Nuclear Power Plants

[iioalone]

In my opinion, nuclear power plants should be built in Thailand for three reasons.

First, nuclear power plants are clean energy. In the production of heat, nuclear power plants don’t release poisonous gases to the environment. And they produce less waste. Second, nuclear power plants cost less. The resource for nuclear power plant is uranium which is not expensive. Thirty tons of uranium per year can make one thousand mega watts from nuclear power plant.

Finally, the resources for nuclear power plants are efficient. For example, one ton of uranium produce electric energy more forty million kilo watts per hour. Currently, we found a lot of uranium in more twenty countries. For example, there are Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan.

In conclusion, I think Thailand should have nuclear power plants because nuclear power plants are clean energy and the resources for them are support to make a lot of energies. How do you think?

[GuestHouse]

Regarding the emission of poisonous gasses - may I remind you of Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, it might also be instructive to look into the 'half life' of the radioactive material leaked/poured into the environment during those two disasters and the geographical spread of the contamination.

Other 'Civilian' Nuclear accidents are recorded here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil...clear_accidents

What else?

Let's consider the technological dependency issues:

Nuclear Energy for Thailand would require the import of very expensive technology, equipment, technologists - a huge investment of national resources buying in a technology - Could the money be spent elsewhere?

Local Technologies:

Thailand's energy policy has yet to consider a number of 'off the shelf' energy technologies that are in the fist instance relatively cheap and secondly have the potential to be adopted by and stimulate the small to intermediate business sector (which is so characteristic of the dynamism of Thai commercial society).

Why is it that in a nation with such high daily sunshine we find electric water heaters sold in any number of stores where as solar water heaters are almost impossible to find (and when found totally over priced in terms of the materials they use - often several times as expensive as a far more complicated air conditioner)?

Why is it that passive insulation methods (popular in expat homes - reflective film under roofs being an example) are not more widely applied?

Why do Thai building codes not address heat and energy consumption - Thais build houses with windows that allow huge percentages of received solar energy to pass into homes and offices, while spending significant amounts of money on reflective film to keep heat out of their cars)?

Where are the photo electric cells to take advantage of all the sunshine?

These are all off the shelf energy solutions that are absolutely suited to providing/saving energy while generating growth in small businesses

Well of course the answer is, who gives a flying F' about solving energy problems with off the shelf solutions and stimulating the small to medium business sector when there are big bucks waiting to grease political palms if Thailand agrees to buy Nuclear solution A rather than B or C or D.

And there's another factor ..... Food.

There are two commodities that the world is going to run very short of in the near to mid future - Water and Food. Thailand has both in abundance.

Rather than going down this road of the latest technological answer to our ills, Thailand should think long and hard about the value of Branding Thailand as a Natural and Wholesome food source.

Last, but by no means least - Good governance, or the lack there of - Take a look at Map Tha Phut.

Now before you start bitching about the Greenies ruining Thai business, the Thai economy etc.

Consider this.

For at least 20 years to my knowledge the Map Tha Phut Industrial Area has been plagued with Industrial Pollution, one problem after another covered up or swept under the carpet.

That's 20 years of mismanagement and hiding the very serious problems of industrial pollution - Now it's come to a head and the reaction is "let's modify the law to be able to continue/get rid of the Greens/get rid of the Judges/get rid of the Government ...... anything but solve the problem.

And it is into that culture of denial, mismanagement and blame avoidance that we are considering adding Nuclear Processes......

You must need your head testing!

[markm]

I agree on your view of nuclear technology, but there's just one small problem....

Thai mentality regards safety and the entire issue of not admitting there could be a problem as it's perceived as "loss of face".

The Thai government would not have the highly skilled nuclear workers from overseas maintaining the stations and keeping it running safely, but entrusting the operation to a Thai boss who will hire anyone he can get as cheaply as possible. The Thai people will consider it *their* project, and it'll be run *their* way without falang interference once they've had a few meetings with the falang experts to devise the inital concept.

The government won't know or care about the way the nuclear power stations are built and run, only that's it's a project that raises their social standing among their peers until things go boom in a very bad way and by then, it'll be too late.

[GuestHouse]

Nuclear Technology meets 'Mai Bpen Rai'.

Nuff said!

[mumbojumbo]

I agree on your view of nuclear technology, but there's just one small problem....

