Thai Nuclear Power Study To Be Ready In Time

[george]

Nuclear power study to be ready in time

BANGKOK: -- The feasibility study on potential sites for Thailand's first 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant is expected to be forwarded to the government in March next year, while the Energy Ministry admitted it has to educate people more about nuclear power.

Speaking at a seminar entitled "Nuclear energy: the value for investment in future", Chavalit Pichalai, deputy director-general of the Energy Policy and Planning Office of the Energy Ministry, said three potential sites would be proposed to the government next year as scheduled.

Once the government gives its approval, construction work on the project, expected to take six years, would start. Under the power development plan, the nuclear plant would go on stream in 2020.

However, the challenge lies in educating people about the safety issues and the value of the investment to Thais.

"About 20 per cent of Thais lack understanding, while people at our proposed locations oppose the construction. We have to aggressively undertake public relations exercise on nuclear power nationwide through seminars before handing over the study to the government," he said.

He said public awareness, safety and investment value are three important issues in having a nuclear power plant. However, if the government disagreed with the project, the Energy Ministry would look at backup plans.

"The possible alternatives, if the country decides against having a nuclear power plant, might be to purchase electricity from Laos, or import green coal and liquefied natural gas instead," he said.

However, the office believes the nuclear power is a suitable choice for investment. Even if the construction cost of a nuclear power plant is high - an estimated Bt160 billion - the country currently faces a risk of shortage of renewable energy. The backup of renewable energy is only 13 per cent.

To prevent shortage of natural gas, the government should promote the use of natural gas for transportation and petrochemicals, and not use it to generate electricity, he added.

He noted that the country's import bill for fuel last year totalled Bt765 billion.

Pricha Karasuddhi, technical adviser at the Nuclear Power Programme Development Office (NPPDO), said that if the ministry could not find the potential sites, the study might be delayed.

"Drilling explorations have not found potential areas yet because the location must have a stone layer. Moreover, the location must be near a river or sea sources," he said.

He said the nuclear power plant is not a new issue in Thailand. The country has to prepare the human resources. The ministry is ready to open bidding for uranium ore procurement if the government approves the project.

"We have three years for training the human resources and arrange sources of funding during the construction period," he added.

Piromsakdi Laparojkit, economics and finance adviser of NPPDO, said capital cost, operation cost, construction timing and discount rate are the main factors that would impact on the investment value of a nuclear plant.

The value for money is one factor the government should consider along with the safety of thenuclear plant. However, nuclear power is a suitable renewable power if the government wants to solve the problem of power shortage in the future, he said.

-- The Nation 2010-01-27

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Bartman]

However, nuclear power is a suitable renewable power if the government wants to solve the problem of power shortage in the future, he said.

Since when has nuclear power been considered a renewable energy?

and this was said by Piromsakdi Laparojkit, economics and finance adviser of NPPDO who should know better...

[rakman]

However, nuclear power is a suitable renewable power if the government wants to solve the problem of power shortage in the future, he said.

Since when has nuclear power been considered a renewable energy?

and this was said by Piromsakdi Laparojkit, economics and finance adviser of NPPDO who should know better...

When you make breeder reactors.

[Soutpeel]

6 years to build and commission.....my ar*e.......2000MW set up.....8-10 years...

"The ministry is ready to open bidding for uranium ore procurement if the government approves the project"

Why.....they need fuel rods...not ore and these are part of the "package" supplied by the main contracting company who actually builds the place..ie the French etc

Is the esteemed Piromsakdi Laparojkit suggesting Thailand is going to build their own fuel rod manufacturing facility as well ??...LOL

[way2muchcoffee]

However, nuclear power is a suitable renewable power if the government wants to solve the problem of power shortage in the future, he said.

Since when has nuclear power been considered a renewable energy?

and this was said by Piromsakdi Laparojkit, economics and finance adviser of NPPDO who should know better...

I have thought about this before as well. The British IGCSE science curriculum does in fact specify Nuclear Energy as Renewable, as does the IB Program Physics course. I have no idea why this should be the case, but there it is.

