Thailand: Preparation For Nuclear Power Plant Stepped Up

[webfact]

Preparation for nuclear power plant stepped up

By The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Energy Regulatory Commission and the Office of Atoms for Peace recently discussed the scope of their regulatory powers over nuclear energy plants as Thailand makes plans for such plants for the first time ever.

According to the Federation of Thai Industries' Industry Focus publication, nuclear technology adviser Preecha Karasut said it had more or less been agreed that the Energy Regulatory Commission would focus on the power-generating front, while the Atoms for Peace Office would emphasise safety standards.

He noted that if Thailand was for nuclear power plants, the 1961 Atomic Energy for Peace Act should be amended to specify legal fuel for the power plants as well as compensation for damages.

"A fund should be established to take care of the compensation, but be inclusive of the construction costs, because producing nuclear energy cost a lot less than other fuel," he said, adding that the cost was now about Bt2.40 per unit.

He also noted that to proceed with the development plan for alternative energy, which includes the construction of nuclear plants, Thailand had prepared on all fronts - location, technology, safety enhancement, construction standards and public understanding. The process also won advice from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world's central intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the nuclear field.

The Energy Ministry expects the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand to shortlist three sites next month and then the government would decide whether it should go ahead with the plan. If the plan is approved, the first nuclear plant should be seen in 2020.

Under the revised Power Development Plan (PDP) 2010-2030, 40 per cent of the power will be generated from natural gas, 20 per cent will be bought from neighbouring countries, 5 per cent will be renewable energy and 10 per cent will be nuclear power. The remaining 25 per cent will come from coal and other sources. According, greenhouse gas emissions will drop from 0.546 kilogram per kilowatt hour (kWh) to 0.38-0.42KWh.

A source from the ministry said that according to the PDP, the cost of nuclear energy per unit would be Bt2.79, versus Bt3.96 to Bt13.65 per unit generated in natural-gas plants.

Energy Minister Wannarat Charn-nukul said the PDP could be adjusted to address the changing environment. However, Thailand is aiming to increase alternative energy consumption to 20 per cent by 2012, which should reduce energy imports worth Bt460 billion a year. This would also reduce greenhouse gases by at least 42 million tonnes a year.

Thanawit Chindapradit, former energy expert for the ministry, noted that nuclear power had become very popular across the globe because it was the cleanest energy. He added that Thailand should embrace serious talks on this energy, given that oil reserves would be running out soon. While nuclear power can assure long-term energy security, other types of alternative energy - wind, solar and hydropower - could not fully address power demand, he said.

Aside from China, Vietnam and Indonesia have also started constructing nuclear power plants.

"Nuclear power is not a new hero - it's a recommended choice if clean energy and efficiency are the priority," he said in the FTI publication.

According to Suvit Limvattanakul, president of the FTI's Power Producer Industry Club, Thailand is home to more than 250 privately owned power plants, both large-sized ones under the independent power producer scheme and small ones under the small power producer (SPP) scheme. So far, there are only seven large plants, while among the SPPs, some produce renewable energy.

Suvit noted that regardless of fuel, electricity prices would definitely rise as the price of natural gas, which constitutes nearly 70 per cent of the fuel generated, should rise in tandem with oil prices.

Therefore, it is necessary for the government to address three issues: reducing the dependence on natural gas of which half is imported from Burma; increasing power generated by other fuels particularly coal and nuclear; and developing sustainable power.

The Office of Atoms for Peace recently drafted nuclear strategy for the government's approval. According to the office's secretary-general, Chaiwat Torsakunkaew, part of the strategy involves the use of nuclear power as alternative energy. However, to promote this strategy public support is needed, and therefore government needs to raise awareness and understand about the peace use of nuclear power.

-- The Nation 2010-04-14

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[brahmburgers]

Reading that article is like reading a 'learn English' booklet written by Thais - every paragraph has mistakes.

