Nuclear Power Plants In Thailand,what Do You Think?

[Jitphisut]

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

First, nuclear power plants do not affect the environment. It does not cause air pollution and greenhouse gases harmful to health. Radioactive waste disposal methods are safe. Second, nuclear power plants improve the domestic economy. It is a source of job creation. Cost of producing electricity is low. Finally, nuclear power plants reduce the use of natural resources. Some radioactive waste that can be used to recycles. Heat from 1 gram of uranium fuel is equivalent to 3 tons of coal to produce electricity. In conclusion, I think that nuclear power plants in Thailand will have people living better because they attract many industry investments.

What do you think about nuclear power plants in Thailand?

[TimTang]

It would be a benefit to Thailand as it would reduce electrical costs and environmental impact, but it would have to be built and run by people and companies from either US, Canada, France or Germany. They could then eventually hand over certain jobs and responsibilities as the level of expertise increases. This could take 10 to 20 years.

The problem is that people are spooked by nuclear energy, including the media so it would be very difficult for it to happen.

Thailand is sitting on a gold mine of potash which would dramatically improve the economy, as well as job and educational opportunities in Isan, but the locals have been so vocal that they've demonstrated non-stop and managed to stop all development; and that's just potash. Imagine the public reaction from people when their location has been selected for a nuclear reactor.

I'm not sure if it would fly but I could be wrong.

[givenall]

It would be a benefit to Thailand as it would reduce electrical costs and environmental impact, but it would have to be built and run by people and companies from either US, Canada, France or Germany. They could then eventually hand over certain jobs and responsibilities as the level of expertise increases. This could take 10 to 20 years.

No way it cant be transferred to Thai people ever. What i know about them they take short cuts and that make it dangerous for all of us Thais and Frangs

[zorro1]

It would be a benefit to Thailand as it would reduce electrical costs and environmental impact, but it would have to be built and run by people and companies from either US, Canada, France or Germany. They could then eventually hand over certain jobs and responsibilities as the level of expertise increases. This could take 10 to 20 years.

No way it cant be transferred to Thai people ever. What i know about them they take short cuts and that make it dangerous for all of us Thais and Frangs

france is the world leader in nuke power with 80% of its energy source. nuke wont make you sick but may make you arrogant. india and china have over 600 reactors being built

[TimTang]

It's not like they're going to grab a bunch of off season rice farmers and show them which buttons to press or which levers to pull, it will require the best of the best Thais educated in western universities, and they would have to qualify to work in any western country as well.

Nuclear reactors have come a long way since Chernoble. That would be like comparing modern medicine with the blood letting and amputations of the dark ages.

I mean look a Homer Simpson when he called in sick they replaced him with a brick tied to a string.

[JetsetBkk]

It's not like they're going to grab a bunch of off season rice farmers and show them which buttons to press or which levers to pull <snip>

[pkrv]

Ohh you silly people you it is all about location, location, location.

Put it in Margaret Thatchers back garden and pipe the power to wherever needed .

Edited December 17, 2009 by pkrv

[Trickcyclist]

3 Mile Island

Chernobyl

Windscale

Chalk River

Quote .."Berkeley’s Dan Kammen, a nuclear engineering professor,said that a single new nuclear plant could take 100 months and $10 billion to build ..Nuclear power, by its nature, has to be centralized and well-guarded, so we don’t know everything that’s going on at the nation’s atomic facilities. What that means is nuclear power requires citizens to trust the industrial order to do what’s right by society. It requires faith that the engineers and executives who build and run nuclear plants will do the right thing — and if some unexpected thing goes wrong, they’ll tell us about it, even if it hurts their profits or reputations. Nuclear power, by its nature, has to be centralized and well-guarded, so we don’t know everything that’s going on at the nation’s atomic facilities. What that means is nuclear power requires citizens to trust the industrial order to do what’s right by society. It requires faith that the engineers and executives who build and run nuclear plants will do the right thing — and if some unexpected thing goes wrong, they’ll tell us about it, even if it hurts their profits or reputations." unquote. What are the chances of that happening(The Homer Simpson/Mr Byrnes equation).

Uranium is not universally available and its cost has sky rocketed since oil touched $150.

One bomb from the crazies could close a whole country for years.

Solar and hydrogen is the future..plenty of clean and free sunshine to extract hydrogen.

plenty of clean and free sunshine to aircon buildings, charge electric cars, run trains and buses.

Every building could be its own independent solar power station sending back unused electricty to the grid

and being paid by the grid to do so..

meters running up credits instead costs!!