[Garry9999]

"About 20 per cent of Thais lack understanding" :D

[Paul123456]

A disaster in the making.

On storage of the spent fuel: The radioactivity would have to be isolated from the environment for 10,000 years—about twice the length of recorded human history. The waste-fuel assemblies would be locked into metal canisters and deposited in the rock, one canister per hole, like the larvae of some outsize high-tech insect. The canisters might last 500 or 1,000 years —the numbers are only guesses. It is the rock itself, 1,100 feet thick, that would be expected to contain the demon's brew: strontium 90, cesium 137, and, far less abundantly, plutonium, which remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

Also note that Uranium is NOT a renewable resource. And most of it exists in only a few countries: Australia I think owns the bulk of it. So once many countries rely on it for energy - only a handful of countries can control the price and supply - not such a good idea.

If something goes wrong - the disaster is massive and long lasting. Not such a good idea. Just look at Suwarnabhumi for an example of a big project in Thailand that has been completely screwed up. So don't expect anything better.

Alternatives - better energy efficiency and less waste. Very cost effective. Should be option no. 1. Solar, Wind, Tidal, Elephant dung, ... The list is almost endless. Why go down an expensive dangerous non-renewable path when there is no need.

Please use a bit more imagination Thailand

[hazz]

This reminds me of when I was wondering around a thai aircraft carrier and seeing 'never mind will die' stencilled on all the walls.

I did ask about this and apparently in this country there is something called 'mei ben rai', it means then when you return from the fight deck with a missing spanner you think, it don't matter it won't cost anything to replace, then everyone is surprised when someone is killed by a spanner flying down the deck when a plane takes off.

Anyway once they have stencilled 'never mind will die' on the new reactor; we can all feel safe

[Dakhar]

Dear Thailand,

Please don't screw this up too.... better yet, please do not even attempt.

Signed,

The Wolrd

[Soutpeel]

However, nuclear power is a suitable renewable power if the government wants to solve the problem of power shortage in the future, he said.

Since when has nuclear power been considered a renewable energy?

and this was said by Piromsakdi Laparojkit, economics and finance adviser of NPPDO who should know better...

I have thought about this before as well. The British IGCSE science curriculum does in fact specify Nuclear Energy as Renewable, as does the IB Program Physics course. I have no idea why this should be the case, but there it is.

Although I dont have a definitive answer on this one...my guess it would be considered a renewable source because the fuel rods can be reprocessed and used again...."renewable ?? guess so

[Soutpeel]

A disaster in the making.

On storage of the spent fuel: The radioactivity would have to be isolated from the environment for 10,000 years—about twice the length of recorded human history. The waste-fuel assemblies would be locked into metal canisters and deposited in the rock, one canister per hole, like the larvae of some outsize high-tech insect. The canisters might last 500 or 1,000 years —the numbers are only guesses. It is the rock itself, 1,100 feet thick, that would be expected to contain the demon's brew: strontium 90, cesium 137, and, far less abundantly, plutonium, which remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years.

spent fuel rods are reprocessed and are not "deposited under mountains".....

[wobblyjohn]

the country currently faces a risk of shortage of renewable energy

OMG the sun is dying

[Soutpeel]

the country currently faces a risk of shortage of renewable energy

OMG the sun is dying

.....how can you have a shortage of something you never had/utilised in the first place ??

[AugustineB]

Why havent they even considered the wealth of renewable energies available ? Befor eanyone even goes down the "renewables are not viable " route - Sweden ,for example, already produce more than half their energy from renewables - and they have some pretty hefty heating bills. Even if not everybody has Swedens geothermal and hydro resources warmer countries have other options for renewable. There is NO 100 percent safe way of storing Nuclear waste - even deep geological storage has many problems . Besides who really trusts a government to dispose of Nuclear waste safely ? Sounds like the Thai people have got it right on this one.

