I forgot to mention, France generates 78% of it's energy from nuclear power. They are able to make it so cheaply that they export much of it to neighboring countries. The remaining 22% is almost entirely from renewable sources. A great model for the rest of the world.

Edited August 2, 201015 yr by ScubaBuddha

I forgot to mention, France generates 78% of it's energy from nuclear power. They are able to make it so cheaply that they export much of it to neighboring countries. The remaining 22% is almost entirely from renewable sources. A great model for the rest of the world.

Though France and Thailand are roughly the same size and have about the same # of people, there are differences. One difference is the way they deal with technology. The French were developing heavier-than-air motorized machines that could fly in the air, during a time when Thailand was discovering what a ball bearing was.

Thailand was discovering what a ball bearing was.

There must be a Thai patent on it ofcourse.

Wind power is usable, but is noisy and expensive. The cost will come down as more and more turbines are made by more and more companies - if the demand is there. But the noise problem has not been solved.

(It is caused by the simple fact that one has to have a mast. When the blades pass the mast the wind flow is interrupted and a nise similar to a sonic boom is emitted. I have not found a solution, nor has anyone else yet - make your millions with a practical solution!)

Solar power can be done with either PV cells, directly generating elactricity (PV cells are expensive) or by concentrating the sun's rays on to a media that will efficiently absorb abd store the heat for further superheating of water to drive turbines. The system so far is not cost-effective.

Geothermal power is costly and requires a good source of geothermal energy. To my mind the New Zealahders have the best handle on this business and are selling it to places like Indonesia, where the geology suits it (plenty of volcanoes, for instance, thus hot springs / hot gases down there somewhere).

Hydropower would, to me, be a good idea for Thailand, as there is plenty of water in narrow valleys, thus can be dammed fairly cheaply. Also there are places where tunnels could be used instead of dams, thus not interrupting the flow of water in any great amount.

Gas / Oil fired generation is a very ompetitive in both construction and running costs.

Coal-fired plant will have to be phased out soon, there is too much pollution and not enough efficient scrubbers (at least in SE Asia and China).

Nuclear - I like it, but one has to supervise all construction processes very carefully and with the attitude of most SE Asian nationals these days (you've been here too long - we can do it by ourselves) I am reluctant to endorse it without knowing who is supervising, who is constructing, who is doing the engineering. There must be a large Western involvement at every stage and every level of management. And no pressure to cut costs - that does not work with a nuclear plant.

I forgot to mention, France generates 78% of it's energy from nuclear power. They are able to make it so cheaply that they export much of it to neighboring countries. The remaining 22% is almost entirely from renewable sources. A great model for the rest of the world.

Though France and Thailand are roughly the same size and have about the same # of people, there are differences. One difference is the way they deal with technology. The French were developing heavier-than-air motorized machines that could fly in the air, during a time when Thailand was discovering what a ball bearing was.

the hypocrite hippie with a ugly white man superiority complex.

I forgot to mention, France generates 78% of it's energy from nuclear power. They are able to make it so cheaply that they export much of it to neighboring countries. The remaining 22% is almost entirely from renewable sources. A great model for the rest of the world.

Though France and Thailand are roughly the same size and have about the same # of people, there are differences. One difference is the way they deal with technology. The French were developing heavier-than-air motorized machines that could fly in the air, during a time when Thailand was discovering what a ball bearing was.

the hypocrite hippie with a ugly white man superiority complex.

What are you on about?

France - for instance the Montgolfier brothers - were in the forefront of aviation.

It is not anything to do with a superiority complex - it is fact.

I forgot to mention, France generates 78% of it's energy from nuclear power. They are able to make it so cheaply that they export much of it to neighboring countries. The remaining 22% is almost entirely from renewable sources. A great model for the rest of the world.

Though France and Thailand are roughly the same size and have about the same # of people, there are differences. One difference is the way they deal with technology. The French were developing heavier-than-air motorized machines that could fly in the air, during a time when Thailand was discovering what a ball bearing was.

the hypocrite hippie with a ugly white man superiority complex.

What are you on about?

France - for instance the Montgolfier brothers - were in the forefront of aviation.

It is not anything to do with a superiority complex - it is fact.

it is if the argument of the nazi hippie goes in that direction that Thai people are not smart enough to handle a nuclear power station.

I think that it's great that Thailand is investing in solar energy. There's one KW/square meter available here (near the equator), yet most of the countries currently investing in Solar are places like Germany, where the energy density is much lower.

