Thailand To Rethink Plan To Build 5 Nuclear Plants

[JetsetBkk]

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?

Remember the Three Mile Island disaster? That was terrible wasn't it. Perhaps you should now read what the BBC is summarising as the Three Mile Island event:

Fortunately, little radiation was released, and multiple studies have shown no serious health impacts.

And yet people still remember it as a disaster.

Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh responsibly urged pregnant women and children under five to evacuate the surrounding areas.

His warning was advisory in nature - a measure of caution, even though no increased radiation levels had been detected offsite - but still raised concerns and an estimated 75,000 people evacuated.

- a politician sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. Good PR though.

But he [President Jimmy Carter] was photographed wearing yellow protective booties over his shoes to guard against radiation, which further distressed many Americans.

"Oh, my God! He's wearing yellow protective booties!" I suppose they'd rather he walked naked through the place.

[webfact]

Thailand to Revise Energy Plans After Blasts at Nuclear Power Plant in Japan

The Energy Ministry is set to revise its blueprint for national power development in light of the historic earthquake in Japan that caused a series of explosions at a nuclear plant.

Former President of the Thai Nuclear Society Preecha Karnsuthi said explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant are classified as level 4 on the scale of 7.

He added level 4 is a serious, yet controllable level.

Preecha noted that the radiation seems to be moving towards the Pacific Ocean, and it is expected to thin out within a month.

The expert ruled out the possibility of the radioactive cloud spreading to Southeast Asia. No traces of radiation have been detected in Thailand since the incident occurred in Japan.

Preecha explained that the blasts were caused by excessive pressure and heat in the reactors after the cooling system shut down due to the earthquake.

He said the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was built 40 years ago, and the technology of that time may not be able to handle such high pressure.

The nuclear expert said residents within a 3-kilometer radius of the nuclear plant must evacuate and be given iodine tablets to reduce the absorption of radioactive iodine, which could cause thyroid cancer.

He added that those within 10 kilometers of the plant do not need to evacuate, but they must close windows and doors, and turn off air ventilation systems.

Energy Regulatory Commission member Panlapa Ruangthong said Japan's nuclear plant explosions have stirred opposition to the planned construction of five nuclear plants and ten coal plants in Thailand, prompting her agency to review the 2010 Power Development Plan.

She noted that the plan may be revised to focus more on the use of natural gas, construction, of small-scale biomass plants, and alternative energy plants.

Meanwhile, the Energy Ministry is considering revising the electricity fee structure, as the existing one has been in use since 2000.

The revision will be in accordance with the Energy Business Act 2007, and will be aimed at determining actual electricity costs and to support the government's free electricity campaign.

With the new structure, households are required to pay 10 satang more for each electricity unit, while industrial users will be charged 30 satang more.

An opinion survey will be conducted in May, after which a proposal will be put forward to the Energy Policy and Planning Committee.

The process is expected to be complete in July, when the free electricity campaign is due to expire.

-- Tan Network 2011-03-16

[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.

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'.

Why didn't they do this so called 'thinking' you refer to beforehand before they built them!!! This shouldn't have taken a huge earthquake, followed by a tsunami and major nuclear incident to bring this to their (oh so belated) attention. The fact that they are going overboard in their urgency to hoodwink us into thinking that they know what they are doing reveals their utter incompetence and complete failure of duty in serving the people who elected them as well as contemplating their morals and ethics on all this.

They won't listen to the 'Nuclear Lobby' as they are merely a nasty little irritant that won't go away and whose purpose (in their eye's) is to put obstacles in the pathway in their feeble and blind attempt to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

I reiterate, now lets keep Germany's situation as the example as you introduced it in the first place. If the risks of a terrorist attack is to be a prominent part of the equation (possible as you put it, as anything can happen and probably will happen) in their assessment as to whether it is deemed safe to have nuclear power stations on this earth, or not, then simple, decommission all of the existing ones if it poses a risk and do not build any more. There you go, problem solved - only.... how do we and what will fill the energy vacuum that will inevitably be formed??? Ohhh!! and then there's the potential collision from a sizeable comet or meteor shower, or the sky falling in. Right that's it, definitely too dangerous!!!! away with them, we'll have to find some other toy to play with (not recommended for 3 year old's and under). Can we legitimately discount these highly unlikely scenario's now, as comets, terrorists (the new order of security measures in lieu of the 'twin towers experience' should see to that) can both be safely eliminated whilst the sky falling in has never happened before (I know, anything can happen and......). Now if 'chicken licken' or 'turkey lurkey' were terrorists that had obtained the means 9given to them by the evil overlords) for altering the orbits of comets and meteorites then we may have a major problem on our hands!!! OK far fetched in the extreme I know!! but is it so much more removed from that of a potential terrorist attack? Think about it, do you seriously think that one is imminent!!!