Honda are now testing in home hydrogen kits so that our cars can be filled with hydrogn at home.

Why build massive monolithic power stations and spend the rest of our lives beholden to a bunch of plutocrats who can turn on/off the power on a whim-even hydro has its costs, environmentally, reducing water levels of million year old rivers and flooding areas of land.Remember Enron and power cuts??

costs about 10baht to drive electric for 100miles.

The sun is there; its clean and its free.

When it goes we go!!

The only reason solar is not widespread is due to the control centralised planning has on energy provision, that and and the fossil fuel lobby.

[roiethome]

The idea of Thailand having a nuclear power plant is a disaster waiting to happen.

No way would the locals be able to manage this safely, the risks are far to high

I seem to remember it took six months to train a pilot to land on the first aircraft carrier which the Thai Navy bought about ten years ago; this is far beyond the skills available in Thailand

[whitedog]

Take a look at the infrastrucutre of Thailand , you really think it would work? How long before it gets old and they just walk away and leave it like so many other projects.

[jonclark]

I don't think people are opposed to nuclear power in theory. But, i'm sure many people feel oppossed in practice. There are a large number of questions to be answered such as costing - construction, running, and dismantaling, location, and compensation for affected communities, waste disposal and transportation.

I would imaging building a reactor needs large volumes of water to cool it (i'm not an expert) so it would need to be near a water supply (river, lake, or sea) consequences of spillages??

Having watched the fiasco at Ma Phut Industrial estate , the plight of the locals and the cutting corners on EIA etc. It doesn't fill one with confidence.

But Thailand does need to secure it own energy needs for at least the medium term to drive its own development and there is no reason why Thailand can't make nuclear power work.

Thailand has many dedicated, skilled and dutiful people here, (who often get overlooked as most of people only encounter those at the other end of the spectrum).

[orosee]

I'm still stuck at this bold statement:

Radioactive waste disposal methods are safe.

Technology may have advanced but human nature hasn't. And a nuclear reactor will give the red or yellow shirts just one more high profile target to occupy

[selftaopath]

It would be a benefit to Thailand as it would reduce electrical costs and environmental impact, but it would have to be built and run by people and companies from either US, Canada, France or Germany. They could then eventually hand over certain jobs and responsibilities as the level of expertise increases. This could take 10 to 20 years.

The problem is that people are spooked by nuclear energy, including the media so it would be very difficult for it to happen.

Thailand is sitting on a gold mine of potash which would dramatically improve the economy, as well as job and educational opportunities in Isan, but the locals have been so vocal that they've demonstrated non-stop and managed to stop all development; and that's just potash. Imagine the public reaction from people when their location has been selected for a nuclear reactor.

I'm not sure if it would fly but I could be wrong.

I agree with much you stated; especially, "but it would have to be built and run by people and companies from either US, Canada, France or Germany. It is essential to have SKILLED craftsmen/women. Are the so many to be found in this country?

[Jonathanpattaya]

Haven't we done this topic recently?

[sokal]

It would be a benefit to Thailand as it would reduce electrical costs and environmental impact, but it would have to be built and run by people and companies from either US, Canada, France or Germany. They could then eventually hand over certain jobs and responsibilities as the level of expertise increases. This could take 10 to 20 years.

No way it cant be transferred to Thai people ever. What i know about them they take short cuts and that make it dangerous for all of us Thais and Frangs

The technology is good enough now for nuclear to be 100% safe for everyone. Nothing beats nuclear.

[sokal]

3 Mile Island

Chernobyl

Windscale

Chalk River

Quote .."Berkeley’s Dan Kammen, a nuclear engineering professor,said that a single new nuclear plant could take 100 months and $10 billion to build ..Nuclear power, by its nature, has to be centralized and well-guarded, so we don’t know everything that’s going on at the nation’s atomic facilities. What that means is nuclear power requires citizens to trust the industrial order to do what’s right by society. It requires faith that the engineers and executives who build and run nuclear plants will do the right thing — and if some unexpected thing goes wrong, they’ll tell us about it, even if it hurts their profits or reputations. Nuclear power, by its nature, has to be centralized and well-guarded, so we don’t know everything that’s going on at the nation’s atomic facilities. What that means is nuclear power requires citizens to trust the industrial order to do what’s right by society. It requires faith that the engineers and executives who build and run nuclear plants will do the right thing — and if some unexpected thing goes wrong, they’ll tell us about it, even if it hurts their profits or reputations." unquote. What are the chances of that happening(The Homer Simpson/Mr Byrnes equation).

Uranium is not universally available and its cost has sky rocketed since oil touched $150.