Thai mentality regards safety and the entire issue of not admitting there could be a problem as it's perceived as "loss of face".

The Thai government would not have the highly skilled nuclear workers from overseas maintaining the stations and keeping it running safely, but entrusting the operation to a Thai boss who will hire anyone he can get as cheaply as possible. The Thai people will consider it *their* project, and it'll be run *their* way without falang interference once they've had a few meetings with the falang experts to devise the inital concept.

The government won't know or care about the way the nuclear power stations are built and run, only that's it's a project that raises their social standing among their peers until things go boom in a very bad way and by then, it'll be too late.

Get real, they would be built, run, and maintained by a foreign company, just like the hydro-electric dams in Thailand.

[thunder30101]

I think most peple sell the thais short in being able to implement new technologies including nuclear power, but as has been said they wouldnt run the plants for years if ever. What off the shelf technologies are you talking about ??? oh yes wind and solar only good in pipe dreams and gov subsidies so far. Passive insulation yeah expats can afford it same with solar cells( guess you have never priced any, let alone the batts and controllers to go with those expensive cells) but not the average thai. Building codes ? what are those lol. Chernobyl ? Do you even know what happened there ? it wasnt the reactors fault, same with 3 mile, and those are 1st generation plants nothing compared to todays 3rd gen systems. Im sorry my friend but the world needs energy today NOT tomorrow in large ever increasing amounts and nuclear is the only way to get that amount in the foreseeable future without burning more coal or gas.

[PhilHarries]

Well before launching into the constuction of expensive nuclear power stations there is two aspects Thailand needs to get to grips with and that is energy conservation and frugality (for want of better word). GH has touched on conservation but far too much energy is just wasted in Thailand. It's not only Thailand, recently they conducted a survey of larger shops in central London and found a very high proportion with inside temperatures hotter than some tropical holiday destinations. This was only last week and outside air temperatures were just above freezing and then to compound the waste these stores had their front doors WIDE OPEN! Same thing in reverse in Thailand, who hasn't stepped into a shopping mall from the tropical heat to be met with a wall of Arctic temperatures? Who hasn't sat shivering through a movie with the air temperature just a little above absolute zero (well it seems that cold)?

But no, the quality of any shop or restaurant is inversely proportional to the air temperature inside. Your neighbours are impressed by single figure air temperatures in your house.

How about having fewer lights illuminating these monuments to rampant consumerism? How about turning lights OFF in unoccupied rooms?

How about people walking to the shops? Sorry, I realise apart from the fact that doesn't consume electricity there's more chance of me walking on Mars than a Thai walking to the shop, unless it is next door.

But to get back to the nuclear question, if you believe that global warming is a direct effect of burning fossil fuels then the whole world is going to have to go nuclear in a big way. Anything less and the figures they are talking about for reduction in CO₂ are just so much hot air (pun intended). Renewable resources are still a long way from being a serious contender for energy production, for now they are just a novelty to shut the Greens up. But that's no excuse for totally ignoring the contribution solar power can make to a place like Thailand.

btw I don't subscribe to the notion that the Thais are any less able to run a nuclear power station than the Americans or French, I am deliberately leaving the Russians out, because they can do it with the right supervision.

[noahvail]

Kudos to our newbie. She's managed to start a topic in a way that brought out diverse opinions. Her method of writing reminded me of debating teams in school: take a position, support it, bring it to a conclusion, and turn it over for discussion. Well done!

[GuestHouse]

Thunder, you seem to equate alternative technology with Government Subsidy while ignoring the 'Billions' that would have to be thrown at implementing Nuclear Energy.

You ought also to consider the impact of taxation regimes and other government policies on the cost of energy solutions.

Building Codes, well at least you admit you don't know what they are.

As for Chernobyl or the Disaster at 3 Mile Island - you miss the point. It is not the causes of the disasters but the consequences that matter.

But you seem to be self assured on this subject, so I'm guessing an expertise in the Design, Construction, Commissioning, Operation, Maintenance and let's not forget Decommissioning of these plants.

[PattayaParent]

Having worked on a couple of projects in Thailand that had major incidents due to local operators deciding that kin khao was more important than completing their task I would say forget it.

But on the other hand it would keep me gainfully employed for a good few years.

