Thailand To Rethink Plan To Build 5 Nuclear Plants

[webfact]

Thailand reviews N-power

By The Nation, Agencies

PM wants rethink of plan to build 5 nuclear plants as global doubts soar

Countries across the world that already operate or plan to invest in nuclear power plants are taking prompt action in response to the explosions at reactors in Japan, with many ordering a review of their plans in the light of the Japanese experience and the solutions the authorities there are pursuing.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday ordered the Energy Ministry to review its plan to establish five nuclear power plants. The ministry has been instructed to study two issues in detail - emergency measures and nuclear plants' potential as terrorist targets.

"Personally, the prime minister does not favour the construction plan. His concern is mounting given the problems in Japan, if Thailand is to adopt the Japanese model. Even with high technology, Japan has not yet been able to restore the cooling system. This shows there are flaws even when you have excellent technology," said Government Spokes-person Panitan Wattanayagorn.

There are 442 reactors worldwide that supply about 15 per cent of global electricity, and a further 65 are under construction, according to the London-based World Nuclear Association. Fifty-four are in operation in Japan, where another two reactors are under construction and 12 more are planned.

There are plans to build more than 155 additional reactors, most of them in Asia, and 65 are under construction, the association said.

The Swiss government has come up with the most drastic move, with the decision to suspend plans to replace and build new nuclear plants pending a review of the two hydrogen explosions at the Japanese facilities following Friday's devastating earthquake and tsunami.

Malaysia also wants to learn from the Japanese accident before taking a final decision on whether to establish its first atomic power plants.

"It's best for us to learn from the investigation results and then see further," Peter Chin, minister for energy, green technology and water, told Bloomberg. "What happened in Japan was due to an earthquake. On the Malaysian side, we have not decided anything yet."

Indian Prime Minister Manmo-han Singh yesterday announced a safety review of the country's 20 nuclear power reactors. India plans to spend US$175 billion (Bt5.3 trillion) by 2030 on nuclear generation.

The Finnish government has commissioned a safety agency to study contingency plans at its nuclear power plants in the wake of events in Japan. Finland operates four nuclear reactors and a fifth is being built.

US Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent who heads the Home-land Security Committee, said the US should slow the construction of new domestic nuclear power plants until officials can assess whether the situation in Japan signals a need for additional safety measures.

Twenty-three nuclear power plants in the US were built according to designs that are similar to the Dai-Ichi plants in Japan, he said on CBS's "Face the Nation".

"I don't want to stop the building of nuclear power plants, but I think we've got to quietly, quickly put the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and tsunami and see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming online," Lieberman said.

Though Japan's accident, a month shy of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, may reignite debate about the safety of atomic energy, China pledges to go ahead with its plans. Some 25 reactors are under construction as part of a programme to increase installed capacity to 86 gigawatts, or 5 per cent of total electricity generation, by 2020. China's 2011-2015 economic plan targets another 40GW of nuclear power to add to the 10.8GW of installed capacity from 13 reactors.

The day after the monster quake in Japan, Zhang Lijun, vice minister of environmental protection, insisted that China would not change its plan to develop nuclear power.

China has pledged to cut carbon emissions by switching to clean energy such as nuclear and wind power. It wants at least 15 per cent of its energy mix to come from non-fossil fuels by 2020 and is building more atomic plants to help meet that goal.

France's Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, environment minister of a nation highly dependent on nuclear power with 58 reactors, said the country could not forgo nuclear.

-- The Nation 2011-03-15

[pogal]

There is a god! LOL

[DP25]

Yes, lets stick with oil, that can't possibly have catastrophic environmental consequences

They will get built eventually

[Soutpeel]

Yes, lets stick with oil, that can't possibly have catastrophic environmental consequences

They will get built eventually

Based on the other big CAPEX projects in Thailand....ie new airport etc....can see it happening in the vast majority of TV posters life times anyway...