However, photo-voltaic panels still have a long way to go before they are practical and competitive. Currently, the most efficient use of solar power would be using parabolic mirrors or Fresnel mirrors to power Stirling engines. This technology is available now and, while it is more maintenance intensive than PV cells, it is a promising alternative.

Wind power is usable, but is noisy and expensive. The cost will come down as more and more turbines are made by more and more companies - if the demand is there. But the noise problem has not been solved.

(It is caused by the simple fact that one has to have a mast. When the blades pass the mast the wind flow is interrupted and a nise similar to a sonic boom is emitted. I have not found a solution, nor has anyone else yet - make your millions with a practical solution!)

Solar power can be done with either PV cells, directly generating elactricity (PV cells are expensive) or by concentrating the sun's rays on to a media that will efficiently absorb abd store the heat for further superheating of water to drive turbines. The system so far is not cost-effective.

Geothermal power is costly and requires a good source of geothermal energy. To my mind the New Zealahders have the best handle on this business and are selling it to places like Indonesia, where the geology suits it (plenty of volcanoes, for instance, thus hot springs / hot gases down there somewhere).

Hydropower would, to me, be a good idea for Thailand, as there is plenty of water in narrow valleys, thus can be dammed fairly cheaply. Also there are places where tunnels could be used instead of dams, thus not interrupting the flow of water in any great amount.

Gas / Oil fired generation is a very ompetitive in both construction and running costs.

Coal-fired plant will have to be phased out soon, there is too much pollution and not enough efficient scrubbers (at least in SE Asia and China).

Nuclear - I like it, but one has to supervise all construction processes very carefully and with the attitude of most SE Asian nationals these days (you've been here too long - we can do it by ourselves) I am reluctant to endorse it without knowing who is supervising, who is constructing, who is doing the engineering. There must be a large Western involvement at every stage and every level of management. And no pressure to cut costs - that does not work with a nuclear plant.

Thanks for the run-down. It seems you are in the industry?

the hypocrite hippie with a ugly white man superiority complex.

What are you on about?

France - for instance the Montgolfier brothers - were in the forefront of aviation.

It is not anything to do with a superiority complex - it is fact.

it is if the argument of the nazi hippie goes in that direction that Thai people are not smart enough to handle a nuclear power station.

Thai people are nice, I really like living here. But "mai pen rai" is part of the culture, and it simply doesn't go well with nuclear technology.

I guess you are Thai, otherwise you wouldn't have made that remark. I also guess that you are well-educated, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.

Thai people are smart. However, you won't deny that the mai-pen-rai factor is detrimental to dangerous technology as nuclear power, would you?

the hypocrite hippie with a ugly white man superiority complex.

What are you on about?

France - for instance the Montgolfier brothers - were in the forefront of aviation.

It is not anything to do with a superiority complex - it is fact.

it is if the argument of the nazi hippie goes in that direction that Thai people are not smart enough to handle a nuclear power station.

Thai people are nice, I really like living here. But "mai pen rai" is part of the culture, and it simply doesn't go well with nuclear technology.

I guess you are Thai, otherwise you wouldn't have made that remark. I also guess that you are well-educated, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.

Thai people are smart. However, you won't deny that the mai-pen-rai factor is detrimental to dangerous technology as nuclear power, would you?

Tom, please pay attention to your quotes. That was not me that said what your post is showing I said.

Tom, please pay attention to your quotes. That was not me that said what your post is showing I said.

Sorry for that. I find the quoting function not very user-friendly in this software, unless you always want to make a full-quote.

My apologies.

Here's an interesting article that's relevant to this story: Nuke/Solar study

If links are not allowed or if you don't like to click on links, basically it refers to a study from Duke Univ. that says that Solar is now cheaper than Nuclear power.

Here's an interesting article that's relevant to this story: Nuke/Solar study

If links are not allowed or if you don't like to click on links, basically it refers to a study from Duke Univ. that says that Solar is now cheaper than Nuclear power.

Wow, this is good news.

The figures are in billion dollars per plant, though. How big is a plant in square kilometers? In the US, they may have space in abundance, and using deserts to become productive this way is good. (Someone will say that snakes will suffer as they don't get enough sunlight, I guess.) But here in Thailand, space is either productive farmland, or oxygen-producing forest (with hundreds of plant and animal species depending on it).

So, is this reasearch transferrable to Thailand?