Thailand To Rethink Plan To Build 5 Nuclear Plants

[yuyi]

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

Mostly on the roofs. Houses have roofs. Factories have roofs. There are "thousands of square kilometers" roofs available.

Also, as an example of what could be done, there is a project called "Solar Farms" built by Solar Power Co., LTD in Bangkok. They plan 34 solar farms with 6 MW each, totaling 204 MW. This is supposed to generate power for 170,000 families.

[SICHONSTEVE]

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."

Yes I take your point, but not from an earthquake or tsunami affecting Germany!!!!!! I don't know if you are aware of the situation leading up to this prothetic statement but she was pilloried by several parties (including crucially, the Greens) for wanting to delay the decommissioning of 17 nuclear plants by at least a decade past their sell-by date (assumedly to save money). She is to review this urgently on account of the Japanese situation (why do this now) and more pertinently for what reason as there is no justification to do so as from events that have occurred in Japan - which was the main theme of my other post on this topic?????

Also, there are 3 regional elections coming in the next 2 weeks and the Greens are showing particularly well in the polls, notably so in some of Mrs Merkel's strongholds. This, allied to the fact of that the CDU's disastrous showing in Hamburg which shocked many observers when they lost to the Social Democrats with them gaining nearly 50% of the vote (they had previously been in opposition for 12 years) and this seemed to have provided a severe wake-up call relating to their dire popularity amongst their rank and file members and the voters in general . This is nothing other than a convenient excuse to readjust her unpopular stance and change direction so as to improve her and her parties poor ratings whilst masquerading as a caring politician that understands the situation!! Pure bunkum on her part!!!!!!! and if you are still persuaded by this claptrap, yours as well!!!!!

[Soutpeel]

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

Give me a reliable source of infomation which substantiates that claim ?

[katana]

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

Give me a reliable source of infomation which substantiates that claim ?

...radioactive waste was diluted and discharged by pipeline into the Irish Sea. Some claim that the Irish Sea remains one of the most heavily contaminated seas in the world because of these discharges.[41] The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) reports an estimated 200 kilograms (441 lbs) of plutonium has been deposited in the marine sediments of the Irish Sea....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield

[webfact]

Japan reactor troubles spark Thai nuclear protest

BANGKOK, March 15, 2011 (AFP) - About 1,000 people protested in northeastern Thailand on Tuesday against the country's plan to build nuclear power stations, following a radiation leak in earthquake-hit Japan, a local governor said.

"The people came because they are afraid about the situation in Japan," said Viroj Jirarungsan, governor of Kalasin Province.

"I share my fear with the people in Kalasin that Thailand should not build any nuclear power plant. I think we can go for alternative energy such as biodiesel, wind or solar," he told AFP by telephone.

"Given the situation in Japan, I have to say that we have no confidence in nuclear power anymore."

Viroj said that while utility officials have visited the area to conduct a survey, he was not aware of any firm plan to build a nuclear power station in his province.

Thailand, which was badly hit by an Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, has said events in Japan might influence its provisional plan to build several nuclear plants.

"A nuclear plant requires significant security measures in many areas, especially as recently natural disasters and terrorism are increasing," Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told reporters on Sunday.

"Thailand is now studying these matters but what happened in Japan probably affects the decision whether to build nuclear plants in Thailand," he added.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-03-15

[jamora]

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

Mostly on the roofs. Houses have roofs. Factories have roofs. There are "thousands of square kilometers" roofs available.

Also, as an example of what could be done, there is a project called "Solar Farms" built by Solar Power Co., LTD in Bangkok. They plan 34 solar farms with 6 MW each, totaling 204 MW. This is supposed to generate power for 170,000 families.

But again, providing solar energy for a 170,000 families is not a big deal, even creating for the entire residential sector can be done, but they still consume a fairly small part of the entire energy produced (the residential and commercial sector accounts for 12.7% of Thailand's energy consumption). If you want to supply Thailand's annual energy consumption of 1,279,300 GWh, you will need to cover more than every house and factory. But I agree that solar panels might be the future, but for now the idea is merely Sci-Fi!

[jamora]

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

Give me a reliable source of infomation which substantiates that claim ?

I would like to see that too!

[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."

Yes I take your point, but not from an earthquake or tsunami affecting Germany!!!!!! I don't know if you are aware of the situation leading up to this prothetic statement but she was pilloried by several parties (including crucially, the Greens) for wanting to delay the decommissioning of 17 nuclear plants by at least a decade past their sell-by date (assumedly to save money).

