Thailand To Rethink Plan To Build 5 Nuclear Plants

[yuyi]

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 prices for PV solar cells have dropped dramatically in the last 2 years. With the prices today PV is already competitive, once you include all costs. And prices are continuing to drop.

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 ...

Indeed, that is a big part of the problem.

[SICHONSTEVE]

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

They will get built eventually

Try telling that to Tony Hayward and BP!!!!!!! I think they might have a different take on that statement of your's.

Edited March 15, 2011 by SICHONSTEVE

[Arkady]

The contractors will have to pay massive bribes to get these projects and corners will be cut to line pockets.

corruption and the Thai approach to worry about safety standards only after a major accident would prove disastrous in this case. Thailand needs to eliminate corrupt and develop an adult approach to safety standards first. They may be ready for nuclear power towards the end of this century.

[lifeincnx]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. Regarding previously made comments about nuclear energy being OK in the right hands, there simply are "no right hands". This has been proved by Japan, the US and Russia. Handing out potassium iodide as a preventative measure doesn't cut it. I know first hand as I had to have my thyroid gland and 15 adjacent neck lymph nodes removed due to radiation exposure and subsequent stage three carcinoma. No picnic I can assure you.

Hopefully the events unfolding now in Japan will finally be the proverbial and much-needed "nail in the coffin" to nuclear power as a viable, "clean" energy. Cancer is NEVER clean.

[JetsetBkk]

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.

Ridiculous overstatement.

The whole sequence of events is a ringing endorsement for nuclear power safety. If this – basically nothing – is what happens when decades-old systems are pushed five times and then some beyond their design limits, new plants much safer yet would be able to resist an asteroid strike without problems.

But you wouldn't know that from looking at the mainstream media. Ignorant fools are suggesting on every hand that Japan's problems actually mean fresh obstacles in the way of new nuclear plants in the UK, Europe and the US.

That can only be true if an unbelievable level of public ignorance of the real facts, born of truly dreadful news reporting over the weekend, is allowed to persist.

^ No, I didn't write that, but I bet you wouldn't have read it if I'd put it in quotes.

So why don't you read the real truth about what happened at Fukushima. Go on, I dare you!:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

Spread the word. And if you doubt us on any of this, please read this excellent early description of the events, or follow the reports from the IAEA and World Nuclear News. Very few other channels of information are of much use at the moment.

[JetsetBkk]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. Regarding previously made comments about nuclear energy being OK in the right hands, there simply are "no right hands". This has been proved by Japan, the US and Russia. Handing out potassium iodide as a preventative measure doesn't cut it. I know first hand as I had to have my thyroid gland and 15 adjacent neck lymph nodes removed due to radiation exposure and subsequent stage three carcinoma. No picnic I can assure you.

Hopefully the events unfolding now in Japan will finally be the proverbial and much-needed "nail in the coffin" to nuclear power as a viable, "clean" energy. Cancer is NEVER clean.

On the contrary, the current events will bring a ringing endorsement for nuclear energy, once all the nonsense has been dismissed.

PS. Sorry about your cancer. How did you get exposed?

[lifeincnx]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. Regarding previously made comments about nuclear energy being OK in the right hands, there simply are "no right hands". This has been proved by Japan, the US and Russia. Handing out potassium iodide as a preventative measure doesn't cut it. I know first hand as I had to have my thyroid gland and 15 adjacent neck lymph nodes removed due to radiation exposure and subsequent stage three carcinoma. No picnic I can assure you.

Hopefully the events unfolding now in Japan will finally be the proverbial and much-needed "nail in the coffin" to nuclear power as a viable, "clean" energy. Cancer is NEVER clean.

On the contrary, the current events will bring a ringing endorsement for nuclear energy, once all the nonsense has been dismissed.

PS. Sorry about your cancer. How did you get exposed?