To note just a few:

Nuclear power is not 'alternative power' To call it that is to lump it together with real alternative power options: solar, wind, tidal, thermal.

Nuclear power is not the cleanest power source. Not by a long shot.

Nuclear power is not the cheapest way to generate large scale power.

I could go in to detail, but have done so many times before within T.Visa.

Anyone wanting to get a better idea of what nuclear entails for Thailand is welcome to read the illustrated booklet

EGAT'S THAITANIC 76 pages in .pdf format.

Edited April 14, 2010 by brahmburgers

[MengWan]

Nuclear power is not the cheapest way to generate large scale power.

For me, more importantly, and seeing what's happening ...

This country is NOT stable enough to ensure nuclear safety, here still exists

people capable to disperse radio-active material (c. contaminated blood) to

make a political point !

Nuclear energy is a "civilized" energy, it require a People that is such.

[Garry9999]

Nuclear power is not 'alternative power' To call it that is to lump it together with real alternative power options: solar, wind, tidal, thermal.

Well it's an alternative to coal! Has are solar, wind, tidal, thermal etc. But bang for you bucks, you are going to get more power from nuclear than the other alternatives.

[brahmburgers]

Nuclear power is not 'alternative power' To call it that is to lump it together with real alternative power options: solar, wind, tidal, thermal.

Well it's an alternative to coal! Has are solar, wind, tidal, thermal etc. But bang for you bucks, you are going to get more power from nuclear than the other alternatives.

Semantically speaking, every type of energy is alternative to every other type. It's generally agreed upon that 'alternative energy' comprises such things as solar, wind, thermal. Whereas power generation by coal, oil, hydro, nuclear is conventional, not alternative. Let's get our descriptions agreed upon, then it's easier to have discussions. Similarly, if we were talking about sweets, we could say honey is a natural alternative to sugar. Yet, people could also say white sugar is natural, but it would cloud & confuse the issue. It's about having an agreed upon reference for the sake of clarity.

As for 'Bang For Bucks' ....I don't agree nuclear is preferable. Looked at in the larger perspective, nuclear has many hidden costs. Nuclear also produces CO2, contrary to what its boosters want us to believe. There's CO2 generated in the construction of the site, in the mining/processing and shipping of the fuel. There's CO2 in dealing with the spent fuel rods and other radioactive garbage. There's also CO2 generated in the process of decommissioning the plant. All those things also add a lot of added costs, which you don't have with viable alternative (real alternative) power sources - particularly concentrated solar - which has been proven to be more efficient, cleaner and lower cost than nuclear. Am not just talking about rooftop solar panels, but more in reference to large scale solar power generation that's up and running in some forward-thinking countries worldwide.

Thailand has always been behind the 8 ball on technology, and this nuclear fixation is yet another example. Ten years after the nuke plants are built, sensible Thais will look around them and see viable solar plants elsewhere and say, "why didn't our earlier gov't officials have the foresight to build clean efficient power generation - instead of expensive nuclear plants with its myriad added costs and problems?

The current mob riots in Bkk are just a tiny preview to what will befall Thai nuke sites in the future. There's already a groundswell growing against nuclear in Thailand, but you ain't seen nothing yet! Scrap the nuclear plans before it's too late. Do what's right for Thai kids and their kids. Educate the people about conservation, and plan on building clean, efficient and relatively low cost solar plants. That's the smart wave of the future. Nuclear is fraught with problems.

[Paul123456]

Scrap the nuclear site - I agree.

Enough said - all the negatives of nuclear could go on and on. Let just not go down that path.

[rreddin]

Nuclear power is not 'alternative power' To call it that is to lump it together with real alternative power options: solar, wind, tidal, thermal.

Well it's an alternative to coal! Has are solar, wind, tidal, thermal etc. But bang for you bucks, you are going to get more power from nuclear than the other alternatives.

