Thailand Needs Nuclear Energy Before Other Resources Run Out: Energy Minister

[webfact]

Energy Minister: Thailand needs nuclear energy before other resources run out

BANGKOK, 30 March 2011 (NNT)-Energy Minister Dr. Wannarat Charnukul said energy crisis is looming if Thailand opts to go on without a nuclear power plant.

The Energy Minister said in the recent seminar on the energy for sustainable economy and society that while the news on radioactive leakage in Japan posed concerns to Thai people, the negativity toward having nuclear energy produced in the country has certainly clouded their perceptions toward the long term use. For this, Thailand is unable to develop a plan to build its own nuclear reactors.

According to Dr. Wannarat, the energy consumption in Thailand grows continuously each year, and it is likely that the country will need an energy back up plan once all the resources have been exhausted.

With non renewable resources such as coal and natural gas declining, the Energy Minister has decided to buy 25% of electricity generated by domestic producers in case neighboring nations refuse to let Thailand tap into their energy sources in the future.

The Ministry is also encouraging Thai people to rely on other resources in the form renewable energy as well as planning to develop a coal-based power production plant using clean technology.

[

-- NNT 2011-03-30

[fenny99]

Bye bye East Asia . South Asia is no radioactive due to the natural disaster in Japan .

Thailand has a history of tsunamisi and earthquakes . Also has a history of poor workmanship .

Thaiand are not good enough to harness neuclear power safely .

Start with there road safety , too many people die in needless accidents . when you master road safety and bring the death toll from motor accidents down to ..... say 30 people a year . then move onto construction safety when you master that go on to safety at sea , when you master that move on to something else .

There are things in Thailand that need you attention Nuclear power is a problem not a solution ..

:jap:HOPE ADVICE IS TAKEN ON BOARD

[webfact]

China may increase energy supply from solar energy in wake of nuke crisis

Follow this link:

[Crushdepth]

Maintenance? Adherence to safety standards?

Forget it.

[ginjag]

Maintenance? Adherence to safety standards?

Forget it.

You are right.

But lets ask how many reactors do they need ?

How much would they cost ?

Cost-upkeep ?

waste dispose safety ?

ADD up the cost.

wind power--solar power-to install, how much??,,sustainable yes clean yes, upkeep minimal.--god use the sun-it's nearly free, unless the sun should fled from the scene.---now lets have the brains in on the act-and cost compare ???

[devaram]

Excellent idea for Thailand to invest in nuclear energy because at this time there are some great deals on used nuclear reactors over in Japan I heard...

[whybother]

Maintenance? Adherence to safety standards?

Forget it.

You are right.

But lets ask how many reactors do they need ?

How much would they cost ?

Cost-upkeep ?

waste dispose safety ?

ADD up the cost.

wind power--solar power-to install, how much??,,sustainable yes clean yes, upkeep minimal.--god use the sun-it's nearly free, unless the sun should fled from the scene.---now lets have the brains in on the act-and cost compare ???

The costs of Solar Power

[jimbeam1]

If Thailand does go Nuclear, which no doubt it will need to do some time soon, I only hope and pray that Thailand has nothing to do with the construction or running of the plant. Please tell me they wont?

jb1

[whybother]

The costs of Solar Power

[MaiChai]

Unfortunately Thailand does not have huge reserves of oil/coal/gas. Thus something needs to be done. Gas would probably be the way to go (from Burma) since Thailand is not sufficiently advance to manage nuclear power (mind you are the Japanese?).

[dumpling]

If or when this country goes nuclear I am out of here , as my doctor once said prevention is better than cure.

Can you just imagine if they have a problem with a reactor by the time they have worked their way down through the pay grades to find some one to take the blame the whole dam_n country will be glowing.

[Soutpeel]

Unfortunately Thailand does not have huge reserves of oil/coal/gas. Thus something needs to be done. Gas would probably be the way to go (from Burma) since Thailand is not sufficiently advance to manage nuclear power (mind you are the Japanese?).