Remember, the redundant backups in Japan FAILED, contrary to the Orwelian newspeak coming from the nuclear power lobby being quoted on today's news. So, I'm not sure what current 'nonsense' you speak of; if you were currently within 20K of that plant you would sing quite a different tune. So don't hold your breath on any 'ringing' endorsement as the only ringing will be continued alarm bells and the rethinking of current future nuclear programs. That plant is toast so there goes the cost effectiveness of the program. Thanks - it's a long story in my case, but narrowed down to a childhood exposure at a hospital in Calif in the early 60's.

[webfact]

Locals Protest Nuclear Power Plant Projects

A public network in Ubon Ratchathani province has come out to protest the planned construction of a nuclear power plant, urging the government to carefully review the project.

A large number of residents in Kalasin also gather to oppose another nuclear power plant.

A Kalasin public network coordinator, Surongyot Sena, led some 1,000 locals from 18 districts to oppose the planned construction of a nuclear power plant in Kalasin’s Yang Talad district.

Surongyot said that the public in Muang, Yang Talad and Huaymek districts feel that the construction of a nuclear power plant will have negative long-term effects on local people.

Members of the network from Yang Talad and Huaymek districts have submitted an open letter to Kalasin Governor Wirot Jawirungsung to voice their concern over the nuclear power plant.

Meanwhile, in Ubon Ratchathani, another public network led by coordinator Sodsai Sangsoke pointed out the quake damage at Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan attests to dangers from a nuclear power plant and locals must realize that such a disaster is very catastrophic.

Sodsai expressed concern over the Energy Ministry’s plan to build Thailand’s first nuclear power plant in Ubon Ratchathani province which has drawn strong public opposition since Thailand is not as prepared or experienced as Japan in dealing with a possible nuclear meltdown.

Meanwhile, a student network against the construction of nuclear power plant, led by Santi Chokchaichumnankit, stated that the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand has been surveying six provinces for an appropriate area to construct a nuclear power plant since mid-2009 which was met with public opposition.

And in July last year, the power agency concluded that five areas most appropriate for the plant are Ubon Ratchathani’s Sirindhorn district, Nakhon Sawan’s Tha Tako district, Klong Yai district in Trad province, Surat Thani’s Tha Chana district and Chumphon’s Lamae district.

-- Tan Network 2011-03-15

[yuyi]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. Regarding previously made comments about nuclear energy being OK in the right hands, there simply are "no right hands". This has been proved by Japan, the US and Russia. Handing out potassium iodide as a preventative measure doesn't cut it. I know first hand as I had to have my thyroid gland and 15 adjacent neck lymph nodes removed due to radiation exposure and subsequent stage three carcinoma. No picnic I can assure you.

Hopefully the events unfolding now in Japan will finally be the proverbial and much-needed "nail in the coffin" to nuclear power as a viable, "clean" energy. Cancer is NEVER clean.

On the contrary, the current events will bring a ringing endorsement for nuclear energy, once all the nonsense has been dismissed.

If there is an earthquake near a solar or wind power plant, nobody has to run away quickly to flee from radiation. Nobody will get cancer just because he couldn't run fast enough, or because the wind came from the wrong side. Nobody.

I don't know why you think that the current events might be "a ringing endorsement for nuclear energy". For me they just show that Murphy's law applies also to nuclear power plants: What can go wrong will go wrong!

[SICHONSTEVE]

Am I missing something or has there been an enormous over reaction to this terrible tragedy (in one specific area)?

My sympathies clearly lie with the Japanese people who have suffered from a multi-pronged attack of disasters seemingly without relent. Their pain will not fade but their undoubted resilience will carry them through in the same way as it did after the cessation of the second world war.