If they broke ground tomorrow on the first unit, your would be looking at least 8 years before they would even be looking at putting fuel in

[ETatBKK]

this is a typical 'high risk, high return' discussion :-)

we bring in future problem and solve today's problem ! just mortage our next generation and we enjoy the comfort today, sabai sabai :-)

do we exhaust other solutions already - solar power, wind power, tidal power . . . ? while we enjoy our sun bath, we can . . .

[animatic]

About the only foreseeable silver lining to this is decreased installation of these time bombs.

The typical arguments against 'alternatives' has always been cost for the current generation in cash outlay, and rarely has cost to future generations in potential loss of habitat ever high on the list of considerations .

Edited March 15, 2011 by animatic

[jackr]

They're the best option we have at this juncture. Coal, oil will be out soon and, in any case, kills, maims, pollutes far more people than nuclear. The Japan plant in question is old hat and lives near the Pacific Ring of Fire in the path of potential tsunamis. You put them in the right place, have enough supply backups (gennies > batteries > jet engines), manage the little waste properly and fanny's your aunty. It's a fantastic concept (in the right hands) and there should be a lot more of them. Unless someone comes up with a viable alternative (millions of wind farms won't cut it) there ain't really another option.

[midas]

They're the best option we have at this juncture. Coal, oil will be out soon and, in any case, kills, maims, pollutes far more people than nuclear. The Japan plant in question is old hat and lives near the Pacific Ring of Fire in the path of potential tsunamis. You put them in the right place, have enough supply backups (gennies > batteries > jet engines), manage the little waste properly and fanny's your aunty. It's a fantastic concept (in the right hands) and there should be a lot more of them. Unless someone comes up with a viable alternative (millions of wind farms won't cut it) there ain't really another option.

solar ?

[a99az]

Can you imagine: "Somchai did you remember to turn on the water cooling" Cap.

[anon467367354]

i'm sure they could accomplish all their cooking and automotive needs with hemp seed oil. Not only is it healthy, it's clean, fast growing, produces textiles, far better than cotton, doesn't need chemicals, can make it into a stronger than steel material, (henry ford) did it a long time ago. It would solve a lot of problems. Palm oil is just stupid anyway you look at it. Try to sell palm oil in the western world as something to cook with, you can't, they have to sneak it into baked goods somewhere it's so bad for you. screw nuclear, screw petroleum, thailand has everything it needs if it can think outside of the box they live in.

[yuyi]

They're the best option we have at this juncture. Coal, oil will be out soon and, in any case, kills, maims, pollutes far more people than nuclear. The Japan plant in question is old hat and lives near the Pacific Ring of Fire in the path of potential tsunamis. You put them in the right place, have enough supply backups (gennies > batteries > jet engines), manage the little waste properly and fanny's your aunty. It's a fantastic concept (in the right hands) and there should be a lot more of them. Unless someone comes up with a viable alternative (millions of wind farms won't cut it) there ain't really another option.

You are not well informed.

Renewable energies can indeed replace nuclear power plants. Easily.

Don't talk as if there would be no sun shining on Thailand!

[atsiii]

In addition to the PM's concerns about safety and terrorism, I would add that there is still no proven and affordable disposal solution known to man.

Setting aside for a moment the environmental cost/benefit arguments, the economist Emory Lovins showed in the late 70's and early 80's that if the real costs of nuclear power are accounted for, it is--among many other things--unaffordable and economically unsustainable. The cost of fuel enrichment is all subsidized by national governments, so no real market cost for fuel is ever shown in the economic analysis for proposed plants . Nor is the cost of ultimate waste disposal accounted for--because it is a complete unknown! And the real market cost for dis-assembly and mothballing a retired (or damaged) plant is rarely ever discussed. When all the real costs are added up, nuclear cannot even begin to compete economically with alternative energy. The problem is and has always been that distributed alternative energies cannot provide the same rate of return (i.e. profit) to the major multinational utility players as centralized mass production. IMO, that will be--as always--Thailand's chief challenge in this argument: the already rich and forever greedy industrial establishment.