Where does that leave us? now that we have removed some of the 'red herring' variables, which is what they are and 'make no bones about that'!!!!!!! What else can go wrong? Oh yeh!!! Earthquakes and tsunami's in the 'Pacific ring of fire' might pose a risk as 10 metre waves following on from violently shaking the ground under the reactors would not be good at all. LETS BE CLEAR ON ONE THING, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO TRIVIALIALISE WHAT HAS HAPPENED BY THE WAY as my heart goes out to all of those that have succumbed to this tragic and trauma inducing disaster of epic proportions. I am simply illustrating that certain government's - yes Germany in particular, are hiding behind their real motives (that of political gain and trying to fix their shortcomings in their nuclear policy on the back of Japan's misery and desparation at what's besieged them in the last week and is still continuing by all accounts). This thinly veiled smokescreen that they are using in stating that they are concerned by the threat and potential of a terrorist attack (and maybe this "totally unrelated" tragic event should somehow focus our attention) and maybe we should show responsibility and implement a 3 month moratorium on the 3 oldest reactors (only) with the other 17 'less oldies' receiving some form of periferal check up, just does not wash with me......and neither should it do with Joe public either.

Please don't bore me with this trashy talk of potential terrorist threats being the reason for all this activity all of a sudden as I just refuse to acknowledge it anymore, such is the irrelevance of it in the scheme of things.

[swerver]

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.

Whenever things go wrong, underlying risks had led to a liability and, in a responsible society, accountability.

Most people assume that the meticulous Japanese are among the world’s most responsible citizens. Having covered the Hanshin (Kobe) earthquake and the Tokyo subway gassing, I beg to differ. Japan is just better than elsewhere in organizing official cover-ups.

Hidden nuclear crisis

The recurrent tendency to deny systemic errors – “in order to avoid public panic” - is rooted in the determination of an entrenched bureaucracy to protect itself rather than in any stated purpose of serving the nation or its people. That’s the unspoken rule of thumb in most governments, and the point is that Japan is no shining exception.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, MD

30-years nuclear experience

Dr. Helen Mary Caldicott, MD (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, war and military action in general. She hosts a weekly radio program, If You Love This Planet.

[jackr]

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?

The typical retort of a dreamer. This is the real world my friend. To have all that stuff replace coal, oil, nuclear and be 100% green would be fandabidozi and the way forwards. But right now, with humans' insatiable thirst for energy, it is just not realistic... the impossible logistics and cost alone make it non-feasible at this point in time. You then have massive premiums at your meter. Does that work for you?

Proponents of nuclear power trying to argue it's pluses will always be up against it with unfortunates unable to think clearly... the kind that rely on the internet (and all its drivel) for their info and thoughts. Kind of like arguing with a bunch of schoolgirls. Yes, nuclear energy can be dangerous; yes, it will turn around and bite if you don't cover all angles; and yes, there are alternatives. But, right now, at THIS JUNCTURE, for us greedy humans, it is our best option for the amount of power needed. The odd mishap contaminating a relatively small region as opposed to the global effects caused by the burning of coal and oil is certainly preferable, although what is happening now is not typical and new state-of-the-art systems are the dogs doodhas.

Carry on girls...

[bangkokeddy]

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?

PV is super toxic. In production and later as e.waste.

wave and tidal ... that generates a lot of noise in the water that pisses little fishies off so that the stop to fnuk each other and makes dolphins to commit mass suicide at some sunny beach.

[Soutpeel]

wave and tidal ... that generates a lot of noise in the water that pisses little fishies off so that the stop to fnuk each other and makes dolphins to commit mass suicide at some sunny beach.

Excellent rebuttal... .....take that tree huggers...

[SICHONSTEVE]

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)

I appreciate that perfecting the existing technologies and improving the manufacturing processes of these new so called 'eco-friendly' power sources to replace the finite fossil resources has come a long way since the comparatively primitive initial offerings of strategically placed wind farms (to the overt dismay and chagrin of the NIMBY'ists of this world) and single component solar roof panels with the attached novelty value of actually owning one that screams "I'm doing my bit for society" even though it does absolutely nothing of the sort really apart from revealing their socially responsible side, has come a long way since their inception and introduction.