What confuses me though is the senseless, unquantified reaction from some countries governments who have suspended or even postponed their nuclear power programs on account of safety related issues created by the emergency water systems malfunctioning - damaged in the initial, powerful earthquake. The cooling system problems (so vital to stabilise the reactor temperature in unforseen or unplanned shutdowns) that have been experienced to varying degrees on several of the reactors in the nuclear complex closest to where the earthquake and tsunami struck and the potentially disastrous consequences this will have if they have one or more meltdowns, as seems more and more likely according to the latest newsfeeds don't bear thinking about - I just hope that any radio-active leaks in addition to those that have occurred to date (both planned and accidental) are limited so that they don't cause additional health problems .

Unless a country lies within the boundary of the 'ring of fire' and has a past history of earthquakes/tsunamis then how comes they are rushing like lemins one after the other, citing the reasons given above in halting their endeavours to replace fossil-fuel energy with clean nuclear power in countries where these 'acts of god' have never and are unlikely to occur in the near future. What were they thinking? The more I contemplate it the dumber it seems. It is more than a little bit worrying that WE are the people who voted them in only to make some unfathomable and unwarranted knee-jerk responses on something as crucial as this with absolutely zero logical thought process input in what they are doing!!!!

Very worrying indeed !!!!

[jamora]

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.

Well, they only have a small contribution to the CO2 emission, but they are extremely poisonous when dumped since they contain lead, mercury and cadmium. Most producers also use nitrogen trifluoride in the production process, which is a way more potent GHG compared to CO2. So sure, we might limit CO2 emission, but instead we poison the environment with heavy metals.

I am not saying that solar panels won't work one day, but for now, it's not sufficient enough.

So unfortunately it is still not a myth.

[jimbeam1]

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.

Little waste? More plants more waste all being stored underground. I am no Nuclear expert, but all that waste undergrond, scares the crap out of me.

Wind farms, Solar Energy. That is where all the research should be aimed. Ok maybe wind turbines are a bit on the large side, so were the first computers. Way to go for me.

jb1

[jamora]

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?

Well, to my knowledge, there is not much "silent radiation" from nuclear power plant, since they do not pollute when running according to plan. And the problem with windmills is that they generate low frequency noise when running, which still have unknown effect to people, and the high frequencies have a known negative effect. And they are still fairly inefficient, better than solar power though, and they require wind, which can't be found at a sufficient enough level in most of Thailand e.g.

[yuyi]

Well, to my knowledge, there is not much "silent radiation" from nuclear power plant, since they do not pollute when running according to plan.

"According to plan" - that's the key issue here. Please have a look at the loooong history of malfunctions and the exposure of the public to radiation.

And after that tell us also how the highly radioactive nuclear waste can be stopped from silently radiating future generations.

[Soutpeel]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. "clean" energy.

Ok, a typical modern commerical nuclear generates around 1800 Mw from two units.

Please tell me how many wind tubines you would need, how much land area that takes up and what area of solar panels you would need to generate 1800Mw

[yuyi]

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.

Well, they only have a small contribution to the CO2 emission, but they are extremely poisonous when dumped since they contain lead, mercury and cadmium. Most producers also use nitrogen trifluoride in the production process, which is a way more potent GHG compared to CO2. So sure, we might limit CO2 emission, but instead we poison the environment with heavy metals.

I am not saying that solar panels won't work one day, but for now, it's not sufficient enough.

So unfortunately it is still not a myth.

There is a bunch of quite different technologies available today for solar cells, therefore a global statement such as yours is not correct anymore.

While it is true that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells, depending on the technology used, uses some heavy metals, the energy saved by the use of those solar panels more than offsets this.

(It is funny that the same people who claim that they can safely story highly radioactive and poisonous nuclear waste for thousands or millions of years claim that the solar cell production cannot control their production process.)

To quote a study "Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles" by Professor Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues which comes to the result:

"Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaic displaces electricity from the grid".

see also http://www.our-energy.com/news/ecologically_acceptable_solar_cells_technology.html

[yuyi]

What confuses me though is the senseless, unquantified reaction from some countries governments who have suspended or even postponed their nuclear power programs on account of safety related issues created by the emergency water systems malfunctioning - damaged in the initial, powerful earthquake.