[Beardog]

There are obvious factors to consider building a high tech plant. for one Thailand is not known to be good at upkeep. look at the railroad has not been rebuilt for what 50- 70 years In the U.S. these engines are in museums. The electrical work is atrocious & I truly doubt most of the so called engineers can really wire a reactor properly or keep it from breaking apart at the seams. Lets for a minute examine Swamy. When the so called qualified electricians burned up near 1/3 of the new airport because of lack of real degrees in engineering & no a 2 year degree does not make you a master of Jack! Russia has far more money than Thailand & had the worst meltdown in history.

The real question is Thailand responsible enough to handle the responsibility of something as dangerous as a nuke reactor. If they build a reactor like they build a house here god help us. We will all glow in the dark.

I think India would be a lot more consciences & technological advanced for such an undertaking.

Here true they can crack a code on computer programs but the viruses or Trojans still come with it.

It is a matter of point of view but in my not so humble opinion it would be as beneficial as making pipe bombs with farmer head matchsticks.....................Russian roulette anyone 5 in the chamber 1 empty! Better they should upgrade their rickety train system & leave the Nuclear reactors to the western world. I would also be skeptical even if it was farang run they would run out of funds & Do the old fibber Mgee on it. Shortcuts work great on saving money.More for the Blue pipe fund stashed with baht notes that never seamed to make it into building the reactor. Or maybe they would save a buck & buy some factory seconds steel from china Guaranteed to break apart. Kinda Like the houses . Use 10% materials in building the structure & put more in your pocket.

And the last part of my argument would be in a wind up debate is who would oversee that it was done properly . The Government?

I highly doubt they have one lone soul that could check to make sure that the job is done right. Unless they hired Naam or someone with REAL credentials & a total non Government position to line their pockets with the copious amounts of funds that would be crossing palms.

In a country that everyone can do & most of the knowledge is passed on from their Papas & Grandpas I don't believe that Nuclear is even a word they know. If it were so England The U.S. Australia & all of Europe would be hiring the high tech workers in the west. Here I think they have to learn to crawl before walking not running when born.

A novel idea would be to spend the monies on how to fix all the existing problems wars flooding etc.

True as Soutpeel pointed out in a previous post accidents occur in even western cultures , but I would hardly consider Thailand responsible enough to handle a project of this magnitude. What would they do Mai pen rai as we all die( as in the Rayong company that has been poisoning the residents for years.)

Things that make you go HMMM or as Homer Simpson would say DOH!!!!!

[colinscarr]

There's nothing inherantly unsafe about the idea of using nuclear fission to generate electricity. Yes, I know the No.3 RBMK reactor at Chernobyl melted down, but that was because of both a design fault (the bottom 100 cms of the contol rods were made of carbon), and a harebrained experiment which was quite unnecessarily rushed.

But, human nature (at least in the present day) has a nasty habit of cutting corners on building and operating systems in order to dishonestly line a few pockets. (It was also a major factor at Chernobyl.)

But what about the other options? Coal/gas/oil fired power stations produce huge amounts of CO2. Coal mining is dangerous and kills hundreds if not thousands of miners every year.

Wind power works where there are fairly strong breezes and you can erect big wind turbines, but what happens in calm weather? The lights go out. Wave and tidal power MAY be a partial solution for countries with a coast, but so far little seems to be happening beyond small scale experiments.

Solar power? Well, in warm climates you can store water outside in a black painted tank for your hot showers, but photovoltaic cells are expensive if you were thinking of producing electricity.

So for now, I'd go for frugality. Cut down on air conditioner usage, turn off lights you don't need, use the car a bit less and walk or cycle a bit more.

No I haven't solved the problem, I know. All I've done is suggested a way to stretch our existing resources out for a bit longer. But even then, human nature says most people won't bother to be frugal...

[bkkjames]

Kudos to our newbie. She's managed to start a topic in a way that brought out diverse opinions. Her method of writing reminded me of debating teams in school: take a position, support it, bring it to a conclusion, and turn it over for discussion. Well done!

Yes and if she took the time to look in the newsclipping section, she would have found 8 pages of this debate already.. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thai-Nuclear...5&start=175

[Credo]

I am a proponent of nuclear energy, but I have serious reservations about Thailand having it. When you look at what is happening Ma Ta Phut, the idea of a nuclear plant here is really quite scary. The lack of zoning means they might build it next to a housing estate or conversely, sell the land for housing development next to the power plant. I am afraid GuestHouse is correct:

"Nuclear Technology meets 'Mai Bpen Rai'."