...

This is nothing other than a convenient excuse to readjust her unpopular stance and change direction so as to improve her and her parties poor ratings whilst masquerading as a caring politician that understands the situation!! Pure bunkum on her part!!!!!!! and if you are still persuaded by this claptrap, yours as well!!!!!

Interesting. So the people there do use the elections to give the politicians a message. Not bad.

For me, don't worry, I did not need the tragic events in Japan to understand the dangers of nuclear power plants. As said earlier, there is a long history of malfunctions of nuclear power plants. Which opened my eyes to the problems long ago.

[jfchandler]

before this week, most people probably thought the Japanese, of all people, would have had their nuclear act together.

The aftermath of the quake and tsunamis pretty clearly show they didnt.

If this is how the Japanese fare with a high tech, high criticality venture, I never want to see the Thais in the same business.

First prove that they can operate vans and buses without killing everyone, and then Id consider giving them the keys to a nuke.

PS - I really enjoyed the running away bus driver analogy that one poster had above.

[yuyi]

But again, providing solar energy for a 170,000 families is not a big deal, ...

I think it's a good start.

[JetsetBkk]

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.

You didn't read the article, did you? The diesel cooling backups of this 30+ years old installation worked fine until the tsunami hit. Then the battery backup for the diesel backup kicked in to give time for the mobile cooling equipment to arrive, etc, etc.

Please read it.

So your cancer wasn't anything to do with working at or living near a nuclear plant. Thanks for clearing that up.

[JetsetBkk]

Am I missing something or has there been an enormous over reaction to this terrible tragedy <snip>

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 <snip

I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

Unfortunately, politicians have to look as though they know what is going on especially when they don't.

When the immediate panic has died down, they may reconsider in a calmer, less media-pressured atmosphere, their ridiculous knee-jerk reactions made to keep the populace happy and no doubt with an eye on any up-coming elections.

[jamora]

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%?

Your first issue, in what number of the Economist magazine did you read it? It is true that for some countries, especially undeveloped, nuclear is not the cheapest. But in 2007, CBS news reported the following after doing a major research in "60 Minutes": "Nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe." So for populated, developed countries, it is generally the best option.

For your second issue, the forecasts made by the engineers in Onkalo, confirms it will work. Of course it will never be proven, since we are talking about a timespan of 100,000 years. Some are pro, and others are against, I guess that it how it will always be. The critics can't prove it won't work either, so I guess it comes down to who you have faith in!

[animatic]

before this week, most people probably thought the Japanese, of all people, would have had their nuclear act together.

The aftermath of the quake and tsunamis pretty clearly show they didnt.

If this is how the Japanese fare with a high tech, high criticality venture, I never want to see the Thais in the same business.

First prove that they can operate vans and buses without killing everyone, and then Id consider giving them the keys to a nuke.

PS - I really enjoyed the running away bus driver analogy that one poster had above.

Amen to this JF.

Thailands engineering, construction, regulation and general culture are not best suited for this kind of super hightech and potentially deadly nuclear misadventure.

Edited March 15, 2011 by animatic

[jamora]

But again, providing solar energy for a 170,000 families is not a big deal, ...

I think it's a good start.

But why start something you cannot finish properly, and will result in a economic loss?

[SICHONSTEVE]

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."

Yes I take your point, but not from an earthquake or tsunami affecting Germany!!!!!! I don't know if you are aware of the situation leading up to this prothetic statement but she was pilloried by several parties (including crucially, the Greens) for wanting to delay the decommissioning of 17 nuclear plants by at least a decade past their sell-by date (assumedly to save money).

...

This is nothing other than a convenient excuse to readjust her unpopular stance and change direction so as to improve her and her parties poor ratings whilst masquerading as a caring politician that understands the situation!! Pure bunkum on her part!!!!!!! and if you are still persuaded by this claptrap, yours as well!!!!!

Interesting. So the people there do use the elections to give the politicians a message. Not bad.

For me, don't worry, I did not need the tragic events in Japan to understand the dangers of nuclear power plants. As said earlier, there is a long history of malfunctions of nuclear power plants. Which opened my eyes to the problems long ago.

This doesn't address my point in the slightest , let me remind you as you seem to have a selective mind . Here we go, are you ready?? OK, GO!!