Semantically speaking, every type of energy is alternative to every other type. It's generally agreed upon that 'alternative energy' comprises such things as solar, wind, thermal. Whereas power generation by coal, oil, hydro, nuclear is conventional, not alternative. Let's get our descriptions agreed upon, then it's easier to have discussions. Similarly, if we were talking about sweets, we could say honey is a natural alternative to sugar. Yet, people could also say white sugar is natural, but it would cloud & confuse the issue. It's about having an agreed upon reference for the sake of clarity.

As for 'Bang For Bucks' ....I don't agree nuclear is preferable. Looked at in the larger perspective, nuclear has many hidden costs. Nuclear also produces CO2, contrary to what its boosters want us to believe. There's CO2 generated in the construction of the site, in the mining/processing and shipping of the fuel. There's CO2 in dealing with the spent fuel rods and other radioactive garbage. There's also CO2 generated in the process of decommissioning the plant. All those things also add a lot of added costs, which you don't have with viable alternative (real alternative) power sources - particularly concentrated solar - which has been proven to be more efficient, cleaner and lower cost than nuclear. Am not just talking about rooftop solar panels, but more in reference to large scale solar power generation that's up and running in some forward-thinking countries worldwide.

Thailand has always been behind the 8 ball on technology, and this nuclear fixation is yet another example. Ten years after the nuke plants are built, sensible Thais will look around them and see viable solar plants elsewhere and say, "why didn't our earlier gov't officials have the foresight to build clean efficient power generation - instead of expensive nuclear plants with its myriad added costs and problems?

The current mob riots in Bkk are just a tiny preview to what will befall Thai nuke sites in the future. There's already a groundswell growing against nuclear in Thailand, but you ain't seen nothing yet! Scrap the nuclear plans before it's too late. Do what's right for Thai kids and their kids. Educate the people about conservation, and plan on building clean, efficient and relatively low cost solar plants. That's the smart wave of the future. Nuclear is fraught with problems.

Thailand needs a mix of power generating methods to ensure reliability of supply. Whilst nuclear power generation is an option, it is at least a decade away from being available. In the meantime, the demand for electricity is increasing. Shorter lead time clean low cost electricity generation methods are needed. There are several methods available for both large scale and local electricity generation. These should be developed to meet demand without going nuclear with all the associated problems.

However, this is Thailand where nuclear power stations are seen as symbols of national prestige and gives entry to a rather exclusive club. Despite the compelling arguments against nuclear power stations, Thailand will build some - but for the wrong reasons.

[Jerrytheyoung]

Nuclear power is not 'alternative power' To call it that is to lump it together with real alternative power options: solar, wind, tidal, thermal.

Well it's an alternative to coal! Has are solar, wind, tidal, thermal etc. But bang for you bucks, you are going to get more power from nuclear than the other alternatives.

Semantically speaking, every type of energy is alternative to every other type. It's generally agreed upon that 'alternative energy' comprises such things as solar, wind, thermal. Whereas power generation by coal, oil, hydro, nuclear is conventional, not alternative. Let's get our descriptions agreed upon, then it's easier to have discussions. Similarly, if we were talking about sweets, we could say honey is a natural alternative to sugar. Yet, people could also say white sugar is natural, but it would cloud & confuse the issue. It's about having an agreed upon reference for the sake of clarity.

As for 'Bang For Bucks' ....I don't agree nuclear is preferable. Looked at in the larger perspective, nuclear has many hidden costs. Nuclear also produces CO2, contrary to what its boosters want us to believe. There's CO2 generated in the construction of the site, in the mining/processing and shipping of the fuel. There's CO2 in dealing with the spent fuel rods and other radioactive garbage. There's also CO2 generated in the process of decommissioning the plant. All those things also add a lot of added costs, which you don't have with viable alternative (real alternative) power sources - particularly concentrated solar - which has been proven to be more efficient, cleaner and lower cost than nuclear. Am not just talking about rooftop solar panels, but more in reference to large scale solar power generation that's up and running in some forward-thinking countries worldwide.