To give you an example for such a government, with the hope that it helps you to get the point:

The chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, know to be close to the nuclear industry, just said: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

[jamora]

Well, to my knowledge, there is not much "silent radiation" from nuclear power plant, since they do not pollute when running according to plan.

"According to plan" - that's the key issue here. Please have a look at the loooong history of malfunctions and the exposure of the public to radiation.

And after that tell us also how the highly radioactive nuclear waste can be stopped from silently radiating future generations.

True, there is a long history of malfunctions, but all of these happened to very old plants. And the chief engineer from the Fukushima have even admitted that the plant was not built to withstand what happened to it, whereas new plant can withstand A LOT MORE than these old plants. And today, Angela Merkel has just announced that all pre 1980 plant in Germany, will be shut down now to avoid future complications.

Waste management is not a big problem, look at what the Germans and Finnish do. Bury it far down in a solid granite rock, and it has been proven that it does not generate any additional radiation on the surface.

[yuyi]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. "clean" energy.

Ok, a typical modern commerical nuclear generates around 1800 Mw from two units.

Please tell me how many wind tubines you would need, how much land area that takes up and what area of solar panels you would need to generate 1800Mw

Do your math yourself.

Suffice it to say that a province in Germany, Ostfriesland, gets 90 % of its power from renewable energies, already today!

And another province there, Sachsen-Anhalt, gets already 52 % of its power from wind, already today!

Enough real world existing proof to show that it can be done, if you want.

[jamora]

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.

Well, they only have a small contribution to the CO2 emission, but they are extremely poisonous when dumped since they contain lead, mercury and cadmium. Most producers also use nitrogen trifluoride in the production process, which is a way more potent GHG compared to CO2. So sure, we might limit CO2 emission, but instead we poison the environment with heavy metals.

I am not saying that solar panels won't work one day, but for now, it's not sufficient enough.

So unfortunately it is still not a myth.

There is a bunch of quite different technologies available today for solar cells, therefore a global statement such as yours is not correct anymore.

While it is true that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells, depending on the technology used, uses some heavy metals, the energy saved by the use of those solar panels more than offsets this.

(It is funny that the same people who claim that they can safely story highly radioactive and poisonous nuclear waste for thousands or millions of years claim that the solar cell production cannot control their production process.)

To quote a study "Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles" by Professor Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues which comes to the result:

"Overall, all PV technologies generate far less life-cycle air emissions per GWh than conventional fossil-fuel-based electricity generation technologies. At least 89% of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if electricity from photovoltaic displaces electricity from the grid".

see also http://www.our-energ...technology.html

First, it is not the production that cannot be controlled, it is the waste management, it is extremely expensive to properly recycle solar panels. And second, as i said before, you create less air emission, but at the same time you create a higher risk of water and soil pollution, AND people will have to pay a LOT more for their electricity.

So I still believe that a global statement that solar panels are inefficient a present is still very correct.

And where would you put all these panels?

[jamora]

Thailand is well suited for both solar and wind technologies. Nuclear is not an option. "clean" energy.

Ok, a typical modern commerical nuclear generates around 1800 Mw from two units.

Please tell me how many wind tubines you would need, how much land area that takes up and what area of solar panels you would need to generate 1800Mw

Do your math yourself.

Suffice it to say that a province in Germany, Ostfriesland, gets 90 % of its power from renewable energies, already today!

And another province there, Sachsen-Anhalt, gets already 52 % of its power from wind, already today!

Enough real world existing proof to show that it can be done, if you want.

Yes, it can be done, but it still requires enough wind and money... Which Thailand lacks both of! Money can be found, but wind can't be generated.

[yuyi]

True, there is a long history of malfunctions, but all of these happened to very old plants. And the chief engineer from the Fukushima have even admitted that the plant was not built to withstand what happened to it, whereas new plant can withstand A LOT MORE than these old plants. And today, Angela Merkel has just announced that all pre 1980 plant in Germany, will be shut down now to avoid future complications.