I am increasingly suspicious of developing countries that claim that nuclear energy is the only solution to their energy supply - I think weapons grade radioactive material is a more likely objective seeing as most nuclear power stations are uneconomical when you consider the waste disposal etc. For instance a new wind turbine which uses Kites (they fly at high altitude where it always windy) and is half a kilometre across produces half as much as a nuclear fission power station has recently been tested and works in Italy - why havent they considered this or dozens of other possibilities ? Whats all this nonsense about importing electricity from Laos ?

Edited January 27, 2010 by AugustineB

[givenall]

However, nuclear power is a suitable renewable power if the government wants to solve the problem of power shortage in the future, he said.

Since when has nuclear power been considered a renewable energy?

and this was said by Piromsakdi Laparojkit, economics and finance adviser of NPPDO who should know better...

They need to admit they have to educate themselves first

[Garry9999]

Dear Thailand,

Please don't screw this up too.... better yet, please do not even attempt.

Signed,

The Wolrd

Why shouldn't Thailand have nuclear power?

The first commercial nuclear power stations started operation in the 1950s.

There are now some 436 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with 372,000 MWe of total capacity.

They provide about 15% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, and their efficiency is increasing.

56 countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors and a further 220 nuclear reactors power ships and submarines.

source http://www.world-nuclear.org

[Garry9999]

Sweden ,for example, already produce more than half their energy from renewables - Whats all this nonsense about importing electricity from Laos ?

Population of Sweden <10 million - Thailand >65 million

Laos are building dams for hydro-electric power generation.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Garry9999

[PhilHarries]

Sweden ,for example, already produce more than half their energy from renewables - Whats all this nonsense about importing electricity from Laos ?

Population of Sweden <10 million - Thailand >65 million

Laos are building dams for hydro-electric power generation.

Interesting question: Is hydroelectric considered more green than nuclear considering the amount of often arable, fertile land it eats up?

Anyway the article is only about the study results being ready next year (2011?) given the past performance on the new airport nothing will get built for at least 30 years.

Interesting the views on whether Thailand should have nuclear power. How does Thailand compare with Iran in suitability? Okay some might think they are inept but they are unlikely to attack their neighbours. With Iran you have all the same problems with safety and storage of waste compounded by their stated position on Israel.

[Dakhar]

Dear Thailand,

Please don't screw this up too.... better yet, please do not even attempt.

Signed,

The Wolrd

Why shouldn't Thailand have nuclear power?

The first commercial nuclear power stations started operation in the 1950s.

There are now some 436 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, with 372,000 MWe of total capacity.

They provide about 15% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, and their efficiency is increasing.

56 countries operate a total of about 250 research reactors and a further 220 nuclear reactors power ships and submarines.

source http://www.world-nuclear.org

Did you just get off the plane? Let me make this really easy..... If you can not perform step A, your certainly can not perfrom step B and should not even dream of performing step C.

Fairly simple really.

[ballpoint]

Did you just get off the plane? Let me make this really easy..... If you can not perform step A, your certainly can not perfrom step B and should not even dream of performing step C.

Fairly simple really.

Well, seeing as Thailand has maintained a fully functioning research reactor in Bangkok for many years, I'd say they were well past step A.

[AugustineB]

Sweden ,for example, already produce more than half their energy from renewables - Whats all this nonsense about importing electricity from Laos ?

Population of Sweden <10 million - Thailand >65 million

Laos are building dams for hydro-electric power generation.

Ok then lets take the example of Spain population 45 million which now produces 39 percent of its energy renwably - very little from hydro.

Also you cannot look merely at population but at the amount of energy each individual requires . As I already mentioned because of the cold in Sweden a considerable amount is needed for heating . I am not sure of the exact amopunt of energy used per capita used in sweden compared to Thailand but I am sure it is way higher.

I merely point out that that the fact the governemnt doesnt hasnt even considered viable, cheaper and safer alternatives suprising.

A memeber of my family works on Nuclear Fusion which one day may be a viable alternative - fission forget it - theres plenty of bette roptions . My argument is not that Thailand shouldnt use nuclear fission - its that nobody should.