[PhilHarries]

The bitter truth is even if Thailand needed a nuclear power plant urgently the technology would have evolved throught several cycles before they even decide where to build it. It took them 30 years to build a new <deleted>' airport and this in a country where public enquiries have never been heard of.

By the time Thailand gets to go nuclear hel_l will have frozen over.

Mai bpen rai.

[Beardog]

Hopefully your right Phil or at least till we are all dead & gone When they know how to use a square they are only 100 years away from being engineers!

I had cancer & beat it it was no joyride. I can just imagine the Mai pen rai as we all go to hel_l in a handbasket. & I would rather see them go to green energy .Plenty of wind to harness here. The Govn. alone could keep the wind turbines turning.

[DP25]

Of course they should build nuclear power plants, hopefully several of them. They've already been running a nuclear reactor since the 1960s, time to get a power plant going.

[LooseCannon]

From the EGAT "Thailand Power Development 2008-2021" the first proposed thermal nuclear power plant (1000MW) will come online in January 2020 & the second one (1000MW) in January 2021.

To get this into perspective the current total capacity (December 2008) is approx 29,000MW. The projected total capacity at the end of 2021 is approx 51,700MW.

During this time period there will be...

14 new gas fired power stations generating approx 15,000MW & 5 coal fired plants generating approx 4,000MW

new VSPP's (Very Small Power Plant) which includes waste-to-energy, biomass, biogas, wind energy, solar energy, small hydropower, generating approx 1,000MW

Hydro sourced mostly from Laos approx 1,800MW

new cogeneration (high efficiency gas/coal burning) power plants approx 1,600MW

Power purchased from neighbouring countries (not including hydro from Laos) approx 3,600MW

Why does Thailand need to build nuclear power stations?

Energy security - diversification to various fuel types - the same reason that other countries have\desire a mix of conventional, renewable & nuclear for power generation. All countries try to minimize their dependence on any one supply chain for their energy requirements.

The supreme arrogance & ignorance of some Thai Visa members always rears it's sad little head in these types of discussion.

Thais can't be trusted blah blah blah mai pen rai blah blah blah ad nauseum

Anybody willing to present an intelligent argument as to why Thailand should not have nuclear power plants without resorting to the usual puerile catchphrases?

[Brunus]

The supreme arrogance & ignorance of some Thai Visa members always rears it's sad little head in these types of discussion.

Thais can't be trusted blah blah blah mai pen rai blah blah blah ad nauseum

Anybody willing to present an intelligent argument as to why Thailand should not have nuclear power plants without resorting to the usual puerile catchphrases?

I didn't write anything so far so I know you are not referring to me.

I'll give you 3 reasons why I think Thailand should not have a nuclear plant.

1)It's not a clean energy, you have radioactive waste.

2) This country is blessed with sunlight all year long. I think solar energy should be considered first (I mean big investment in solar energy)

3) I am Italian. In Italy we don't have nuclear plants. And I would be scared if we had 1, because Mafia or corrupted politicians could make the plant unsafe (using law quality materials, dispose the radioactive waste not in a proper way, etc.). Recently it has been discovered at the bottom of the sea a big ship full of toxic wasted. Mafia put those on the ship and sank it. It's an Italian attitude.

The same way I am scared of the mai pen rai Thai attitude, Thai corruption, worrying to lose face in case of mistake, etc. In Italy as in Thailand we have many example of how these factors can create problems (example BKK airport, or many people died in Italy for a small earthquake because the materials used for the buildings were not good).

Edited December 15, 2009 by Brunus

[GuestHouse]

Anybody willing to present an intelligent argument as to why Thailand should not have nuclear power plants without resorting to the usual puerile catchphrases?

May I refer you to #2 above.

[GuestHouse]

Responsible handing of Radioactive waste is also an issue...... Cobalt 60 Dumped in Bangkok Car Park

-------

A very sound argument against the Nuclear Industry in Thailand is the lack of Transparency, not just in the Contractual Bidding (where huge sums of money are changing hands) but also in the failure of Thailand to hold real open public debate and the suppression of environmental/community advocacy groups or individuals advocating for the environment/communities.

SIXTEEN Environmental Activists Murdered during the Thaksin administration

[PhilHarries]

Of course they should build nuclear power plants, hopefully several of them. They've already been running a nuclear reactor since the 1960s, time to get a power plant going.