Ah, nice, at least you agree that all "older" nuclear power plants are insecure and should be switched off immediately.

Waste management is not a big problem, look at what the Germans and Finnish do. Bury it far down in a solid granite rock, and it has been proven that it does not generate any additional radiation on the surface.

There is a lot of doubt about the long term stability of the storage facilities for nuclear waste in Germany, Gorleben. It is not even used yet (!!!), thus nothing is proven, and many scientists say it does not fulfill the criteria for safe long term storage of nuclear waste. It is more of an 'Alibi' facility to be able to pretend the problem would be solved.

[yuyi]

Suffice it to say that a province in Germany, Ostfriesland, gets 90 % of its power from renewable energies, already today!

And another province there, Sachsen-Anhalt, gets already 52 % of its power from wind, already today!

Enough real world existing proof to show that it can be done, if you want.

Yes, it can be done, but it still requires enough wind and money... Which Thailand lacks both of! Money can be found, but wind can't be generated.

You got to be kidding me!

Are you telling me that there is less sun in Thailand than in Germany?

And less wind on Thailand's West coast than in Sachsen Anhalt?

C'mon!

BTW, I'm writing this while my PC draws its power from my little PV system, producing enough power to keep router and PC running 24x7 obviously there must be some sunshine in Thailand

[pattayaorganic]

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.

Everybody who thinks that nuclear power is the "only option" should all be given free land to build a community in Fukushima. The entire area within 30km of fukushima nuclear plant is yours. You and your nuclear buddies can live there and help rebuild the community and you will be a testament to your words about nuclear power as a viable option or the lesser of evils. Please follow with actions your words.

Nuclear power only makes sense if you have a weapons arsenal you need to support. There are no economic arguments today that nuclear makes sense. Wind power contracts go for $0.03/kWh on public bid. There are various estimates of the real cost of nuclear power, but the consensus is higher than $0.15/kWh, or more than 500% the cost of other alternatives.

For those of you that think that is substitutes for oil, you must realize that oil is the mobile energy source. Most stationary power stations use coal or gas, not oil. So, building more nuclear plants does not do much to reduce dependance on oil.

Also, numerous studies have proven that energy efficiency can be even lower than $0.01/kWh. Just doing efficiency which has investment returns roughly an order of magnitude higher than building nuclear power and has zero environmental impact and creates local high pay engineering jobs is the solution. According to numerous studies this could replace all the nuclear power in the world at lower cost and zero carbon increase.

For reference see: Cool Companies by Joe Romm (former deputy Secretary of Energy), Factor Four by Amory Lovins (former energy adviser to Bill Clinton), Natural Capitalism by Steve Hawkins and Amory Lovins.

[jamora]

True, there is a long history of malfunctions, but all of these happened to very old plants. And the chief engineer from the Fukushima have even admitted that the plant was not built to withstand what happened to it, whereas new plant can withstand A LOT MORE than these old plants. And today, Angela Merkel has just announced that all pre 1980 plant in Germany, will be shut down now to avoid future complications.

Ah, nice, at least you agree that all "older" nuclear power plants are insecure and should be switched off immediately.

Certainly, just as everything else outdated has to be replaced. When the first flights were carried out, it was extremely dangerous, but fortunately people didn't give up, and today it is the safest means of transportation.

Waste management is not a big problem, look at what the Germans and Finnish do. Bury it far down in a solid granite rock, and it has been proven that it does not generate any additional radiation on the surface.

There is a lot of doubt about the long term stability of the storage facilities for nuclear waste in Germany, Gorleben. It is not even used yet (!!!), thus nothing is proven, and many scientists say it does not fulfill the criteria for safe long term storage of nuclear waste. It is more of an 'Alibi' facility to be able to pretend the problem would be solved.