One bomb from the crazies could close a whole country for years.

Solar and hydrogen is the future..plenty of clean and free sunshine to extract hydrogen.

plenty of clean and free sunshine to aircon buildings, charge electric cars, run trains and buses.

Every building could be its own independent solar power station sending back unused electricty to the grid

and being paid by the grid to do so..

meters running up credits instead costs!!

Honda are now testing in home hydrogen kits so that our cars can be filled with hydrogn at home.

Why build massive monolithic power stations and spend the rest of our lives beholden to a bunch of plutocrats who can turn on/off the power on a whim-even hydro has its costs, environmentally, reducing water levels of million year old rivers and flooding areas of land.Remember Enron and power cuts??

costs about 10baht to drive electric for 100miles.

The sun is there; its clean and its free.

When it goes we go!!

The only reason solar is not widespread is due to the control centralised planning has on energy provision, that and and the fossil fuel lobby.

Solar is a complete joke. Dr. Bill Wattenburg Shoots Down Solar Pipe Dreams

[jesimps]

May our god help us!

I would imagine that to run a nuclear power plant requires expert training; very tight discipline and strict adherence to the rules and regulations. Which reminds me, I have to drive into central Pattaya shortly...............

[steveromagnino]

The only small issues with nuclear power:

- if you factor in the cost of storing the waste, it is no longer economic; and the capital cost being extremely high while running costs relatively low often means once built, it is a white elephant, but cheap to keep running and so this is why once built they tend to not be shut down

- no one is sure what will happen to the cost of the fuel in the medium or long term; it is quite possible it will increase massively due to the large number of plants being built now as it is flavour of the month

- there are considerable environmental issues with moving the fuel, storing it, then taking the waste away

- there is not yet a technology in the world suitable for actually storing the waste long term

- there is a very small potential opportunity for catestrophic disaster

- it is an almost entirely foreign technology and thus creates a long term reliance on the firm providing the technology

- the locations within Thailand most logical are embedded generation but these are not going to be likely to be popular with the locals

- the massive capital cost allows a large amount of graft and the firms producing nuclear power plants tend to be very cavalier with paying graft in such ways as to keep their corporate integrity as well as paying the graft requested; this is the single largest reason why nuclear is being pushed

- Thailand could easy improve the environment by simply upgrading the quality of coal and introducing more controls in the existing coal plants

- Thailand has a plentiful supply of hydrocarbons and could easily further upgrade gas exploration, increased solar and also to push for the use of direct fuel usage e.g. reticulated natural gas to replace electricity used to heat water, wind generation for basic functions, solar for water heating; energy conservation; increased efficiency; increased incentives for building and factory efficiency; a more transparent energy pricing system which encourages less usage/flat loads and reduces load spikes etc - most of these have less chance for graft and therefore are less likely to be popular

Thailand's best opportunities include significantly more efficient power stations; allowing deregulation of the energy market to encourage IPPs and small scale embedded generation with the vast amount of biomass, sun and other fuel sources readily available here plus a clearer price signal to the energy consumers; ongoing use of natural gas.

NO NUCLEAR (it's a dog).

Edited December 18, 2009 by steveromagnino

[bangsaenguy]

May our god help us!

I would imagine that to run a nuclear power plant requires expert training; very tight discipline and strict adherence to the rules and regulations. Which reminds me, I have to drive into central Pattaya shortly...............

Hope you are not driving a Thai made vehicle burning Thai made fuel.

[12DrinkMore]

Well really, you lot.

Nothing but negativity about this.

Come on think positively, surely just all the kickbacks would make the thing worth doing? There must be billions of Bahts that can by syphoned off from a project of this size. And the best bit is that it would never be completed and put into operation.

You have to think a little bit out of the western box and climb into the Thai box.

There would be a huge fanfare, lots of publicity, a load of "prominents" parading around around, and hopefully more than a few "coyote girls" for a bit of visual distraction. Then massive contracts will be awarded to all the friends and relations, non of whom would even consider that the aim of a power plant is to produce power. No, it is to provide them all with hundreds of millions of foreign investment, to be spent of Benz's and condos for the Mia Nois.

So come on, lets have some support.

[zorro1]

3 Mile Island

Chernobyl

Windscale

Chalk River

Uranium is not universally available and its cost has sky rocketed since oil touched $150.

The sun is there; its clean and its free.