Thailand has always been behind the 8 ball on technology, and this nuclear fixation is yet another example. Ten years after the nuke plants are built, sensible Thais will look around them and see viable solar plants elsewhere and say, "why didn't our earlier gov't officials have the foresight to build clean efficient power generation - instead of expensive nuclear plants with its myriad added costs and problems?

The current mob riots in Bkk are just a tiny preview to what will befall Thai nuke sites in the future. There's already a groundswell growing against nuclear in Thailand, but you ain't seen nothing yet! Scrap the nuclear plans before it's too late. Do what's right for Thai kids and their kids. Educate the people about conservation, and plan on building clean, efficient and relatively low cost solar plants. That's the smart wave of the future. Nuclear is fraught with problems.

Thailand needs a mix of power generating methods to ensure reliability of supply. Whilst nuclear power generation is an option, it is at least a decade away from being available. In the meantime, the demand for electricity is increasing. Shorter lead time clean low cost electricity generation methods are needed. There are several methods available for both large scale and local electricity generation. These should be developed to meet demand without going nuclear with all the associated problems.

However, this is Thailand where nuclear power stations are seen as symbols of national prestige and gives entry to a rather exclusive club. Despite the compelling arguments against nuclear power stations, Thailand will build some - but for the wrong reasons.

The most important is SAFETY A nuclear powerplant is something which needs an extreme rigour. The specifications of ALL components must be respected without cheating: no copy, no "fake" valves. No corruption at the technical level... Also enough technicians, engineers, executives well trained and with the ad-hoc knowledge. is the Country ready?

If not ,we go to a major Catastrophe. Already difficult to handle in advanced Countries...

[animatic]

Nuclear power is not the cheapest way to generate large scale power.

For me, more importantly, and seeing what's happening ...

This country is NOT stable enough to ensure nuclear safety, here still exists

people capable to disperse radio-active material (c. contaminated blood) to

make a political point !

Nuclear energy is a "civilized" energy, it require a People that is such.

Not even close.

[NormanW]

Nuclear power is not the cheapest way to generate large scale power.

For me, more importantly, and seeing what's happening ...

This country is NOT stable enough to ensure nuclear safety, here still exists

people capable to disperse radio-active material (c. contaminated blood) to

make a political point !

Nuclear energy is a "civilized" energy, it require a People that is such.

The main problem with nuclear power is getting rid of the waste, in fact that's it - you can't get rid of it. When it is buried (one of the ways it is disposed of) it takes thousands of years to decompose.

I agree, it is extremely desirable to have a fairly stable society and mind set to build, run and then operate a nuclear power station.

This is Thailand and the size and demographic regions allow it to tap into alternative power resources. Number 1 being solar.

They should already be vast areas of many hundreds of acres filled with solar energy plants.

Wind turbines should also be dotted around the main windy areas before Thailand starts to build a nuclear power plant.

Above all and the MOST important thing is education.

Thai people MUST be taught of the consequences of leaving doors open while the A/C is on and to also switch off lights when not in use.

These 2 combined have already saved power consumption by many percent.

Phew, I could go on as this is what my degree is in and when I was in England I worked in a power station.

Happy Songkran, and like myself, let's hope they never ever build a nuclear power plant in the land of smiles.

All the best.

NormanW

[NormanW]

Nuclear power is not 'alternative power' To call it that is to lump it together with real alternative power options: solar, wind, tidal, thermal.

Well it's an alternative to coal! Has are solar, wind, tidal, thermal etc. But bang for you bucks, you are going to get more power from nuclear than the other alternatives.

Semantically speaking, every type of energy is alternative to every other type. It's generally agreed upon that 'alternative energy' comprises such things as solar, wind, thermal. Whereas power generation by coal, oil, hydro, nuclear is conventional, not alternative. Let's get our descriptions agreed upon, then it's easier to have discussions. Similarly, if we were talking about sweets, we could say honey is a natural alternative to sugar. Yet, people could also say white sugar is natural, but it would cloud & confuse the issue. It's about having an agreed upon reference for the sake of clarity.