Why are governments suspending or cancelling their 'policy' of building nuclear power stations on account of failures in the water cooling system in several reactors of one of Japan's nuclear complexes due to a massive earthquake (probably the biggest in it's history) when many of the countries involved in adopting this irrational reversal of policy will never, if history has it's say, experience an earthquake in ours, the next generation and many more to come's lifetime (Germany included). Answer me this and I might take your ripostes seriously. Looking forward to your reply Yuyi, if one is forthcoming that is. Interesting to see if you take me up on this as I'm dying to see the content!!

[yuyi]

The diesel cooling backups of this 30+ years old installation worked fine until the tsunami hit. Then the battery backup for the diesel backup kicked in to give time for the mobile cooling equipment to arrive, etc, etc.

Please read it.

Well, something must have gone wrong there. I just listened on CNN an hour ago, to an interview with a professor for nuclear stuff, Glenn from Texas, who sounded very concerned, saying that the high levels of radiation inside the plant can only mean that there was at least a partial core meltdown.

Sounds to me as if the cooling systems more or less FAILED.

[animatic]

I'd much rather see this and the like than even contemplate a Thai Nuke facility.

Photovoltaic sidewalks

[yuyi]

This doesn't address my point in the slightest , let me remind you as you seem to have a selective mind . Here we go, are you ready?? OK, GO!!

Why are governments suspending or cancelling their 'policy' of building nuclear power stations on account of failures in the water cooling system in several reactors of one of Japan's nuclear complexes due to a massive earthquake (probably the biggest in it's history) when many of the countries involved in adopting this irrational reversal of policy will never, if history has it's say, experience an earthquake in ours, the next generation and many more to come's lifetime (Germany included). Answer me this and I might take your ripostes seriously. Looking forward to your reply Yuyi, if one is forthcoming that is. Interesting to see if you take me up on this as I'm dying to see the content!!

About Mrs. Merkels motivation, your explanation might hit the nail on the head.

However as to what she said, that was not about Germany getting hit by an earthquake, but she admitted that she finally understood Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong.

In her words: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

And when it comes to the possible bad cases or worst cases of nuclear power plant disasters they are simply too bad to be acceptable.

[Diablo Bob]

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?

Interesting observation, but I come up with a different conclusion. I read someplace that for every Mw generated at a power plant, over 50% is lost during transmission through the power grid.

If Thailand would spend the money on upgrading their power grid to more efficient transmission systems they probably wouldn't need to deal with any new generation methods for many years.

As to the spagetti jungle, I wonder how many of those lines are hot and how many were just abandoned in-place because of the conjestion of all the wire.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Am I missing something or has there been an enormous over reaction to this terrible tragedy <snip>

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 <snip

I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

Unfortunately, politicians have to look as though they know what is going on especially when they don't.

When the immediate panic has died down, they may reconsider in a calmer, less media-pressured atmosphere, their ridiculous knee-jerk reactions made to keep the populace happy and no doubt with an eye on any up-coming elections.

A fair appraisal of matters jetsetBKK!! What does it say of the politicians ability to rule though??? It doesn't paint a very good picture of them essentially in my mind. If only people could see through their gloss (can substitute dross if you want) on such matters that they feel the need to adopt these dodgy forms of practises designed simply to mislead in such disingenious fashion to further their political careers and vanity.

[DeepInTheForest]

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.

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!

As you say. Today there is great concern about one of the cooling pools at Fukushima that has lost its coolant, and the spent fuel roads appear to be melting.

[SICHONSTEVE]

This doesn't address my point in the slightest , let me remind you as you seem to have a selective mind . Here we go, are you ready?? OK, GO!!

Why are governments suspending or cancelling their 'policy' of building nuclear power stations on account of failures in the water cooling system in several reactors of one of Japan's nuclear complexes due to a massive earthquake (probably the biggest in it's history) when many of the countries involved in adopting this irrational reversal of policy will never, if history has it's say, experience an earthquake in ours, the next generation and many more to come's lifetime (Germany included). Answer me this and I might take your ripostes seriously. Looking forward to your reply Yuyi, if one is forthcoming that is. Interesting to see if you take me up on this as I'm dying to see the content!!

About Mrs. Merkels motivation, your explanation might hit the nail on the head.

However as to what she said, that was not about Germany getting hit by an earthquake, but she admitted that she finally understood Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong.

In her words: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

And when it comes to the possible bad cases or worst cases of nuclear power plant disasters they are simply too bad to be acceptable.