A brain is free to. next time you cut n paste check the date oil is now $70 and uranium spot price is of uranium is $45 , uranium is very cheap and is in fact widely available. there is so much of the stuff that 100"s of upstart mines have stopped operations waiting for the price of U to become economically viable. not to mention stock piles of decommissioned warheads. currently world wide there are 1000 reactors being built in next 50 years. the only way is forward like it or not. what is expensive is the cost of the reactor and time to build

Edited December 18, 2009 by zorro1

[exeter]

I think nuclear power is the way foward, it has many advantages mentioned. It does however take a lot of yellow brick to start them up and currently there are lots of nuclear plants being planned or under construction and demand is out stripping supply,so costs may not be what are thought now. I do not have aproblem with disposal, a way will be found in the future, 50 years ago man had not been to the moon and only 100 years ago we had only just started flying. The biggest problem I think who is goin g to be operating the plants and are they up to the job? Safety concerns need to be well thought out and implemented. What is the major source od fuel for the powre stations at the moment? Does anyone know?

[Soutpeel]

What is the major source od fuel for the powre stations at the moment? Does anyone know?

France, Japan, US and think Canada

[pkrv]

The only small issues with nuclear power:

- if you factor in the cost of storing the waste, it is no longer economic; and the capital cost being extremely high while running costs relatively low often means once built, it is a white elephant, but cheap to keep running and so this is why once built they tend to not be shut down

- no one is sure what will happen to the cost of the fuel in the medium or long term; it is quite possible it will increase massively due to the large number of plants being built now as it is flavour of the month

- there are considerable environmental issues with moving the fuel, storing it, then taking the waste away

- there is not yet a technology in the world suitable for actually storing the waste long term

- there is a very small potential opportunity for catestrophic disaster

- it is an almost entirely foreign technology and thus creates a long term reliance on the firm providing the technology

- the locations within Thailand most logical are embedded generation but these are not going to be likely to be popular with the locals

- the massive capital cost allows a large amount of graft and the firms producing nuclear power plants tend to be very cavalier with paying graft in such ways as to keep their corporate integrity as well as paying the graft requested; this is the single largest reason why nuclear is being pushed

- Thailand could easy improve the environment by simply upgrading the quality of coal and introducing more controls in the existing coal plants

- Thailand has a plentiful supply of hydrocarbons and could easily further upgrade gas exploration, increased solar and also to push for the use of direct fuel usage e.g. reticulated natural gas to replace electricity used to heat water, wind generation for basic functions, solar for water heating; energy conservation; increased efficiency; increased incentives for building and factory efficiency; a more transparent energy pricing system which encourages less usage/flat loads and reduces load spikes etc - most of these have less chance for graft and therefore are less likely to be popular

Thailand's best opportunities include significantly more efficient power stations; allowing deregulation of the energy market to encourage IPPs and small scale embedded generation with the vast amount of biomass, sun and other fuel sources readily available here plus a clearer price signal to the energy consumers; ongoing use of natural gas.

NO NUCLEAR (it's a dog).

Woof

Edited December 22, 2009 by pkrv

[GuestHouse]

I've posted this on another thread discussing Nuclear Energy, but it is relevant here:

Here's some interesting reading Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power

The report is published in 2009 by Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA. Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power, and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.

This from the executive summary.

Given this discrepancy, nuclear’s history of cost overruns, and the fact new generation designs have

never been constructed any where, there is a major business risk nuclear power will be more

costly than projected. Recent construction cost estimates imply capital costs/kWh (not counting

operation or fuel costs) from 17-22 cents/kWh when the nuclear facilities come on-line. Another

major business risk is nuclear’s history of construction delays. Delays would run costs higher, risking

funding shortfalls. The strain on cash flow is expected to degrade credit ratings.

Now what was that about Nuclear Energy being cheap...... and are we really considering these new generation of reactors that have yet to be built anywhere else?

There are many many alternatives to Nuclear Energy, Thailand has an abundance of energy sources and THIS IS IMPORTANT has yet to address a whole range of energy saving issues many of which are low tech, low cost and ripe for passing into Thailand's private small business sector.

The argument that Thailand should spend tens of billions on developing Nuclear Power ( a centralized government run program which will be riddled with corruption and that requires the import of and dependence upon imported technology, expertise, materials and fuels) while ignoring low cost initiatives that could kick start Thailand's small private business sector into providing initiatives and solutions is untenable.

On top of this I can get no reasoned answer to the Map Tha Phut example:

Map Tha Phut industrial zone comprises a number of complex and highly dangerous chemical processes, run by Thai and Thai/Foreign corporations for the past 20 years there have been frequent reports of environmental accidents, health hazards impacting the local community/environment.