The IAEA has already indicated that they dont believe Thailand is ready for commerical, therefore without their blessing Thai commerical nuclear is not going to get off the ground, understand final decision will be made in the next few months.

[tvaddict]

the solar costs table gives misleadiing information as it does not state location

surely costs change dependent on how much sun there is over the year and how storing it is

Thailand is blessed with ample sunshine for nearly 365 days per year

if Portugal and Spain can decide to go down the solar route then why not thailand?

Thailand is absolutely not ready for nuclear power ( as the IAEA has said recently)- there is much resistance to this from all sectors of society largely due to the lack of trust in politicians to not 'cut corners' in order to line their own pockets

[Puschl]

The costs of Solar Power

A fine unbiased comparison

On the fossil side, only fuel costs are taken into account, and then it's compared to the lifetime total cost to production ratio of an overpriced small-scale rooftop photovoltaic system.

A funny side note: DC/AC conversion loss is thoroughly factored into the solar energy cost calculus. The device I use to write these lines wastes energy by converting AC to DC.

[animatic]

Ah yes, Energy Minister Dr. Wannarat Charnukul!

Perfectly time to step on your pud on the world stage.

Most all are backing away quickly and you take one for

the vested interest home team that pays the big bills...

What is the cost factoring in safety in the long run...

save a few pennies now or spend then later in addition to great pain and suffering....

Edited March 30, 2011 by animatic

[bangkokeddy]

Indonesia goes nuclear and so should Thailand do. safe, clean, green.

The main concern for Indonesian authorities is the fear among the communities in regards to the possible presence of nuclear power plants. Lasman said that such mentality is a consequence from the lack of information.

[gregb]

the solar costs table gives misleadiing information as it does not state location

surely costs change dependent on how much sun there is over the year and how storing it is

Thailand is blessed with ample sunshine for nearly 365 days per year

if Portugal and Spain can decide to go down the solar route then why not thailand?

Thailand is absolutely not ready for nuclear power ( as the IAEA has said recently)- there is much resistance to this from all sectors of society largely due to the lack of trust in politicians to not 'cut corners' in order to line their own pockets

The "solar route" as you put it, is a dead end, at least if you want to run an industrial economy. It is only possible with huge subsidies that bring the cost down to something comparable to fossil fuels. Worse, this will never change, as the costs for production of solar panels, batteries, wiring, etc. are all based on the cost of manufacture and transport...manufacture and transport that achieves its low cost through the use of fossil fuels.

There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who has ever seriously studied the problem that today's industrial economy, with all its waste, can not be run on solar power alone. Fossil fuels give an energy return of approximately 20:1. This means, for every BTU it takes to extract a hydrocarbon, you receive approximately 20 BTUs in return. This is because fossil fuels, oil in particular, is a highly concentrated energy source.

Solar power, by contrast, when you look at the complex infrastructure necessary to harvest and store it, has an EROEI ratio of something much closer to 4:1. There will be inevitable debate on this, given all the components involved in solar arrays, from the panels themselves, to the aluminum frames, to the stainless steel screws used to fasten them, and all then all the equipment used to operate the factories that make the necessary components, and all the factories needed to make the equipment which goes into building the factories, etc., all the way back to the massive machines which mine the raw materials, it is an incredibly complex calculation that can be manipulated to match whatever someone wants it to be. 4:1 seems to be the median, but there are those who argue it is 1:1, and those that argue it could be comparable to fossil fuels if only...and a long list of excuses follows.

The simple reality is solar energy is an extremely diffuse energy source. Common sense tells you it will be much more expensive to use than a highly concentrated energy source like fossil fuels. So when you realize that an economy based on solar power would need to allocate at least 5 times as much of the GDP for energy as is currently allocated, you start to realize the scale of the problem. Countries don't have the money. Economies will crash, people will starve, etc.

The only way forward for the human race is fewer people using alot less energy, and paying alot more handsomely for it. In particular, private cars are going to have to go. They are one of the most wasteful parts of the industrial economy.