Better technological advancement has paved the way towards achieving economic viability, so in theory the panacea of ever improving versions (increased efficiency and longevity) of previous contributions with lower purchase and maintenance costs into the bargain will make them more and more important and relevant to ensure the imposition of responsible future energy planning.

Introducing these renewable power production sources to displace the conventional ones does not, however, as you imply (where it involves the decommissioning of (nuclear) power plants) make their viability more feasible but much less so in actuality. Governments will incur massive add-on costs where and when such decommissioning is needed and this must be costed into the overall 'feasibility calculation' which will invariably impact adversely in attempting to establish the facts of the true costs of introducing environmentally friendly mean's of power creation. On the other hand and in the longer term the converse effect on the running costs of a nuclear facility relating to it's nuclear waste management will be seen to diminish so it's a bit 'swings and roundabouts' in that respect - very expensive initially but a bit more palatable overall in the long run.

I do not know who Steven E. Letendre is and in what capacity he is speaking in, but I must question some of the aspects he deliberates on in his brief contribution to the subject in his piece. Firstly, considering that all gas, oil, and electricity generating and producing companies are essentially privately owned and they are primarily responsible to their share holders who fund the operations (paying them dividends that are extremely generous in stock market terms) and the fact that they have to charge their customers prices that reflect their (not inconsiderable) forced investment in the infrastructure, R&D, exploration and generation costs (down to the regulators). Then if Joe public is getting their electricity at below generation/production prices as he implies is the case, then who is stumping up the subsidy to pay for the shortfall??? Not the people clearly as he say's so, not the government I doubt, so who????

The second part of this resume states that environmentally friendly 'green' generation does have a role to play in energy production but stipulates that is a relatively minor one in the grand scheme of things and that perhaps it will remain this way for years to come such is the huge gulf of a divide between the two forms of energy production available to us. I can't imagine that an anti-nuclear eco-warrior such as the likes of you exactly wants to hear this if you are intent on spreading the gospel of 'green not grime' (I just made that up by the way) when in quoting his less than supportive thoughts and words to promote your cause it has proved to be completely anathema to all you want to happen regards the prospects of reusable energy playing a more integral role in the future, and for what and where you stand on this!!!

[yuyi]

Introducing these renewable power production sources to displace the conventional ones does not, however, as you imply (where it involves the decommissioning of (nuclear) power plants) make their viability more feasible but much less so in actuality. Governments will incur massive add-on costs where and when such decommissioning is needed and this must be costed into the overall 'feasibility calculation' which will invariably impact adversely in attempting to establish the facts of the true costs of introducing environmentally friendly mean's of power creation.

Well, latest news show that the surprising turnaround of pro-nuclear Mrs. Merkel might have another important reason. There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

And this was not said by some "anti-nuclear eco-warrior" as you call me but it is the pro-nuclear German government itself who authored that secret document. Now it's not secret anymore, it was made public on TV in Germany (March 17, "Kontraste").

So, examining nuclear power plants, we have

• an immense risk potential,
  
• nuclear waste for hundreds and thousands of generations to take care of, and
  
• it's not even economically viable to run it in compliance with the safety standards.
  

Permit me if I have a problem to understand why anyone would want to continue to run such a nuclear power plant, or even build new ones (well, except the ones involved in selling them, obviously their primary motivation is to make money ...).

This has a massive influence on your quoted statement above, there would be massive costs not only to decommission the nuclear power plants (costs which we have sooner or later anyway), but there would be massive costs just to keep them running.

[warfie]

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

two words '"solar stirling:

[thailandadam]

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?

You would think that engineers around the world would be creating more efficient versions of these safe power sources( and I believe they are trying), however, it usually seems that the all-mighty bottom line rules and for nuclear power, there's more bang for the buck...no pun intended. It's easy to vote (and I personally do) for safe energy, but it's not always a simple formula.

Here's food for thought, an article on...

Nuclear Vs Solar Energy, Which?

Posted on: Friday, 24 March 2006, 09:01 CST

By Ita, Melford

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/

[katana]

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?

Wonder what our descendants will think of us in 50, 100 or thousand years time when they are tasked with the perilous job of dealing with the highly radioactive waste their ancestors created that hasn't decayed yet and is still dangerous...

[JetsetBkk]

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?

Wonder what our descendants will think of us in 50, 100 or thousand years time when they are tasked with the perilous job of dealing with the highly radioactive waste their ancestors created that hasn't decayed yet and is still dangerous...