These have been covered up, denied and ignored for two decades, only now has the problem been raised above a single column in the press - Oh but now we need an executive order to get back in business - Actually, what was needed is positive action the first time there was an accident.

Twenty years or more of sitting on environmental problems hoping they'll go away instead of dealing with the problem at its root cause.

Map Tha Phut makes a very convincing case as to why Thailand is not ready for Nuclear Energy.

And that's without even looking at the murder and intimidation of environmental activists.

[GuestHouse]

Let me just reiterate something for those who are claiming that the new reactors are safe, things have moved on since Chernobyl etc.

Craig A. Severance - Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power

Given this discrepancy, nuclear’s history of cost overruns, and the fact new generation designs have

never been constructed any where,

[Lantern]

Solar versus Nuclear

The allure of nuclear power is that it can produce large quantities of energy from small quantities of fuel. A single gram of uranium can produce 3,800 kWh of electricity using fast breeder reactors (the most efficient nuclear technology). However a uranium atom can only be fissioned once, and is then radioactive waste. A silicon solar cell can absorb photons repeatedly to generate electricity.

Over it’s lifetime a single gram of silicon as used in a 17% efficient PV silicon solar cell can produce 3,700 kWh of electricity without releasing any life threatening toxic and radioactive substances.

Gram for gram silicon and uranium produce similar amounts of electricity. The earth contains 5,000 times more silicon than uranium!

Source: World Resources Institute.

[Lantern]

Just something I put together in 2007. Some of the figures are a bit dated, but the message is clear.

Let’s Solar Power The World. 8/01/2007

I have just read an article in the latest copy of ReFocus, the official magazine of ISES (the International Solar Energy Society). The article was called “Solar can provide ALL of Europe’s electricity. It was based around a report commissioned by the German Environment and Nuclear Safety Ministry.

In this report it was claimed that by placing solar collectors in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa, Europe could receive all it’s energy requirements from the sun.

“Every year, each square kilometer of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 million barrels of oil.” Says Franz Trieb the study manager. “Multiplying the area of the worlds deserts worldwide, this is nearly a thousand times the entire current energy consumption of the world.”

The report also states “The cost to collect solar thermal energy is equivalent to $50 per barrel of oil now, which is less that the current world price” and speculates this cost will drop to $20 in the future.

It also states. The existing grid is not capable of transmitting large amounts of power over long distances, and a combination of conventional AC grid and high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission technology would be used in a trans-European electricity scheme. HVDC lines lose only 3% of power for every 1000 Klm of distance and solar electricity could be imported with only 10% loss compared to the 50% to 70% in conventional coal fired power stations.

Mr Howard, the Uranium can stay in the ground where it is safe.

[GuestHouse]

I think one of the big missed opportunities is the power and energy (excuse the pun) that small businesses can bring to solving the energy problem.

Nuclear Energy is a high cost, centralized enterprise which excludes the vast majority of people from taking part other than as consumers.

Mirco Power Projects, wind, solar being the most common are low cost and can be implemented millions of times each within the budget of individuals and small businesses - They also produce small businesses servicing the sector.

Some changes are needed, but again to the centralized solution - ie Allow micro generators (that's you, me and anyone else who wants to set up a solar/wind generator) to sell to the grid. Remove taxes on the technology and do the same for passive energy saving solutions.

The result is the energy producing market is opened to small investors and with it businesses open to meet the needs, demand for technology goes up and prices come down.

I note the UK is doing exactly this in the coming year, providing tax free allowances on the first £900 profit for anyone who wants to produce electricity and sell it back to the grid.

Watch what happens - There will be a boom in Mirco Power production, it will produce power and it will create jobs - a whole new industry even.

[steveromagnino]

I think one of the big missed opportunities is the power and energy (excuse the pun) that small businesses can bring to solving the energy problem.

Watch what happens - There will be a boom in Mirco Power production, it will produce power and it will create jobs - a whole new industry even.

Indeed, although a large step required prior to that is a functioning energy market separate from the network and transmission functions which does not yet exist in Thailand, and a cost reflective tariff system that fairly bills people for what they use at what time and where using a correctly calculated energy supply curve.

Just creating cost reflective pricing would immediately and drastically alter how people use energy; suddenly you would see companies actively reducing the load spikes at peak times that cost the most to deliver for both the network and the supply of energy itself; you would see people who deserve to pay the most actually doing so.

And then, you could have people generating their own as well, not just for resale but their own use and importantly, raise the public consciousness for energy conservation and management. In fact nuclear is, as you say, almost the opposite of that business model.

Like I said....nuclear is a dog.