As for 'Bang For Bucks' ....I don't agree nuclear is preferable. Looked at in the larger perspective, nuclear has many hidden costs. Nuclear also produces CO2, contrary to what its boosters want us to believe. There's CO2 generated in the construction of the site, in the mining/processing and shipping of the fuel. There's CO2 in dealing with the spent fuel rods and other radioactive garbage. There's also CO2 generated in the process of decommissioning the plant. All those things also add a lot of added costs, which you don't have with viable alternative (real alternative) power sources - particularly concentrated solar - which has been proven to be more efficient, cleaner and lower cost than nuclear. Am not just talking about rooftop solar panels, but more in reference to large scale solar power generation that's up and running in some forward-thinking countries worldwide.

Thailand has always been behind the 8 ball on technology, and this nuclear fixation is yet another example. Ten years after the nuke plants are built, sensible Thais will look around them and see viable solar plants elsewhere and say, "why didn't our earlier gov't officials have the foresight to build clean efficient power generation - instead of expensive nuclear plants with its myriad added costs and problems?

The current mob riots in Bkk are just a tiny preview to what will befall Thai nuke sites in the future. There's already a groundswell growing against nuclear in Thailand, but you ain't seen nothing yet! Scrap the nuclear plans before it's too late. Do what's right for Thai kids and their kids. Educate the people about conservation, and plan on building clean, efficient and relatively low cost solar plants. That's the smart wave of the future. Nuclear is fraught with problems.

Thailand needs a mix of power generating methods to ensure reliability of supply. Whilst nuclear power generation is an option, it is at least a decade away from being available. In the meantime, the demand for electricity is increasing. Shorter lead time clean low cost electricity generation methods are needed. There are several methods available for both large scale and local electricity generation. These should be developed to meet demand without going nuclear with all the associated problems.

However, this is Thailand where nuclear power stations are seen as symbols of national prestige and gives entry to a rather exclusive club. Despite the compelling arguments against nuclear power stations, Thailand will build some - but for the wrong reasons.

Respect to your post rreddin but I sincerely hope you are wrong and they do go down the alternative route like Germany, Holland and Spain to name a few. (Wind and solar).

Happy Songkran.

[bendejo]

Bad idea.

1) too much corruption to ensure the nuclear fuel doesn't 'disappear.' Not necessarily that some somchai is going to grab some and go looking for a buyer, more like a farang will approach a military officer and make him an offer he can't refuse

2) sloppy way of doing things: it will begin to fall apart before it even goes on line. 'mai pen rai' doesn't work with nukes

3) social/political instability: some public figure with a grudge (ahem!) can convince a portion of the population that doesn't know any better (double ahem!) to storm and sabotage the place

Anyway, why would any official spend all that $$ on something like that when the money would look so good sitting in his Swiss bank account? He could console himself with it for missing out on the tsunami donation grab-bag.

[tlongdon]

Respect to your post rreddin but I sincerely hope you are wrong and they do go down the alternative route like Germany, Holland and Spain to name a few. (Wind and solar).

Happy Songkran.

Germany has 7 reactor units producing around 20 gigawatts, Holland 1 producing 482 MWe, and Spain 8 producing over 7 gigawats.

There are countries in Europe I would consider not entirely stable (especially when their reactors were built) including Romania, but these are designed, built and their operators trained by the giants like Westinghouse, and Thailand would be no different.

In France, over 85% of electricity is generated by nuclear power. The country has exhausted known feasible technologies for the production of energy from hydro-electricity (about 10% - and they have a shed load of mountains with rivers and dams, something sadly Thailand lacks as we've seen recently with news of the drought and problems with the Mekong).

So nuclear will be the answer for some countries, and I can think of some places I'd feel less comfortable with nuclear power generation than Thailand.

You know Thailand already has a research reactor running right, and there's another one being built?