And not to alarm anyone, but after the disasters in Japan, there has yet to be any discussion of the status of the spent fuel rods that are sitting in cooling ponds at every reactor site. They are stored on site just because there is no known waste disposal solution. And if these cooling pools lose their integrity, as has the reactor cores, the spent fuel rods also pose a huge environmental risk. HUGE!

Edited March 15, 2011 by atsiii

[yuyi]

millions of wind farms won't cut it

Actually, they would. Easily.

Add solar, PV, waves, tidal power.

And guess what?

No risk of radiation, no radioactive waste for millions of years, no explosions!

I prefer that, how about you?

Edited March 15, 2011 by yuyi

[exbelg]

wait... are there ever severe earthquakes in thailand ???? are we on the same fault as japan ????

the danger of having nuclear power in thailand are not the earthquakes, but for example, the corruption where they would bill expensive material and use cheap ass material instead giving real dangers about the constructed plant + the operators...

as thai people love to run away in a(n) (car) accident, so what would they do when a nuclear plant fails ?

[yuyi]

And not to alarm anyone, but after the disasters in Japan, there has yet to be any discussion of the status of the spent fuel rods that are sitting in cooling ponds at every reactor site. They are stored on site just because there is no known waste disposal solution. And if these cooling pools lose their integrity, as has the reactor cores, the spent fuel rods also pose a huge environmental risk. HUGE!

HUGE is an understatement.

[marc11864]

About the only foreseeable silver lining to this is decreased installation of these time bombs.

The typical arguments against 'alternatives' has always been cost for the current generation in cash outlay, and rarely has cost to future generations in potential loss of habitat ever high on the list of considerations.

Maybe we'll get lucky and Iran will rethink their nuclear program.

*crosses fingers*

[Bobr]

They're the best option we have at this juncture. Coal, oil will be out soon and, in any case, kills, maims, pollutes far more people than nuclear. The Japan plant in question is old hat and lives near the Pacific Ring of Fire in the path of potential tsunamis. You put them in the right place, have enough supply backups (gennies > batteries > jet engines), manage the little waste properly and fanny's your aunty. It's a fantastic concept (in the right hands) and there should be a lot more of them. Unless someone comes up with a viable alternative (millions of wind farms won't cut it) there ain't really another option.

Unfortunately the decision whether or not to build nuclear plants usually has nothing to do with what's best for the Country or the environment. Whether oil, coal or nuclear, huge amounts of money are involved and the hands into which that money will or would move all have lobbyists pushing their idea as best. The American trade deficit is staggering, how much less would that be if they were not importing billions of dollars worth of oil to burn for electricity? In looking at the decline of America over the last 40 years, a significant part of that decline can be blamed on allowing special interest groups to block the construction of any new nuclear power plants since Three Mile Island. Lieberman is noting more than a paid whore of the insurance industry which is primarily headquartered in Connecuit. Like most politicians, he has no real opinions and only says what his favorite constituents want him to say.

[yuyi]

... manage the little waste properly and fanny's your aunty. ...

"The little waste"?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years.

The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).[20] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere.

This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.

The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[33] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[34]

Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[35] [36] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[37] and cost evaluations[38] are concerned.

Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects.

"The little waste"????

[Emster23]

Has anyone ever tried to have "service after the sale" here? Taken something in for warranty repairs? maintaining things? What's that?

Reactors are hugely expensive, so there are just too many opportunities for bribes and payoffs to be ignored, too many corners to be cut.

Thailand could cut it's energy usage greatly if there were just reasonable standards for air conditioning. Almost everywhere there is air con, it is overdone. I can't go to a mall or theater for too long simply because it is like being in a walk in freezer. Another area is traffic management: all those vehicles just idling away for hours at a time, generating heat and pollution, using up fuel.

I could go on and on...

[SomTumTiger]

Best news today.

[arrowsdawdle]

Seems everybody is missing the point.

Ever been on Sukhumvit? Ever notice the power line spaghetti? Ever notice cables you have to duck under to navigate fly-overs?

Now, what is the question about putting nuclear facilities in the hands of undisciplined children?

[Who, me ?]

If only this tragic event in Japan could help not to have these nuke plants in Thailand!