You've accepted my appraisal of WHY she did it (blatant opportunism) which was a totally unacceptable and morally inexcusable thing to do in my mind considering the outcome of this terrible tragedy which has resulted in the loss of so many lives.

I can see that you are determined to stick to your alternative theme to my posting and maybe you should have posted your opinion on a different or new posting instead of answering mine with something that does not effectively challenge anything within it, but that's 'by the by' now so lets move on.

You clearly hold an anti-nuclear stance of which you are perfectly entitled to, but if you analyse the nuclear power aspect, notably relating to it's safety record there hasn't really been any serious incidents since Chernobyl (as bad as this was, admitted), or before that at Three mile Island in the states many moons ago (of which they were fortunately able to contain, so a lucky escape it has to be said) so taking all things into account it can be said that nuclear sourced energy probably stacks up quite well, comparatively speaking, against most of the more orthdox power generating resources considering the number of oil, gas and coal related incidents that there have been that don't quite make the same impact in the headlines of newspapers or on our screens that scream 'RADIATION LEAKS' are going to make.

They don't call it 'clean energy' for nothing and smog doesn't come into the equation where plutonium is the fuel source involved in the production of energy. One thing I think we'll both agree on and that is the adoption of solar, wind and harnessing the power of water flow are so much more eco-friendly alternatives and logically the way to go as they are pollution free and non-depletable unlike the conventional fuels that store so many potential problems (as Japan has had to endure and pay the consequence for it pains me to say)!! Acts of god are simply that - unforseen and unavoidable in unleashing their formidable power wantonly with disaster written all over them to an unsuspecting and unexpectant world.

All we've got to do is make it economically viable to implement these next generation energy sources and everyone will be happy (and safe, more pertinently)!!! Agree with me on this Yuyi???

Edited March 15, 2011 by SICHONSTEVE

[DeepInTheForest]

"Nuclear power only makes sense if you have a weapons arsenal you need to support. "

Some writers point out that having nuclear power _obliges_ a country to militarize its society, in order to protect the plants, waste disposal facilities, transport of fuel, etc. In this way nuclear power functions as a facilitator of authoritarianism, which I feel contributes, if only at a subconscious level, to its allure to many of the pro-nuclear posters here.

[DeepInTheForest]

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.theregist...hiima_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.

Right. I'll just rely on the World Nuclear News for an objective take on things, as you are apparently willing to do.

In the meantime, there's this from msnbc.com:

"Earlier, Japanese officials told the IAEA that a fuel storage pond had caught fire — an area where used nuclear fuel is kept cool — and that radioactivity was "being released directly into the atmosphere." Long after the fire was extinguished, a Japanese official said the pool might still be boiling, though the reported levels of radiation had dropped dramatically by the end of the day. The radiation releases prompted Japanese officials to issue orders for 140,000 people to seal themselves indoors Tuesday. "

That just sounds like a ringing endorsement of nuclear energy to me. Only an ignorant fool would suggest that we rethink nuclear power. Right?

[khaowong1]

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?

[yuyi]

This doesn't address my point in the slightest , let me remind you as you seem to have a selective mind . Here we go, are you ready?? OK, GO!!

Why are governments suspending or cancelling their 'policy' of building nuclear power stations on account of failures in the water cooling system in several reactors of one of Japan's nuclear complexes due to a massive earthquake (probably the biggest in it's history) when many of the countries involved in adopting this irrational reversal of policy will never, if history has it's say, experience an earthquake in ours, the next generation and many more to come's lifetime (Germany included). Answer me this and I might take your ripostes seriously. Looking forward to your reply Yuyi, if one is forthcoming that is. Interesting to see if you take me up on this as I'm dying to see the content!!

About Mrs. Merkels motivation, your explanation might hit the nail on the head.

However as to what she said, that was not about Germany getting hit by an earthquake, but she admitted that she finally understood Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong.

In her words: "These events teach us that it can happen what we thought to be unlikely to happen."

And when it comes to the possible bad cases or worst cases of nuclear power plant disasters they are simply too bad to be acceptable.

You've accepted my appraisal of WHY she did it (blatant opportunism) which was a totally unacceptable and morally inexcusable thing to do in my mind considering the outcome of this terrible tragedy which has resulted in the loss of so many lives.