I am talking about the Lubmin facility, and in Finland, they claim they can contain it for at least 100,000 years. Even the locals at Onkalo seem to be positive about the Finnish project.

I am not a hardcore supporter of nuclear power, but for now it the most feasible solution. When looking at costs and benefits, it seems to be the best at present. However, if something better comes up, and I certainly believe we should look for something better, then we should definitely go for it!

[yuyi]

First, it is not the production that cannot be controlled, it is the waste management, it is extremely expensive to properly recycle solar panels.

And at the same time you say that the management of the highly radioactive and poisonous nuclear waste is under control?

I think whoever would be able to do that would easily be able to recycle used solar panels.

And where would you put all these panels?

Recycle them.

[jamora]

Suffice it to say that a province in Germany, Ostfriesland, gets 90 % of its power from renewable energies, already today!

And another province there, Sachsen-Anhalt, gets already 52 % of its power from wind, already today!

Enough real world existing proof to show that it can be done, if you want.

Yes, it can be done, but it still requires enough wind and money... Which Thailand lacks both of! Money can be found, but wind can't be generated.

You got to be kidding me!

Are you telling me that there is less sun in Thailand than in Germany?

And less wind on Thailand's West coast than in Sachsen Anhalt?

C'mon!

BTW, I'm writing this while my PC draws its power from my little PV system, producing enough power to keep router and PC running 24x7 obviously there must be some sunshine in Thailand

Well, I never recall saying that there is less sun in Thailand than in Germany, but how much of Germanys total power production is generated by solar energy? Mentioning a single province does not make any sense! Iceland have nearly 100% thermal energy, so we should all have thermal energy or what???

And with the wind, Intertec Wind A/S, which is the biggest player, believe that Thailand has a market for wind energy, but the also claim that it is VERY limited how many place that can actually run windmills effectively.

And good for you that your PC is running on a small PV system, but unfortunately residential energy consumption counts for a quite small fraction of the total energy consumption in most countries, including Thailand. The big consumers are those that are hard to convince with "green" energy, whan they have to pay many times more for the electricity.

[jamora]

First, it is not the production that cannot be controlled, it is the waste management, it is extremely expensive to properly recycle solar panels.

And at the same time you say that the management of the highly radioactive and poisonous nuclear waste is under control?

I think whoever would be able to do that would easily be able to recycle used solar panels.

And where would you put all these panels?

Recycle them.

They can be recycled, but it is very expensive and complicated driving the costs even further up!

I ment, where will you place all the active panels? They will need thousands of square kilometers for Thailand alone...

Edited March 15, 2011 by jamora

[katana]

webfact's Nation article:

...China has pledged to cut carbon emissions by switching to clean energy such as nuclear and wind power....

Since when is nuclear power clean? Sounds like Orwellspeak...

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?

Well, to my knowledge, there is not much "silent radiation" from nuclear power plant, since they do not pollute when running according to plan...

Nuclear power stations are constantly releasing radioactivity into the environment even when working to plan.

Sellafield in the UK has a discharge pipe that has made the Irish sea one of the most radioactive in the world.

As I understand it, solar panels are still quite expensive and of low efficiency, but this can only improve with time and investment. If a fraction of the money that had been spent on nuclear research was spent on alternative forms of energy, things would be more advanced.

Here are some solar power plants already operating in Thailand:

Angthong,Thailand

Petchaburi,Thailand

Udonthanee,Thailand

Chachoengsao,Thailand

[pattayaorganic]

True, there is a long history of malfunctions, but all of these happened to very old plants. And the chief engineer from the Fukushima have even admitted that the plant was not built to withstand what happened to it, whereas new plant can withstand A LOT MORE than these old plants. And today, Angela Merkel has just announced that all pre 1980 plant in Germany, will be shut down now to avoid future complications.

Ah, nice, at least you agree that all "older" nuclear power plants are insecure and should be switched off immediately.