Since 1977 actually, a bit of a hair split admittedly.

Thailand's TRIGA reactor.

TRIGA is a class of small nuclear reactor designed and manufactured by General Atomics of the USA. TRIGA is an acronym of "Training, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics".

TRIGA is a pool-type reactor that can be installed without a containment building, and is designed for use by scientific institutions and universities for purposes such as undergraduate and graduate education, private commercial research, non-destructive testing and isotope production.

The TRIGA reactor uses uranium-zirconium-hydride (UZrH) fuel, which has a large, prompt negative thermal coefficient of reactivity, meaning that as the temperature of the core increases, the reactivity rapidly decreases — so it is highly unlikely, though not impossible for a meltdown to occur. TRIGA was originally designed to be fuelled with highly enriched uranium, but in 1978 the U.S. Department of Energy launched its Reduced Enrichment for Research Test Reactors program, which promoted reactor conversion to low-enriched uranium fuel.

The TRIGA was developed to be a reactor that, in the words of Frederic de Hoffmann, head of General Atomics, was designed to be "safe even in the hands of a young graduate student."

Source : Wikipedia.

There's a world of difference between a research reactor of this type and a commercial power generating reactor.

But yes, strictly speaking, Thailand has nuclear experience but, contrary to LooseCannon's (what an apt nickname) assertions we are, oe me at least, not sying Thailand is not technically capable of operating such a plant. Even if the design and construction were to be totally supervised by international authorities the real loose cannons, as opposed to our very own loose peashooter, are the Thai politicians who would be unable to keep their greasy hands off the plant.

But the real question has to be does Thailand really need it? If LC's figures are to be believed, and I've no time to check them, then nuclear is expected to provide 2,000 MW out of a total of 52,000 MW or about 4%. Anyone going to tell me that can't be achieved by conservation measures?

[neverdie]

I guess if Homer Simpson can sit in the control tower of a Neclear Power Plant then Somchai can probably do it as well .

[Beardog]

From the EGAT "Thailand Power Development 2008-2021" the first proposed thermal nuclear power plant (1000MW) will come online in January 2020 & the second one (1000MW) in January 2021.

To get this into perspective the current total capacity (December 2008) is approx 29,000MW. The projected total capacity at the end of 2021 is approx 51,700MW.

During this time period there will be...

14 new gas fired power stations generating approx 15,000MW & 5 coal fired plants generating approx 4,000MW

new VSPP's (Very Small Power Plant) which includes waste-to-energy, biomass, biogas, wind energy, solar energy, small hydropower, generating approx 1,000MW

Hydro sourced mostly from Laos approx 1,800MW

new cogeneration (high efficiency gas/coal burning) power plants approx 1,600MW

Power purchased from neighbouring countries (not including hydro from Laos) approx 3,600MW

Why does Thailand need to build nuclear power stations?

Energy security - diversification to various fuel types - the same reason that other countries have\desire a mix of conventional, renewable & nuclear for power generation. All countries try to minimize their dependence on any one supply chain for their energy requirements.

The supreme arrogance & ignorance of some Thai Visa members always rears it's sad little head in these types of discussion.

Thais can't be trusted blah blah blah mai pen rai blah blah blah ad nauseum

Anybody willing to present an intelligent argument as to why Thailand should not have nuclear power plants without resorting to the usual puerile catchphrases?

Loosecannon Have you ever had a house built in Thailand? Have you ever seen a slag hammer to chip off the excess carbon waste from the steel so they can inspect their work. How about welding hoods 150 baht sunglasses.

Hand a framing square to most construction workers & they scratch there heads.

The common sense portion of the lowdown. So if the workmanship is not absolutely perfect you are in an accident waiting to happen ....No. I wouldn't even let my welders do any fabrication on auto frames without 2 years of proof that they can do a structural weld. There is no room for mistakes in building reactors. This isn't a garbage truck that you send back to fix the fractures in the steel. I think you are really making light of a critical situation & are discounting people that are in the oil trade that do in fact do structural work & know the consequences when they fck up. I think I am therefore i can do is good in an old Moody blue tune but lacks weight in reality.