I can see that you are determined to stick to your alternative theme to my posting and maybe you should have posted your opinion on a different or new posting instead of answering mine with something that does not effectively challenge anything within it, but that's 'by the by' now so lets move on.

I think I merely answered to your question about what are these people thinking (in areas where there are no earthquakes).

While I think that your explanation of Mrs. Merkel's motivation might very well be correct for her I have heard similar words from quite a few non-politicians with whom I spoke the last days. Many have believed that this technology would be under control, that nothing could happen, at least not in the advanced countries such as Japan and the European countries. It is what the nuclear lobby told them all the time. Now they understand that if a disaster can happen, it can indeed happen, and will happen sooner or later.

This has nothing to do with the actual cause of the disaster in Japan, the earthquake. It could also have been a terrorist attack. Or whatever. It's about the risk we create by building nuclear power plants, and the illusion of having it under control. As long as it is a theoretical risk it can be seen as 'never happening'. But when you see it happening you understand 'sh*t, it can really happen'.

[softgeorge]

I'd much rather see this and the like than even contemplate a Thai Nuke facility.

Photovoltaic sidewalks

A very good initiative but a little to advanced for Thailand. Have you ever seen the state of sidewalks (footpaths) and the standard of paving in Thailand?

[webfact]

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Thais fight plans for nuclear power plants

By THE NATION

Horrified by news of radiation threats from quake-hit nuclear power plants in Japan, Thai residents of eight provinces that have been studied as possible sites for such plants have asked the prime minister to review the plans.

The coordinator of the Thai People Don't Want Nuclear Power Plants Network, Sodsai Sangsok, told a news conference yesterday that the Japanese lesson indicated Thailand should not have nuclear plants.

She said studies had been made of possible sites for nuclear power stations in Prachuap Khiri Khan, Chumphon, Surat Thani, Trat, Nakhon Sawan, Ubon Ratchathani, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Kalasin and Khon Kaen provinces. The Energy Ministry initially eyed Ubon Ratchathani.

Sodsai said authorities had presented one-sided information, saying that nuclear power was cheap, clean energy, while the country was unprepared in terms of potential and social responsibility. Local people had not been consulted on the plants' location.

The network plans to read an open letter to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva from Ubon Ratchathani City Hall today and to deliver it to him in person on Friday or Monday. The letter will ask the prime minister to review the plan to build nuclear power plants in Thailand.

Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University lecturer Chompunuch Morachat said he objected to nuclear plants because of threats of possible malfunctions and accidents that could destroy people and property. He criticised what he called "one-sided information" from government authorities that focused solely on the advantages of nuclear power. He also criticised the lack of community participation.

Meanwhile, the former chairman of the Nuclear Society of Thailand, Preecha Kansuthi, said the government had not yet established an official policy to build nuclear plants. It could therefore review its energy-development plans if asked to do so by protesters. However, the government had to be sure of power sources sufficient to meet the future needs of society.

In related news, about 30 protesters in Nakhon Si Thammarat asked provincial Governor Theera Min-trasak to have Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) coordination offices moved out of the province, bringing an immediate end to plans for construction of a coal-powered plant there. They said the plant was to be built in either Tha Sala or Hua Sai district.

The governor agreed to write an urgent letter to Egat asking it to act on the protesters' wishes, but warned that it was up to the electricity authority whether it did so.

There were reports last week of rocks and bricks being thrown at an Egat office in Tha Sala by unknown attackers.

-- The Nation 2011-03-16

[yuyi]

One thing I think we'll both agree on and that is the adoption of solar, wind and harnessing the power of water flow are so much more eco-friendly alternatives and logically the way to go as they are pollution free and non-depletable unlike the conventional fuels that store so many potential problems (as Japan has had to endure and pay the consequence for it pains me to say)!!

...

Agree with me on this Yuyi???

yes, we fully agree on that.

All we've got to do is make it economically viable to implement these next generation energy sources and everyone will be happy (and safe, more pertinently)!!! Agree with me on this Yuyi???

And also here we agree fully except that there are today already a lot of technologies using solar and wind power economically viable. We reached that point already. Especially if you add the true cost of de-commissioning power plants and even more if you add the costs for the nuclear waste management.

"We should not forget that the use of fossil and nuclear fuels to produce electricity come with significant external costs that are not reflected in the prices we pay for electricity. While renewable forms of power production do have impacts, I would argue that they pale in comparison to those associated with conventional forms of power production."(Steven E. Letendre)