conditions on them. As such, effective station blackout was threatened, a highly suboptimal condition that could place the reactor at risk for further failures should an unscheduled contingent evolution occur.

1975-04-29 0.009 Brunswick Unit 2 0 0 A stuck open power operated relief valve incident occurred, RCIC failed inoperable, HPCI failed to run due to high water level in torus, and half of RHR failed to activate. The reactor tripped due to MSIV closure rather than the reactor operators triggering a manual trip, as they should have done.

1981-04-19 0.007 Brunswick Unit 1 0 0 RHR was seriously damaged due to the failure of a baffle while the unit was in cold shutdown, while the other half of RHR was under routine maintenance. As such, decay heat could not be removed by RHR and alternate channels had to be used.

2002-02-27 0.006 Davis-Besse 0 0 Contractor incompetence in cleaning boric acid deposits from the reactor pressure vessel head led to extreme corrosion by leaving only a thin layer of Inconel standing between the 2400 psi pressure of the primary cooling system and the 14 psi atmospheric pressure containment. The possibility of a loss of pressure control or a LOCA was greatly elevated while this fault remained undiscovered. The reactor pressure vessel head consequently had to be replaced in toto.

1991-04-03 0.006 Harris Unit 1 0 0 It was determined that HP ECC had been unavailable for at least one refueling cycle due to a series of compounded failures in ECC. This represented a suboptimal condition that could place the reactor at risk for further failures should an unscheduled contingent evolution occur.

1983-02-25 0.005 Salem Unit 1 0 0 Automatic reactor trip failed in two separate circumstances several days apart. Though manual trip worked upon operator actuation, failure to automatically trip - a highly suboptimal condition - could place the reactor at risk for further failures should an unscheduled contingent evolution - such as a low reactor period incident - develop during post-critical ascension to power from cold shutdown.

1981-01-02 0.005 Millstone Unit 2 0 0 Partial loss of offsite power due to operator error, along with an emergency diesel generator trip due to operator error, leading to a partial station blackout. Further operator errors caused the power operated relief valve to be opened at 2380 psi, leading to primary system blowdown into the containment building.

1980-02-26 0.005 Crystal River Unit 3 0 0 Thermal-hydraulic instrumentation lost power and failed due to a short to ground. The power operated relief valve opened and stuck open (in the classical fashion), operators correctly injected HP ECC, and properly did not stop because insufficient data justified inhibiting ECC and risking PZR dryout. The PZR was pumped solid, the reactor coolant tank consequently backed up and eventually the rupture disk on it ruptured, and 43,000 gallons of primary water fell into the containment sump; this created a mess.

1978-03-25 0.005 Farley Unit 1 0 0 Low water levels in a steam generator led auxiliary feedwater to be called upon to function; it did not function when called upon to function. Other ECC channels were used that worked.

1977-12-11 0.005 Davis-Besse 0 0 It was discovered that auxiliary feedwater was not available during a routine test due to blown fuses and a mechanical binding in the governor of the pumps, a suboptimal condition that could place the reactor at risk for further failures should an unscheduled contingent evolution occur.

1975-11-05 0.005 Kewaunee 0 0 Auxiliary feedwater pumps were fouled due to resin beads that migrated from the demineralizer into the condensate storage tank, and thus failed to start. Alternate channels were used to cover for this loss of auxiliary feedwater. This represented a suboptimal condition that could place the reactor at risk for further failures should an unscheduled contingent evolution occur.

1974-04-07 0.005 Point Beach Unit 1 0 0 Auxiliary feedwater pumps had plugged filters and did not provide adequate flow during shutdown.

1994-09-17 0.003 Wolf Creek Unit 1 0 0 Operators did not follow instructions and implemented two unpermitted simultaneous evolutions, leading to water inventory transfer from the reactor coolant system to the refueling water storage tank. Operators immediately mitigated the condition, but a temperature spike of 4oC was detected prior to the termination of the evolution.

1986-06-13 0.003 Catawba Unit 1 0 0 The design basis SBLOCA occurred at the chemical and volume control system and component cooling water heat exchanger joint, due to the failure of a variable letdown orifice outlet flange due to cavitation-induced vibration. ECC injected successfully and the SBLOCA was contained within the design basis.

