Thai Nuclear Power Study To Be Ready In Time

[nullx8]

Thaksins

[ding]

Nuclear power plants are so expensive that even in America private investment can't fund them. America is looking at them again for the first time in 25 years. But we're too broke to publicly fund them now, and the private sector would want it's huge risk subsidized by the state.

So, I'm not too worried that either nation state will get one heated up any time soon.

[Bagwan]

One guy says that a report specifying three sites will be forwarded to the Government next year - on schedule. Another admits that they haven't found one suitable site yet and the report might well be delayed. Seems to me that they have got their knickers in a twist already and the show hasn't kicked off yet. Let the misunderstandings and honest mistakes begin.

Can anybody else imagine vast choirs of monks chanting away for the construction period to ensure that evil spirits are kept at bay and venerable monks (or should that be venal monks) holding conferences to decide when would be an auspicious day to fire the contraption up? I wonder if there is a market for rice that glows in the dark?

Thanks be to God, assuming that there is one, that I won't be around to witness Thailands efforts to enter the 21st century whilst the majority of its populace are still living in the Dark Ages.

[paulfr]

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...

Breeder reactors regenerate fissionable material.

So fission nuclear energy is indeed renewable.

[paulfr]

Nuclear power plants are so expensive that even in America private investment can't fund them.

America is looking at them again for the first time in 25 years.

The reasons they are so expensive are the political obstacles needed to get

the permits to build one. Since it is just a political problem, it can be solved

and changed quickly if the consensus and will is there.

However, that is unlikely to emerge unless some catastrophe makes it necessary

and obvious to everyone. Unlikely, indeed.

Edited January 30, 2010 by paulfr

[StreetCowboy]

...nested quote deleted...

Breeder reactors regenerate fissionable material.

So fission nuclear energy is indeed renewable.

All reactors 'regenerate' fissionable material. Breeder reactors can generate more than they burn.

Reactors that use enriched fuel (i.e. modern reactors) generate a relatively low proportion of fissionable material, but the old generation reactors that used natural (i.e. unenriched) uranium generated a significant proportion of their energy from fission of converted U238 -> Pu239. Alternatively, you could recycle the fuel to extract the plutonium, as we did, for your mutually assured destruction state-sponsored terrorism, which allegedly averted the third world war in the fifties and sixties and seventies. Its maybe cheaper or easier to use chemical separation to separate Pu from U than to physically separate U235 from U238.

Even though you make better use of the natural mined uranium (no enrichment plant tailings, a higher proportion of U238 burn-up), the actual burn-up proportion of natural uranium fuel is less, and so the high-level waste (spent fuel) per unit energy generated will be higher. I would guess that a very high enrichment fuel cycle (fast breeder technology) might give you even less waste, surprisingly, but despite generations of experience, it still seems to fall in the "too difficult" pile (no pun intended).

I doubt that Thailand will get into such subtleties, and will stick to PWRs from a reputable supplier - Westinghouse, or Mitsubishi, or Framatome I think are the established exporters, although I read that Kepco was leading a Korean consortium into the export business...

I hope this is not too off-topic, but a bit of background always helps to set the hares running

SC

Abbreviations

U235 Fissionable isotope of uranium can be burnt in reactors (about 0.7% in natural uranium - enriched in gas centrifuges to 3 - 7 % for reactor fuel, very much higher for weapons grade

U238 Non-fissionable isotope of uranium, cannot be burnt in reactors, but can be converted in a reactor to Pu239

Pu239 Fissionable isotope of plutonium, can be burnt in reactors or extracted for nuclear weapons. Extraction is a bit mucky, becuase the spent fuel is highly radioactive.

[animatic]

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...

Well since the Thai record is under 5 years for a government,

and most last 18 months I can't imagine who could still be in government then.

Chavalit mumified with a pull string recording?

Seriously this is like pushed along by bureaucrats in the energy department,

more than any actual politicians. The view towards backhanders and such must be quite long term,

and likely siphoned from endless long term feasibility studies like this one.

[AugustineB]

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.

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...

Perhaps this is true - I have no ideas of the apsirations of the Thai military. However why then the fixation with nuclear fission ? I am extremely suprised at this when it is so uneconomical and when their is no way of guaranteeing safe waste desposal plus many other problems . The only other explanation I can think of is that the energy ministry in Thailand is completely ignorant of cheaper, safer, less enviromentally harmful alternatives to nuclear power (and the other options they listed) - which is also a bit worrying , when the rest of the world is embracing renewables - they appear not to have even heard of them - how did they get their jobs ?

I mean no offense - but I dont even trust the British govt to despose of nuclear waste properly.....

One other poster made a good point about hydro being an enviromental nightmare as well. This is true - the dams in Laos are going to cause chaos and destroy vast swathes of wilderness harbouring many very endangered species such as tigers. Biofuels are also extremely problamatic due to the amount of land they need . However there are many other alternatives which would not cause so many problems - innovations in renewable energy is coming on in leaps and bounds.

Edited January 30, 2010 by AugustineB

[RickBradford]

The government, or more specifically the Office of Atoms for Peace, has started running cartoon-style advertisements on Thai TV showing the benefits of nuclear power.

You know the kind of thing -- a family of Hello Kitty lookalikes in their apartment enjoying cheap energy as a few atoms dance away in the background to the sound of The Chipmunks singing a happy song.

Oddly enough, the atoms did nuclear fusion as well as fission, although fusion reactors, despite 40 years of huge research efforts, remain beyond commercial viability at this point.

[ding]

Nuclear power plants are so expensive that even in America private investment can't fund them.

America is looking at them again for the first time in 25 years.

The reasons they are so expensive are the political obstacles needed to get

the permits to build one. Since it is just a political problem, it can be solved

and changed quickly if the consensus and will is there.

However, that is unlikely to emerge unless some catastrophe makes it necessary

and obvious to everyone. Unlikely, indeed.

Agreed. IF it goes through, I hope the French are consulted and NOT Russia. How quickly we forget Chernobyl and 3-mile Island. There are no "do overs" with nuclear mishaps. And waste storage is a huge issue.

There was a TV sitcom named 'Mork and Mindy' starring Robin Williams as alien Mork. He said, "Why do you have nuclear power plants when you don't even have Nuke-Away yet?"

-something along those lines-

Governments are for sale. I don't count on even the greatest democracies to not sell out the welfare of their citizen's children. And the TV propaganda machine coverts the masses all the time, so "the will" being there is not an issue either. I Agree 100%. May the cloud-beings help us if Thailand, as beautiful and charming as it is loony, gets nuclear anything.

[Bagwan]

Need more power? Treadmills are the answer. About time that a Thai Government stopped deporting hungry and oppressed refugees from nearby countries and put them to useful work. The prisons are bursting at the seams so there is another source of manpower. No problem about human rights and dignity since TIT.

[Garry9999]

It's only a matter of time, before Thailand gets one.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades, a move designed to help advance climate legislation in Congress.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61F33V20100216

[elkangorito]

The way I see it, we foreigners could be a little more energy conscious.

Instead of having 47 a/c units, 14 hot water heaters, 200 lights & other extraneous paraphernalia, we could try to live in a less complicated fashion & thus require less electricity.

This may not stop the completely stupid idea of building a nuclear power plant here but at least it may help to reduce pollution in the meantime.

Australia has had a total of 3 nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights in South Sydney, which has existed since the 1960's. Only 1 reactor exists today. I've worked there as a contractor about 15 years ago. It's used for research & medicine. It cannot be compared, in any way, to a reactor that is designed to supply power to millions.

http://www.ansto.gov.au/nuclear_informatio...search_reactors

http://www.ansto.gov.au/