(also, a lot of places - like China now for example - are looking at CANDU reactors designed in Canada, which do not used enriched uranium - just natural uranium - and have a 30-40% increased efficiency than existing reactor technologies. So even if someone got hold of that fuel source, they'd need to enrich it to be dangerous).

Edited April 14, 2010 by tlongdon

[tlongdon]

...although I totally agree with Bendejo's point 3. (maybe time to start a Backwater style private security firm )

[NormanW]

Respect to your post rreddin but I sincerely hope you are wrong and they do go down the alternative route like Germany, Holland and Spain to name a few. (Wind and solar).

Happy Songkran.

Germany has 7 reactor units producing around 20 gigawatts, Holland 1 producing 482 MWe, and Spain 8 producing over 7 gigawats.

There are countries in Europe I would consider not entirely stable (especially when their reactors were built) including Romania, but these are designed, built and their operators trained by the giants like Westinghouse, and Thailand would be no different.

In France, over 85% of electricity is generated by nuclear power. The country has exhausted known feasible technologies for the production of energy from hydro-electricity (about 10% - and they have a shed load of mountains with rivers and dams, something sadly Thailand lacks as we've seen recently with news of the drought and problems with the Mekong).

So nuclear will be the answer for some countries, and I can think of some places I'd feel less comfortable with nuclear power generation than Thailand.

You know Thailand already has a research reactor running right, and there's another one being built?

No, didn't know that.

Thanks for letting us know.

Wow, just goes to show eh.

I hope when not if there is a radioactive leak, the authorities inform the immediate vicinity and measures could be put into place. I fear they will not do this for obvious reasons and the effects will not be known until a long period of time elapses.

Many countries have observed mishaps in nuclear power plants and there has been a small release into the atmosphere with questions being asked such as why are there dead fish in the rivers? (Cooling water contaminated release).

What type of nuclear reactor is the research one running? PWR - Pressurised water reactor?

Regards

[tlongdon]

The Office of Atoms for Peace (OAP) of Thailand (สำนักงานปรมาณูเพื่อสันติ) operates a 2-megawatt nuclear research reactor, Thai Research Reactor 1/Modification 1 (TRR-1/M1). The TRR-1/M1 is of the type TRIGA Mark III, built by General Atomics, and began operation in 1977.

link on a TRIGA reactor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIGA

It's in Nakhon Nayok

Edited April 14, 2010 by tlongdon

[Soutpeel]

The most important is SAFETY A nuclear powerplant is something which needs an extreme rigour. The specifications of ALL components must be respected without cheating: no copy, no "fake" valves. No corruption at the technical level... Also enough technicians, engineers, executives well trained and with the ad-hoc knowledge. is the Country ready?

If not ,we go to a major Catastrophe. Already difficult to handle in advanced Countries...

With the insight shown in your post.....it is very apparant you dont have a clue about what you are talking about...

[Soutpeel]

Phew, I could go on as this is what my degree is in and when I was in England I worked in a power station.

Which one Norm ??

[BSJ]

I vote absolutely positively unequivocally NO to a nuclear power plant.....anywhere!

The d@mn waste is and will forever be a problem.

[NormanW]

Phew, I could go on as this is what my degree is in and when I was in England I worked in a power station.

Which one Norm ??

Did 10 years at Teesside Power Station opposite Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station.

And u? Did you work in a power station?

I'm glad to be out of em!

Happy Songkran.

[zorro1]

About time. Will be fantastic long term solution

[Jerrytheyoung]

The most important is SAFETY A nuclear powerplant is something which needs an extreme rigour. The specifications of ALL components must be respected without cheating: no copy, no "fake" valves. No corruption at the technical level... Also enough technicians, engineers, executives well trained and with the ad-hoc knowledge. is the Country ready?

If not ,we go to a major Catastrophe. Already difficult to handle in advanced Countries...

With the insight shown in your post.....it is very apparant you dont have a clue about what you are talking about...