Hopefully they'll be glad we buried it in tons of concrete while they deal with their latest nuclear fusion problem which is turning much of Japan into a small version of the sun.

[Macmundi]

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 ?

Thailand may not be too near the quakes, but thailand had got some stupidly dangerous political violence. They shot RPGs at oil tanks. What do you think will stop them from shooting at a neuclear power plant?

[John71]

Does Thailand have enough organic farming areas in earthquake and/or tsunami and/or flood and or potentially politically and militarily unstable areas to build nuclear reactors?

[SICHONSTEVE]

Introducing these renewable power production sources to displace the conventional ones does not, however, as you imply (where it involves the decommissioning of (nuclear) power plants) make their viability more feasible but much less so in actuality. Governments will incur massive add-on costs where and when such decommissioning is needed and this must be costed into the overall 'feasibility calculation' which will invariably impact adversely in attempting to establish the facts of the true costs of introducing environmentally friendly mean's of power creation.

Well, latest news show that the surprising turnaround of pro-nuclear Mrs. Merkel might have another important reason. There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

And this was not said by some "anti-nuclear eco-warrior" as you call me but it is the pro-nuclear German government itself who authored that secret document. Now it's not secret anymore, it was made public on TV in Germany (March 17, "Kontraste").

So, examining nuclear power plants, we have

• an immense risk potential,
• nuclear waste for hundreds and thousands of generations to take care of, and
• it's not even economically viable to run it in compliance with the safety standards.

Permit me if I have a problem to understand why anyone would want to continue to run such a nuclear power plant, or even build new ones (well, except the ones involved in selling them, obviously their primary motivation is to make money ...).

This has a massive influence on your quoted statement above, there would be massive costs not only to decommission the nuclear power plants (costs which we have sooner or later anyway), but there would be massive costs just to keep them running.

So, basically you are implying that they are not a good idea clearly and that the future expansion of the nuclear industry is not the way to go!!!! I respect you're stance on this and to be honest I do not hold much of an opinion on the merits of nuclear energy one way or the other. I do see the relevance of alternative (eco-friendly) energy production to be enjoyed by future generations however and as it becomes more and more economically viable then it makes obvious sense to replace both nuclear and fossil fuels with non-depletable energy sources (on safety grounds alone) where and when it can be done.

Now that Merkel's secret is no longer a secret and she has come clean in admitting that what has happened in Japan has nothing to do with her previously given reasons (on safety grounds due to the (non)-potential for "acts of god" occurring) instead of giving the real reasons such as that of the costly maintenance programmes required to enable them to meet and pass the necessary safety requirements - for assessing the 'health of her ageing reactors' then it questions her ethics in attempting to deceive 'her people' in such an appalling way as she set out to do initially, until the 'cat was let out of the bag' and the truth came out in the embarrassing facts that show that she and her government had been telling porky's!!!.

You're argument as to the sense of maintaining them (or building new ones) on cost grounds not being justifiable is a pertinent one. It seems to me that whatever they do now will be extremely expensive to deal with as utilising such a potentially hazardous and unstable substance as one of your energy sources brings untold problems and unwanted costs at every step in the process from the mining of it to treating the waste. They have created a massive problem by allowing themselves to become so dependant on nuclear power with no alternative strategy in place to account for the time when their reactors are worn out and in need of decommissioning (as they probably should have been by now) with the need for expansive (and expensive) reconditioning to maintain their functionality and safe running becoming ever more urgent and unaffordable at a time when they would rather spend it on getting their economy back on track after the prolonged global ill's.

My gripe all along has been with the lack of integrity they adopted as to the reasons given for trying to "right the wrongs" in such a contemptuous fashion by falsification of the facts and blatant dishonesty in trying to deal with a problem of their own making without accepting the blame for the mistakes made earlier in not anticipating the future impact that nuclearisation would bring!!.

Edited March 21, 2011 by SICHONSTEVE

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

<snip>

If it's a secret document, how do you know about it?

[SICHONSTEVE]

<snip>

There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

<snip>

If it's a secret document, how do you know about it?

If you had read Yuyi's posting properly you would have seen that he DID'NT say this. He clearly states that there WAS a secret document and not IS. It means that it was secret before the details became common knowledge after which it ceased to be secret which is how he could familiarise himself with what they were about!!! Get it????

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

<snip>

If it's a secret document, how do you know about it?

If you had read Yuyi's posting properly you would have seen that he DID'NT say this. He clearly states that there WAS a secret document and not IS. It means that it was secret before the details became common knowledge after which it ceased to be secret which is how he could familiarise himself with what they were about!!! Get it????