[doughpat]

Amen. In the end, this disaster could end up being a very pro-nuclear event. This is pretty much a "worst-case scenario", and when you consider what *could* happen (if it weren't for the safety nets put in place by engineers), this is a minor event.

Hoping I'm not proved wrong by events yet to occur....

Yes, lets stick with oil, that can't possibly have catastrophic environmental consequences

They will get built eventually

[jamora]

They're the best option we have at this juncture. Coal, oil will be out soon and, in any case, kills, maims, pollutes far more people than nuclear. The Japan plant in question is old hat and lives near the Pacific Ring of Fire in the path of potential tsunamis. You put them in the right place, have enough supply backups (gennies > batteries > jet engines), manage the little waste properly and fanny's your aunty. It's a fantastic concept (in the right hands) and there should be a lot more of them. Unless someone comes up with a viable alternative (millions of wind farms won't cut it) there ain't really another option.

Have to agree with you! People tend to forget that the Fukushima 1 is from the mid 70'ies, and is nothing like what they can built today. A good example is the Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. What I believe they should do, is to renovate old generators so they are up to date, or replace them with new once.

And an interesting thing about so called "renewable" energy, is that most solar panels e.g. pollute more than most coal power plant, if you include the production and dumping stages. Just like a Toyota Prius pollutes more than a BMW M3 over the expected lifespan, if you include the production and dumping stages.

And for Thailand, wind power will not be sufficient either. They are running some smaller projects in the south, but most places do not have enough wind to make it efficient. Moreover, wind energy generates a lot of noise. Anyone who have lived near a big windmill can agree with this!

So I would say that nuclear power, is Thailand's best shot for now! But they have to learn from the past, and do it the right way!

[MaiChai]

Maybe someone can write the 'Mai Phen Rai guide to nuclear energy production". Abhisit knows his countrymen well enough to know its only a matter of time before an accident...

[anterian]

The objections to solar power, production costs and eficiency are currently valid. However, many new ideas are in the pipeline using organic materials, thin film layers to produce electricity directly or to produce hydrogen gas as energy storage. Nuclear fusion is still a possibility, beamed energy from space stations. Many countries sit on vast reserves of thermal energy. Wave and tidal power is a growth industry also.

The real problem is energy storage and daily fluctuating demands, here battery and fuel cell technology is also rapidly improving.

The real problem is the power industry which currently has a monolithic hold on energy supply. They don't want the public to have personal energy sources, ever wondered why any store will sell you an electric water heater but never a solar water heater?

[IanPrince99]

Thailand is not in the ring of fire. It is OK to build Nuclear plant. As many as the politician can afford. This will benefit rural farmers, because it not only supply them with cheap electricity in the rural area, it also provide free hot water to their village, as they cannot afford hot water heaters.

[rocknrollpoet]

Thank You...I so agree with you...what is wrong with the thinkers of the world??? The future is grim...with these out dated, government, oil company, greedy f--ks, and misinformed ,so-called leaders telling the world that we must go on like we always have...shameful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i'm sure they could accomplish all their cooking and automotive needs with hemp seed oil. Not only is it healthy, it's clean, fast growing, produces textiles, far better than cotton, doesn't need chemicals, can make it into a stronger than steel material, (henry ford) did it a long time ago. It would solve a lot of problems. Palm oil is just stupid anyway you look at it. Try to sell palm oil in the western world as something to cook with, you can't, they have to sneak it into baked goods somewhere it's so bad for you. screw nuclear, screw petroleum, thailand has everything it needs if it can think outside of the box they live in.

[yuyi]

And an interesting thing about so called "renewable" energy, is that most solar panels e.g. pollute more than most coal power plant, if you include the production and dumping stages.

This is absolutely not true.

Repeating this old myth / propaganda lie does not make it true.

The solar cells of today are not like the very first ones decades ago.

[yuyi]

Moreover, wind energy generates a lot of noise. Anyone who have lived near a big windmill can agree with this!

Are you saying that because there might be some noise near big windmills we should prefer to live near a nuclear power plant and enjoy the silent radiation?