Sorry after 3 Miles Island accident, I have participated to comparison/evaluation of SOPs in Aviation and in Nuclear Powerplant. (EDF/ AIR FRANCE technical meeting and dialog about training, SOP analysis of common ground and differences, improvement of EDF procedures).

EDF stand for Electricite de France

And also very close relatives (son) fully immerged in the nuclear activity

[dwwin]

And there was I thinking about going back to Thailand, I guess I give this a miss

[zorro1]

And there was I thinking about going back to Thailand, I guess I give this a miss

why, The ladies may grow 3 breasts although Im worried about what may happen if the plant is in isarn....

[asiasurfer]

Bad idea.

1) too much corruption to ensure the nuclear fuel doesn't 'disappear.' Not necessarily that some somchai is going to grab some and go looking for a buyer, more like a farang will approach a military officer and make him an offer he can't refuse

2) sloppy way of doing things: it will begin to fall apart before it even goes on line. 'mai pen rai' doesn't work with nukes

3) social/political instability: some public figure with a grudge (ahem!) can convince a portion of the population that doesn't know any better (double ahem!) to storm and sabotage the place

Anyway, why would any official spend all that $$ on something like that when the money would look so good sitting in his Swiss bank account? He could console himself with it for missing out on the tsunami donation grab-bag.

This exactly hits the nail on the head, I would say.

[gaza1]

Scares the crap out of me........Somchai running around with a bag of plutonium

If there is a leak or a melt down all the men could grow breasts,

Hmm! must have already happened in Korat

[JUDAS]

And who exactly will be responsible for security at this new nuclear power station? From what I've seen here, any mob/group can take over any building/area of their choice.

[zorro1]

Bad idea.

1) too much corruption to ensure the nuclear fuel doesn't 'disappear.' Not necessarily that some somchai is going to grab some and go looking for a buyer, more like a farang will approach a military officer and make him an offer he can't refuse

2) sloppy way of doing things: it will begin to fall apart before it even goes on line. 'mai pen rai' doesn't work with nukes

3) social/political instability: some public figure with a grudge (ahem!) can convince a portion of the population that doesn't know any better (double ahem!) to storm and sabotage the place

Anyway, why would any official spend all that $$ on something like that when the money would look so good sitting in his Swiss bank account? He could console himself with it for missing out on the tsunami donation grab-bag.

This exactly hits the nail on the head, I would say.

What absolute rubbish. Here is a list of nuclear plants world wide and non have had anyone " to storm and sabotage the place"

As if there going to let a sleepy security guard have the keys and lean on the wrong lever ,what an embarrassing post!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#Peru

List of nuclear reactors is a comprehensive annotated list of all the nuclear reactors of the world, sorted by country. This list excludes nuclear marine propulsion reactors, except those at land installations, and reactors that never achieved criticality.

Contents

[hide]