There is life after fossil fuels for humanity. But it is not the industrial economy we have today. It is a low energy lifestyle much more akin to what they had centuries ago, with a small wealthy elite and an extremely large peasant majority. Nuclear power is not perfect, but it is substantially better than solar in terms of EROEI, and more people will die from not having access to nuclear energy than will die from its use. We need every resource and the most productive resources we can allocate in order to try and mitigate the inevitable collapse headed our way. To deny nuclear power is to wish more death and more destruction on a population that will already be starving.

[animatic]

If cost per BTU has to be the ONLY main criterion to consider then we should just irradiate ourselves to vapor or dust and be done with it.

Edited March 30, 2011 by animatic

[gregb]

If cost per BTU has to be the ONLY main criterion to consider then we should just irradiate ourselves to vapor or dust and be done with it.

Survival is the main criteria, and more people will survive for a longer period of time with nuclear power than without it. It really is that simple.

[webfact]

Energy Minister Eyes Clean Coal as Substitution for Nuclear Power

The energy minister says he may seek public approval on clean coal technology, which could replace nuclear power plants in the national energy plan.

He warned that national energy security might be at risk if the public continues to oppose all kinds of power plant construction.

Energy Minister Wannarat Channukul has announced that due to the current anti- nuclear power sentiment among the public, the Energy Ministry is reconsidering the Thailand Power Development Plan or the PDP 2010, which included plans for the construction of five nuclear power plants with a total capability of 5,000 megawatts.

Wannarat pointed out that the ministry is now looking at clean coal technology as a possible substitution for nuclear energy.

The energy minister claims that in order to meet national energy consumption demand in the future, Thailand may have to construct more than 15 coal power plants as initially proposed in the PDP 2010.

Wannarat pointed out that even though the government is aiming for 20 percent or 5,600 megawatts of the total energy in the country from renewable sources by 2022, alternative energy technology is still relatively limited and unreliable.

Given the current technology, renewable sources cannot cover national energy consumption.

Because of this, Thailand still needs large power plants to meet the demand for energy.

The government wishes to inform the public that coal power has become cleaner and emits almost the same level of pollution as natural gas power plants.

Meanwhile, President of THAI International Airways Piyasawat Amranand, who is also a former energy minister, believes the anti-nuclear sentiment and the people's refusal to hear the facts about nuclear technology may set the country's nuclear energy program back by at least another decade.

Piyasawat asserted that nuclear technology is an important energy source and plays a crucial role in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

The former energy minister also criticized the government's energy policy for lacking clarity, in both power plant and fuel price plans.

He claims the government should allow fuel prices to be dictated by market mechanism, which would promote conservation and alternative energy sources.

-- Tan Network 2011-03-31

[dunkin2012]

Indonesia goes nuclear and so should Thailand do. safe, clean, green.

The main concern for Indonesian authorities is the fear among the communities in regards to the possible presence of nuclear power plants. Lasman said that such mentality is a consequence from the lack of information.

http://www.thaivisa....r-power-plants/

Hum............... how much do you know about Nuclear reactions?

don't you see Japan?

I suggest you do a bit of study before you write it.....

Writing without ....

Edited March 31, 2011 by dunkin2012

[animatic]

If cost per BTU has to be the ONLY main criterion to consider then we should just irradiate ourselves to vapor or dust and be done with it.

Survival is the main criteria, and more people will survive for a longer period of time with nuclear power than without it. It really is that simple.

Solar power recharged battery lighting units being shipped up north would greatly increase the quality of life of most northern Thai villagers, for a fraction of the cost of just the containment vessel of any type of nuclear reactor. I can light a villager's house for $60 totally installed. and it will be totally self contained, just replace the bulbs every year or two and maybe the battery every 4-5. It can also charge their cell phones, like many street light flashers are not solar powered.

Sorry I don't buy the survival line.

Man survived for millennia without electricity,

the main issue in reality is financial burden to large manufacturers.

They don't want increased costs of increased energy costs.

Or increased cost of conversion to lower energy usage manufacturing.

Edited March 31, 2011 by animatic