1978-04-13 0.003 Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 0 0 Loss of offsite power occurred, and one of the two emergency diesel generators failed to start.

1981-06-24 0.002 Davis-Besse 0 0 Bus E2 undervolt occurred due to to maintenance error during control rod drive logic testing, and the reactor tripped. One auxiliary feedwater pump failed to start, and a main steam safety relief valve opened and stuck open (in the classical fashion).

1979-05-02 0.002 Oyster Creek 0 0

1977-07-12 0.002 Zion Unit 2 0 0

1986-12-27 0.001 Turkey Point Unit 3 0 0 Turbine trip occurred due to loss of governor oil pressure, reactor automatic trip failed, and manual trip had to be initiated. Consequently, a stuck open power operated relief valve incident occurred (in the classical fashion).

1980-06-11 0.001 St. Lucie Unit 1 0 0

1980-04-19 0.001 Davis-Besse 0 0 Two essential electrical buses were lost, the decay heat drop line valve was shut, and air was drawn into the suction of the decay heat removal pumps, leading to the loss of decay heat removal.

1979-06-03 0.001 Hatch Unit 2 0 0

1977-08-31 0.001 Cooper 0 0

1971-01-12 0.001 Point Beach Unit 1 0 0 Containment sump [[power operated relief valve|power operated relief valves] were discovered to be leaky, and operators operated the valves to exercise and dislodge them. The valves opened and one remained open, even when operators commanded it to close, representing a stuck open power operated relief valve incident (in the classical fashion).

[animatic]

I am all for it.

Build it in the deep south.

Sell the excess electricity to the neighbouring countries.

As a bonus; If anyone decides to blow it up, it will ultimately resolve the extremist situation.

Only downside; We would be short of electricity again.

But it would also dissolve Phuket, Krabi and Samui the same day.

Generally not considered prudent to put Nuke facilities

over seismic faults and in terrorist zones of activity...

The fact that so many people equate possible Nuclear Power Plant problems to Hiroshima type atomic explosions shows how truly ignorant they are. The worst that could happen is radiation contamination of the surrounding area. Not entire cities and provinces being blown to bits .. or "dissolved" There was no 2 kilometer wide "hole" at Chernobyl. When the rods of uranium pellets go critical .. they just melt .. and release a lot of radiation .. they don't explode. No mushroom clouds .. end of story.

Ok you want to be an asshol_e and show what a jerk you are by sending me little messages calling me an IDIOT.....educate yourself on the facts....and it will be clear who was the idiot was on this matter! If you find any evidence making it clear that Nuclear Power is not the safest and cleanest feesible form of human generated power as of 12/09 I would love to see it. In the meantime you can use this fact report as colon probe!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

I most certainly know the difference between Hiroshima and Chernoble type nuclear incidents.

So just because I used 'Dissolve' in metaphorical fashion doesn't give license to call me ignorant....

Most damage from nuclear blasts was to the surrounding population's longevity,

and not so much those who went instantly. Possibly the luckier ones, compared to lingering for decades.

Chernoble essentially left a big hole, surrounded by a don't go area of gigantic proportions.

No "mushroom clouds" just toxic/radioactive clouds that killed off many things down wind for 100's of km

and ruined most of the region for decades to come.

Another stupidity happened in the USA to back in the day. Most people on one or two western movies

shot on location died early from lung cancers caused by being down wind from above ground nuclear testing,

John Wayne and Agnes Morehead included, by many accounts in those rare cancer clusters. Then the army caught on.

To imagine that maintenance will meet specs, and no graft during construction will happen here is

way to far a stretch of logic, having leved here a good spell.

So depending on the winds Samui to Krabi would be just as likely to be

removed/dissolved from Thai civilization and profitability as the actual Nuke plant site.

Edited December 20, 2009 by animatic

[churchill]

Can nuclear solve the global water crisis?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...ter-crisis.html

[animatic]

Can nuclear solve the global water crisis?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbys...ter-crisis.html

Could speed it up appreciably, evaporate most of the water and bye bye humanity.

Well we don't really need nuclear to power reverse osmosis water purification machines.

Get the salt out and more water is afvvailable, but it cost to do it...

All comes down to money really.