* 1 Algeria

* 2 Antarctica

* 3 Argentina

o 3.1 Power station reactors

o 3.2 Research reactors

* 4 Armenia

* 5 Australia

* 6 Austria

* 7 Bangladesh

* 8 Belarus

* 9 Belgium

o 9.1 Power station reactors

o 9.2 Research Reactors

* 10 Brazil

o 10.1 Research Reactors

* 11 Bulgaria

* 12 Canada

o 12.1 Ontario

o 12.2 Quebec

o 12.3 New Brunswick

o 12.4 Research reactors

* 13 Chile

* 14 China

* 15 Colombia

* 16 Democratic Republic of the Congo

* 17 Cuba

* 18 Czech Republic

* 19 Denmark

* 20 Egypt

* 21 Estonia

* 22 Finland

* 23 France

* 24 Germany

o 24.1 Research reactors

o 24.2 Decommisioned

* 25 Greece

* 26 Hungary

* 27 India

o 27.1 Power station reactors

o 27.2 Research and production reactors

* 28 Indonesia

* 29 Iran

o 29.1 Power station reactors

o 29.2 Research reactors

* 30 Iraq

o 30.1 Research reactors

* 31 Israel

o 31.1 Research and production reactors

* 32 Italy

o 32.1 Power station reactors

o 32.2 Research reactors

* 33 Jamaica

* 34 Japan

o 34.1 Power station reactors

o 34.2 Research reactors

* 35 Kazakhstan

o 35.1 Power station reactors

o 35.2 Research reactors

* 36 Latvia

* 37 Libya

* 38 Lithuania

* 39 Malaysia

* 40 Mexico

* 41 Morocco

* 42 Netherlands

o 42.1 Power station reactors

o 42.2 Research reactors

* 43 North Korea

o 43.1 Power station reactors

o 43.2 Research and production reactors

* 44 Norway

o 44.1 Research reactors

* 45 Pakistan

o 45.1 Research and production reactors

* 46 Panama

* 47 Peru

* 48 Philippines

* 49 Poland

* 50 Portugal

* 51 Puerto Rico

* 52 Romania

o 52.1 Power stations

o 52.2 Fuel Factory

o 52.3 Research

* 53 Russia

o 53.1 Power station reactors

o 53.2 Research reactors

* 54 Serbia

o 54.1 Research reactors

* 55 Slovakia

* 56 Slovenia

* 57 South Africa

o 57.1 Power station reactors

o 57.2 Research reactors

* 58 South Korea

* 59 Spain

o 59.1 Power station reactors

o 59.2 Research reactors

* 60 Sweden

o 60.1 Power Station Reactors

o 60.2 Research reactors

* 61 Switzerland

o 61.1 Power station reactors

o 61.2 Research reactors

* 62 Syria

* 63 Taiwan

o 63.1 Power station reactors

o 63.2 Research reactors

* 64 Thailand

* 65 Turkey

o 65.1 Research reactors

o 65.2 Fuel pilot plants

* 66 Ukraine

o 66.1 Power station reactors

o 66.2 Research reactors

* 67 United Kingdom

o 67.1 Power station reactors

o 67.2 Research reactors

* 68 United States of America

o 68.1 Power station reactors

+ 68.1.1 NRC Region One (Northeast)

+ 68.1.2 NRC Region Two (South)

+ 68.1.3 NRC Region Three (Midwest)

+ 68.1.4 NRC Region Four (West)

o 68.2 Plutonium production reactors

o 68.3 Army Nuclear Power Program

o 68.4 United States Naval reactors

o 68.5 Research reactors

+ 68.5.1 Civilian Research and Test Reactors Licensed To Operate

+ 68.5.2 Research and Test Reactors Under Decommission Orders or License Amendments

+ 68.5.3 Research and Test Reactors With Possession-Only Licenses

o 68.6 External links

* 69 Uruguay

* 70 Uzbekistan

* 71 Venezuela

* 72 Vietnam

* 73 See also

* 74 External links

* 75 References

Edited April 14, 2010 by zorro1

[Garry9999]

• Asia is the only region in the world where electricity generating capacity and specifically nuclear power is growing significantly.
  
• In East and South Asia there are over 111 nuclear power reactors in operation, 21 under construction and plans to build about a further 150.
  
• The greatest growth in nuclear generation is expected in China, Japan, South Korea and India.
  

Thailand

1 research reactor, + 1 being built.

Interest by Thailand in nuclear power was revived by a forecast growth in electricity demand of 7 per cent per year for the next twenty years. About 70% of electricity is from natural gas. Capacity requirement in 2016 is forecast at 48 GWe.

In June 2007 the Energy Minister announced that it would proceed with plans to build a 4000 MWe nuclear power plant, and has budgeted funds to 2011 for preparatory work. Construction will commence in 2015, to operate from 2020.

Thailand has had an operating research reactor since 1977 and a larger one is under construction.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.html

[whistleblower]

god help us. nuclear power station in thailand!!!