And as guesthouse pointed out Mexico had the same problem with Cobalt 60 when a worker saved the cost of dumping the radioactive waste in a undesignated area that was so unsafe he & his loved ones croaked along with the contamination it causes. I am sorry I just do not see Thailand as a whole( A place where they don't even throw garbage in a can instead in any area started as a dump site would be a responsible candidate for something as dangerous as something Radioactive. With their track record with hazardous waste linked to carcinogenics recently in Rayong , you got to wonder. Even in the U.S. they polluted some of the great lakes & had to spend many years of cleanup. If they were to have a meltdown crisis who would pay for it? The news story would be snuffed just as the reporters that put out the story. Ordinarily I would agree with you on the usual snivel & drivel on TV, but common This is serious stuff your talking about. I don't think I want Somchai the I think I can do man to do an engineers job that was a soup kitchen cook & paid his way for engineering papers.

Besides what is wrong with safe methods of energy. Plenty of sun for solar & lots of wind to harness for electricity.

At least if the turbines croak the most they lose is 50-60 years of power they would have had if they would break & pay the upkeep on the equipment. Baby steps first. Prove they can fix the ailing infrastructure(Especially the railroad ---- Royal garden mall upgrade 300 million baht- the entire fleet of ancient engines & cars in the railroad 100 million baht.) would not buy 2 locomotives new in the U.S. And the bottom line is I am not Thai & I don't think you are so our point of view is totally mute.

But the point of a debate is more than one side. I respect your views & can only hope you can respect others. No one needs to get upset as it is not our problem yet.

For me I like to see action with my own eyes & from the almost 6 years I see Thailand as a technologically challenged country that needs massive education- starting with teaching the kids not to throw trash into the street & burn rubber tires & batteries because it is more convenient than dumping them in the nearest Klong.And it could rightfully be argued that the west is lax in pollution as well, but the government is a hel_l of a lot stronger & for the most part would not accept tea money so the company could save some baht. & I believe having gone through years of trade training you earn your degree & it is not up for negotiation, here ha sip ha sip. And I really do like Thailand. I just do not think they are ready for this big of an upgrade.

I wish it was different, But even in Indonesia if you get caught dumping trash in anything but a trash receptacle you get fined. here the heat discards waste as they tool down the road. So when it comes to nuclear waste I would be a little scared especially if they dropped the ball on me & told me they were going to build the plant next to my property. I wouldn't consider most of the posters as you call it puerile catchphrases when dealing with such a potentially dangerous undertaking. That & most of the workers I see work more than one shift. I want someone with both eyes open & not exhausted from 2 shifts & 2 bottles of Mekong after work.At least with wind turbines the death would be confined to a few. The flooding in the south could be used well in Hydroelectric plants as well.

Not flaming you please don't get pissed!

Edited December 15, 2009 by Beardog

[Brunus]

I guess if Homer Simpson can sit in the control tower of a Neclear Power Plant then Somchai can probably do it as well .

Yeah. And if Homer says "doh" when he makes a mistake, Somchai would say "arrai wha?" and scratch his head

Edited December 15, 2009 by Brunus

[DP25]

Since 1977 actually, a bit of a hair split admittedly.

That's when the current reactor went online, but it was their second one. Their first reactor operated from 1962 to 1975.

[LooseCannon]

Anybody willing to present an intelligent argument as to why Thailand should not have nuclear power plants without resorting to the usual puerile catchphrases?

May I refer you to #2 above.

May I refer you to #4 above.

Moving on - lets have a look at your alternatives....

Solar - centralized photovoltaic (PV) & concentrated solar panels (CSP) - solar power stations - largely experimental & with the current technology the efficiency is poor & complex which makes the cost prohibitive, totally unsuitable for a country like Thailand. Requires large amount of land area & obviously cannot be used for base power requirements.

From ESMP/World Bank 2008, IEA 2008 generating cost $/kw -

PV: $0.40

CSP: $0.30

Natural Gas: $0.06

Nuclear: $0.08

Residential solar panels - cost prohibitive for the majority of Thais unless heavily subsidised by the government (not viable due to cost).

1.2kW system (enough to power 5 compact flouros, 4-star energy efficiency rated 250L fridge, microwave & a medium sized tv) comprising panels & inverter approx AUD$5000 (B150,000). With 'feed in tariff' the costs can be offset against power drawn from the grid.