[Dakhar]

Did you just get off the plane? Let me make this really easy..... If you can not perform step A, your certainly can not perfrom step B and should not even dream of performing step C.

Fairly simple really.

Well, seeing as Thailand has maintained a fully functioning research reactor in Bangkok for many years, I'd say they were well past step A.

I also define step A as haveing a fully functional, stable govt.

That being the case, Thailand is stuck in step A, and probably forever shall be.

[edwinchester]

I am increasingly suspicious of developing countries that claim that nuclear energy is the only solution to their energy supply - I think weapons grade radioactive material is a more likely objective seeing as most nuclear power stations are uneconomical when you consider the waste disposal etc.

I am more than inclined to side with this view especially with the rumours of the Burmese/North Korea reactor tieup.

[Soutpeel]

I am increasingly suspicious of developing countries that claim that nuclear energy is the only solution to their energy supply - I think weapons grade radioactive material is a more likely objective seeing as most nuclear power stations are uneconomical when you consider the waste disposal etc.

I am more than inclined to side with this view especially with the rumours of the Burmese/North Korea reactor tieup.

Absolute BS om both counts... and will cite North Korea's efforts to get a "big bang" not so a long ago....more of a big fizzle...LOL

Converting and enriching commerical grade uranium to weapons grade material is a little more involved than a high school chemistry class Einstein... .....North Korea havent got it right, either have Iran....

If nuclear weapons was the objective they would be buying weapons grade material from the former soviet republics and saving themselves a lot of hassle of building of commerical power plant....

Scaremongering connecting commerical nuclear power stations to nuclear weapons... ....you will scare all the OAP's on TV and they will all move from Pattaya...

[edwinchester]

I am increasingly suspicious of developing countries that claim that nuclear energy is the only solution to their energy supply - I think weapons grade radioactive material is a more likely objective seeing as most nuclear power stations are uneconomical when you consider the waste disposal etc.

I am more than inclined to side with this view especially with the rumours of the Burmese/North Korea reactor tieup.

Absolute BS om both counts... and will cite North Korea's efforts to get a "big bang" not so a long ago....more of a big fizzle...LOL

Converting and enriching commerical grade uranium to weapons grade material is a little more involved than a high school chemistry class Einstein... .....North Korea havent got it right, either have Iran....

If nuclear weapons was the objective they would be buying weapons grade material from the former soviet republics and saving themselves a lot of hassle of building of commerical power plant....

Scaremongering connecting commerical nuclear power stations to nuclear weapons... ....you will scare all the OAP's on TV and they will all move from Pattaya...

Whilst DPRK 2006 test was widely reported a failure the 2009 test was thought more successful, maybe even as big as the Hiroshima bomb.

Their nuclear bomb programme shows how difficult it is for an isolated country to develop their own weapon but it can be done and it will not stop others trying.

These days it seems almost economically justifiable for a developing nation such as Thailand to start it's own nuclear power station program. The cost is enormous not just for the construction but also the management, maintainance, eventual decommissioning and the safe storage of nuclear waste.

[nullx8]

lets just pray ..the plants are not build based on the best Pocket-money.

nuklear Power is way different than holes in the streets

[mythBuster]

Why is time important? Is it in order to make an extra bug while you are still in power and can appoint the companies constructing it? Or is meant with in time, the timeframe that it takes to treat dying people caused by a leak in the plant?

What is more important, the study? the outcome, the money involved, the time frame or the honesty of the conclusions.

in this country everything is in time but never on time. When a crime is committed some moron will impose a deadline on the police which makes it likely that half the prison population is innocent. This time frame stinks too.

[mythBuster]

lets just pray ..the plants are not build based on the best Pocket-money.

nuklear Power is way different than holes in the streets

Your prayers will go unanswered. The timeframe is designed with the notion that the government may still be in power and thus can award the contacts which come with the perks...

[khundon]

Lets hope they wire it up correctly and don't forget the Earth wire.

[CLOD]

And who's backyards will the three units be built in, abisits,suthep,and kasit