Certainly, just as everything else outdated has to be replaced. When the first flights were carried out, it was extremely dangerous, but fortunately people didn't give up, and today it is the safest means of transportation.

Waste management is not a big problem, look at what the Germans and Finnish do. Bury it far down in a solid granite rock, and it has been proven that it does not generate any additional radiation on the surface.

There is a lot of doubt about the long term stability of the storage facilities for nuclear waste in Germany, Gorleben. It is not even used yet (!!!), thus nothing is proven, and many scientists say it does not fulfill the criteria for safe long term storage of nuclear waste. It is more of an 'Alibi' facility to be able to pretend the problem would be solved.

I am talking about the Lubmin facility, and in Finland, they claim they can contain it for at least 100,000 years. Even the locals at Onkalo seem to be positive about the Finnish project.

I am not a hardcore supporter of nuclear power, but for now it the most feasible solution. When looking at costs and benefits, it seems to be the best at present. However, if something better comes up, and I certainly believe we should look for something better, then we should definitely go for it!

I have two issues I don't agree with you on: 1) That nuclear power is the more economical solution, and 2) that the facility in Lubmin, Finland somehow shows "proof" that we can deal with nuclear waste.

On the first issue, even Economist Magazine with its staunch conservative bent, has come to the consensus that nuclear power does not make economic sense.

On the second issue: I quote Wikipedia:

Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability."^[8]

Thus, Alfvén identified two fundamental prerequisites for effective management of high-level radioactive waste: (1) stable geological formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. As Alfvén suggests, no known human civilization has ever endured for so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period.^[8] Nevertheless, avoiding confronting the risks associated with managing radioactive wastes may create countervailing risks of greater magnitude. Radioactive waste management is an example of policy analysis that requires special attention to ethical concerns, examined in the light of uncertainty and futurity: consideration of 'the impacts of practices and technologies on future generations'.^[9]

There is a debate over what should constitute an acceptable scientific and engineering foundation for proceeding with radioactive waste disposal strategies. There are those who have argued, on the basis of complex geochemical simulation models, that relinquishing control over radioactive materials to geohydrologic processes at repository closure is an acceptable risk. They maintain that so-called “natural analogues” inhibit subterranean movement of radionuclides, making disposal of radioactive wastes in stable geologic formations unnecessary.^[10] However, existing models of these processes are empirically underdetermined:^[11] due to the subterranean nature of such processes in solid geologic formations, the accuracy of computer simulation models has not been verified by empirical observation, certainly not over periods of time equivalent to the lethal half-lives of high-level radioactive waste.^[12][13] On the other hand, some insist deep geologic repositories in stable geologic formations are necessary. National management plans of various countries display a variety of approaches to resolving this debate.

Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such long periods should be examined critically.^[14] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning^[15] and cost evaluations^[16] are concerned. Long term behaviour of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research.^[17] Management strategies and implementation plans of several representative national governments are described below.

So in the end, nuclear fuel storage which you say is a "no brainer" or "done deal" is nothing more or less than R&D. The fact is we have no idea how to manage anything over the time period required to detoxify these wastes.

I quote Finland's own nuclear expert:

Kaisa Kosonen urges caution; the case for Onkalo, she says, is not proven.

"I would like to see much more research done and not having this hasty process," she says. "And I would not want this marketed as 'waste issue solved', because it's not."

Finally, even if we accept your argument that Finland is the solution, a priori, then we must consider the fact that this Euro3b facility is only large enough to house the waste from Finland's four reactors or about 70MT/year until the year 2100.

How will you guard something so possibly dangerous to the world from possible terrorist attack 200 years into the future?

The risk is unknown, the cost is unknown, and we are only talking about the back-end disposal not the upstream processes of creating nuclear fuel and actually building powerplants that even without the unknown disposal costs added on already take more then 30 years to pay back the investment required to just build the plants.

Why do all this when you can just do efficiency at 30% ROI instead of 3%?