There are a number of variations of the 'feed in tariff' used in different countries & all require the 'feed in tariff' to be at a certain level for the system to be cost effective (@ B24 per kWh for 15 years). The rate is always greater than the costs for the power company to generate the equivalent amount from their conventional gas or coal fired power stations - so there are some massive subsidies coming from somewhere - but ultimately somebody will pay for it- you, me & all the others who think they are getting something for nothing.

If you want to run an air-conditioner the cost of upsizing increases to approx AUD$17000 (B510,000) for a 6kW system.

These are 'feel good' solutions that are just not going to happen in Thailand for the immediate future.

Insulation - Bradford Gold R6.0 High Performance ceiling batts (R6.0 highest level of insulation) will keep your house approx 10% cooler in summer. Coverage 4.5m2 @ AUD$66 (B2,000) - not very cost effective for your average Thai house as once the concrete & brick work reach the ambient temperature that is were they stay, with a small decrease at night. Of course if you close all doors & windows & run an air-conditioner you might save 10% on your power bill.

Reflective film/tinted windows - all doors & windows closed then run the air-conditioner flat out - cheap option but does nothing to address the over use of air-conditioners.

Electric hot water heaters/solar hot water - if there is a market they will come - I am sure with "the dynamism of Thai commercial society" some enterprising individual will fill the void.

"Why do Thai building codes not address heat and energy consumption" - be careful what you wish for. If something has merit & can be shown to be cost effective no government regulation forcing individuals to comply is necessary.

Over the next 10 - 15 years the demand for energy in countries like Thailand is going to skyrocket & renewable energy is just not going to be able to provide it. There are only two viable choices at this point in time - continue burning fossil fuels at a greatly increased rate or make use of nuclear power.

As far as nuclear power goes it is regarded as being very clean with respect to carbon emissions etc with the only drawback being the waste. My preferred option would be natural gas fired power stations as the 'cleaner' alternative to coal/oil. Carbon emissions from Natural gas are about 70% less than that of coal so could be a good compromise. Of course if the Thais chose to build nuclear power plants I would not build a contrary argument based on some perceived racial & cultural failing.

[markm]

I think the consensus here is that "you must be f***ing joking". If Thailand has any sense, they would look at alternatives first.

It's all agreed that there would be many problems among the Thai labour force in building the blooming thing, never mind running it. Didn't know about the reactor that they already have, but then it's not a commercial nuke reactor and this maintained by scientists who know how to work with nuclear tech in a controlled laboratory environment.

This nuke was built back in the ‘70s when America had a lot of clout and investment in Thailand due to the Vietnam war. Nowadays, thanks to Thaksin and Co.’s xenophobic attitudes, the current Thai government have lots of rules in place that actively prevent the encouragement of any foreign ownership/management of any such project. The best that would happen with such a project is that there would be a few falang experts acting as paid consultants working with the aforementioned Thai scientists to a Thai boss bankrolled by a few dodgy politicians. The reactor & buildings will be built to Thai standards as best as they can do given Thai expertise (Government rules say that falangs cannot work as construction labour thus won’t be able to get the all-important WP to go ahead and build it). The falang consultants wouldn’t be told of any problems occurring and would effectively be treated like mushrooms (to save Thai face). Politicans with an agenda would overrule the Thai boss who would overrule the Thai scientists on anything. Any Thai scientist with a conscience will whistleblow the whole sorry mess to the international press which then annoys the politicians as they’ve now lost face and the Thai scientist will end up cleaning public lavatories for the rest of his career.

The International Nuclear body wouldn’t be able to certify it with absolute confidence and several years or decades of quibbling will be spent with the politicians blaming the aforementioned mushrooms for bad consultancy advice (just to save Thai face). Eventually, after trillions of baht spent on it, the whole thing never goes live and is quietly mothballed when the politicians get retired. Either that, or the Thai’s will tell the international authorities to go swivel on it while they go ahead and fire it up.

If you want to know, look at what happened to Suvarnabhumi airport and when the FAA refused to certify it until a list of things a bog roll long had been fixed and after the Thai government threatened to go ahead anyway without their approval. Several years *after* finally being approved for international use, it *still* has some operational and building maintenance problems, just that it’s not going to go boom in a bad way.

I shudder to think of having a commercial nuke power station with a few "teething problems" in the system while the rods are glowing blue.