OK, carry on.

PS. Any chance of a link to this secret ex-secret document so we can all read it? Not that I'm implying Yuyi is in any way biased, of course.

[SICHONSTEVE]

<snip>

There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

<snip>

If it's a secret document, how do you know about it?

If you had read Yuyi's posting properly you would have seen that he DID'NT say this. He clearly states that there WAS a secret document and not IS. It means that it was secret before the details became common knowledge after which it ceased to be secret which is how he could familiarise himself with what they were about!!! Get it????

OK, carry on.

PS. Any chance of a link to this secret ex-secret document so we can all read it? Not that I'm implying Yuyi is in any way biased, of course.

No chance!!! as he wants to keep it secret from you. He's not biased, he is just expressing his views and they are basically that he is vehemently against nuclear derived energy, views of which he is perfectly entitled to hold, just as you can hold contrarian views if that reflects your feelings on this subject. What could be fairer than that??? Example: if you thought that it was better to play Rooney than Defoe against Wales on Saturday, does that make you biased in any way or how??? If you had said 'opinionated instead then I wouldn't argue with that as that's what people do on these forums and essentially what they are all about. The purpose is to promote your opinion, with sound justification as to why your arguments/opinions are more convincing and persuasive than other posters who hold the opposite views to yours.

[JetsetBkk]

(quote)

'yuyi'

<snip>

There was a secret document showing that if the nuclear power plants in Germany would comply with the safety standards these nuclear power plants would not be economically viable anymore!

<snip>

(unquote)

If it's a secret document, how do you know about it?

If you had read Yuyi's posting properly you would have seen that he DID'NT say this. He clearly states that there WAS a secret document and not IS. It means that it was secret before the details became common knowledge after which it ceased to be secret which is how he could familiarise himself with what they were about!!! Get it????

OK, carry on.

PS. Any chance of a link to this secret ex-secret document so we can all read it? Not that I'm implying Yuyi is in any way biased, of course.

No chance!!! as he wants to keep it secret from you. He's not biased, he is just expressing his views and they are basically that he is vehemently against nuclear derived energy, views of which he is perfectly entitled to hold, just as you can hold contrarian views if that reflects your feelings on this subject. What could be fairer than that??? Example: if you thought that it was better to play Rooney than Defoe against Wales on Saturday, does that make you biased in any way or how??? If you had said 'opinionated instead then I wouldn't argue with that as that's what people do on these forums and essentially what they are all about. The purpose is to promote your opinion, with sound justification as to why your arguments/opinions are more convincing and persuasive than other posters who hold the opposite views to yours.

Pity, so we/I can't examine this secret document, its source, author, etc and maybe propose why it's not valid.

Maybe Yuyi would like to comment.

[ginjag]

Does Thailand have enough organic farming areas in earthquake and/or tsunami and/or flood and or potentially politically and militarily unstable areas to build nuclear reactors?

Who on earth expects the 80% Thais here to foot the bill, or even afford the electric bill at the end of each month ????? or if they ever did build it would direct the power lines to HI-SO areas.

Ask the ordinary Thai what ( NEW CLEAR PLANT ) means-- he would go to a garden centre to buy :lol:

[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.

Whenever things go wrong, underlying risks had led to a liability and, in a responsible society, accountability.

Most people assume that the meticulous Japanese are among the world’s most responsible citizens. Having covered the Hanshin (Kobe) earthquake and the Tokyo subway gassing, I beg to differ. Japan is just better than elsewhere in organizing official cover-ups.

Hidden nuclear crisis

The recurrent tendency to deny systemic errors – “in order to avoid public panic” - is rooted in the determination of an entrenched bureaucracy to protect itself rather than in any stated purpose of serving the nation or its people. That’s the unspoken rule of thumb in most governments, and the point is that Japan is no shining exception.

Dr. Helen Caldicott, MD

30-years nuclear experience

Dr. Helen Mary Caldicott, MD (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician, author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations dedicated to opposing the use of depleted uranium munitions, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, war and military action in general. She hosts a weekly radio program, If You Love This Planet.

Helen Caldicott is quoted in this article saying the Japan disaster could be equal to

30 times Chernobyl so its not the best option

http://dawnwires.com/politics/dire-warning-radioactivity-to-spread-around-the-world/

[robsamui]

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 ?

Line up outside in their thousands to watch the pretty glowing colours?

Edited March 29, 2011 by robsamui