[Gerontion]

As far as nuclear power goes it is regarded as being very clean with respect to carbon emissions

That's not really true. The extraction and processing of ore is extremely energy intensive, as is the construction of power plants. One estimate says - relative to an average coal fired power station - nuclear power produces between a third - for high-quality to ore - to equal - for low-quality core - emissions of CO2. On top of that, you're bequeathing a terrible legacy to the future; the waste is going to be around for millennia.

[Brunus]

Anybody willing to present an intelligent argument as to why Thailand should not have nuclear power plants without resorting to the usual puerile catchphrases?

May I refer you to #2 above.

May I refer you to #4 above.

Moving on - lets have a look at your alternatives....

Solar - centralized photovoltaic (PV) & concentrated solar panels (CSP) - solar power stations - largely experimental & with the current technology the efficiency is poor & complex which makes the cost prohibitive, totally unsuitable for a country like Thailand. Requires large amount of land area & obviously cannot be used for base power requirements.

From ESMP/World Bank 2008, IEA 2008 generating cost $/kw -

PV: $0.40

CSP: $0.30

Natural Gas: $0.06

Nuclear: $0.08

Residential solar panels - cost prohibitive for the majority of Thais unless heavily subsidised by the government (not viable due to cost).

1.2kW system (enough to power 5 compact flouros, 4-star energy efficiency rated 250L fridge, microwave & a medium sized tv) comprising panels & inverter approx AUD$5000 (B150,000). With 'feed in tariff' the costs can be offset against power drawn from the grid.

There are a number of variations of the 'feed in tariff' used in different countries & all require the 'feed in tariff' to be at a certain level for the system to be cost effective (@ B24 per kWh for 15 years). The rate is always greater than the costs for the power company to generate the equivalent amount from their conventional gas or coal fired power stations - so there are some massive subsidies coming from somewhere - but ultimately somebody will pay for it- you, me & all the others who think they are getting something for nothing.

If you want to run an air-conditioner the cost of upsizing increases to approx AUD$17000 (B510,000) for a 6kW system.

These are 'feel good' solutions that are just not going to happen in Thailand for the immediate future.

Insulation - Bradford Gold R6.0 High Performance ceiling batts (R6.0 highest level of insulation) will keep your house approx 10% cooler in summer. Coverage 4.5m2 @ AUD$66 (B2,000) - not very cost effective for your average Thai house as once the concrete & brick work reach the ambient temperature that is were they stay, with a small decrease at night. Of course if you close all doors & windows & run an air-conditioner you might save 10% on your power bill.

Reflective film/tinted windows - all doors & windows closed then run the air-conditioner flat out - cheap option but does nothing to address the over use of air-conditioners.

Electric hot water heaters/solar hot water - if there is a market they will come - I am sure with "the dynamism of Thai commercial society" some enterprising individual will fill the void.

"Why do Thai building codes not address heat and energy consumption" - be careful what you wish for. If something has merit & can be shown to be cost effective no government regulation forcing individuals to comply is necessary.

Over the next 10 - 15 years the demand for energy in countries like Thailand is going to skyrocket & renewable energy is just not going to be able to provide it. There are only two viable choices at this point in time - continue burning fossil fuels at a greatly increased rate or make use of nuclear power.

As far as nuclear power goes it is regarded as being very clean with respect to carbon emissions etc with the only drawback being the waste. My preferred option would be natural gas fired power stations as the 'cleaner' alternative to coal/oil. Carbon emissions from Natural gas are about 70% less than that of coal so could be a good compromise. Of course if the Thais chose to build nuclear power plants I would not build a contrary argument based on some perceived racial & cultural failing.

Well. thinking as a long term investment, solar panels can cost a lot when you buy them, but after that they give clean energy for free. As somebody else pointed out this is not good for who wants to speculate on energy. I can't really blame Thailand. Almost all countries in the world do the same. In Scandinavia (don't remember which country) there is a city that takes its energy 100 per cent from clean sources. Unfortunately this is the exception. Imagine of in every Thai roof there was a solar panel!!! How much energy in a country with this climate.

If Thais chose to build nuclear plants I would be contrary based on what you call "perceived racial & cultural failing". As I would be if my country decided to have one, for the reasons I and others already explained.

This is a dangerous matter. You can't just say "let's see if they are good enough". I love my wife. But I am scared when she rides a 125 cc motorbike (for many reasons). I would be terrified if she decides to buy a 800 cc bike. This is more or less the same.....