Thai Energy Minister Backs Nuclear Power Despite Slide In First Plant Launch

[webfact]

Wannarat backs nuclear power despite slide in first plant launch

By WATCHARAPONG THONGRUNG

THE NATION

It is necessary for Thailand to postpone its nuclear power programme for now, said Energy Minister Wannarat Channukul following the National Energy Policy Council's decision to delay the commercial commencement of the first nuclear power plant from 2020 to 2023.

Despite the decision of the NEPC, chaired by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, Wannarat insisted that nuclear power was worthwhile economically and environmentally, with the lowest cost and carbon emissions.

Nevertheless, he admitted the ministry could not pursue the plan without public confidence in safety measures following the disaster in Japan.

"As long as confidence is low due to concerns about environmental impact, we could not rush a decision. What needs to be considered is how nuclear technology can be developed to the point where public confidence is strengthened. Mean-while, we need to take into account Japan's measures in enhancing protection efficiency," he said while attending a Nation Group seminar.

Many countries are reviewing their nuclear policies, and Thailand still needs further reviews by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he added.

The delay of the first plant will push the fifth plant out of the Power Development Plan 2010 (2011-2030). The Nuclear Power Programme Development Office has nevertheless been assigned to continue with the campaign to prepare for nuclear power as well as to promote public confidence.

In a move widely considered as a vote-buying campaign, the council also approved the five-year power-price formula (2011-2015), which in effect will provide free electricity to households consuming fewer than 90 units monthly. The burden will be shared by all other users, except households and small businesses.

While offering free power to some, the agency is pursuing power reduction schemes. It approved the 20-year energy conservation framework, which targets reducing energy consumption in all sectors by 30 million tonnes of crude oil equivalent per annum by 2030, which will reduce energy imports by Bt400 billion per annum.

The NEPC also endorsed the extension of subsidies on natural gas at Bt2 per kg by three months, or until the end of September. Subsidies on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) will also be maintained for household and transportation use, but starting from July the LPG price for industrial use will be adjusted by Bt12 per kg for a 12-month period.

An adjustment of Bt3 per kg will take place on a quarterly basis. The Energy Policy and Planning Office will later submit the price adjustment plan to the council.

It also endorsed agreements to purchase power from the 440MW Nam Ngum 3 hydropower project and the 289MW Nam Ngiep project in Laos, which will start commercial operations in January 2017 and 2018, respectively.

-- The Nation 2011-04-28

[fxe1200]

If those responsible in Bangkok would only be able to think from 12 to noon, they would see, that the endless shining sun could easily resolve all energy problems in Thailand. Sites like "Andasol" in Spain, water heating on rooftops running steampowered generators, using electricity to produce storable hydrogen, and such, would be enough to free Thailand from burning fossil fuels, not to mention nuclear energy. The postponement of the construction of nuclear plants is not enough, a rethinking is inevitable.

[animatic]

Who's your daddy.

Stalled for now, but not forever, eh....

Edited April 28, 2011 by animatic

[swerver]

If those responsible in Bangkok would only be able to think from 12 to noon, they would see, that the endless shining sun could easily resolve all energy problems in Thailand. Sites like "Andasol" in Spain, water heating on rooftops running steampowered generators, using electricity to produce storable hydrogen, and such, would be enough to free Thailand from burning fossil fuels, not to mention nuclear energy. The postponement of the construction of nuclear plants is not enough, a rethinking is inevitable.

I'm more than one-hundred percent with you.

Among the many lunatics on the loose in Thailand there is one who is a SUPER LUNATIC his name is Wannarat Channukul and of all Thai Government Post he holds the post of Energy Minister. The people that wear white coats employed by the Lunatic asylum should be send out to locate this nuclear lunatic, put him in a straight jacket and take him to the asylum and make sure he will NEVER escape from the asylum.

This Forum isn't large enough for me to post all the reports I have in my archive about the most recent nuclear disaster in Japan, let alone 3-Mile Island meltdown and Chernobyl explosion.

… Thailand still needs further reviews by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he added

Let me insert one of most recent in my archive.

Nuclear Overseers Are "Fake" Agencies Funded and Controlled by the Nuclear Power Industry

April 18, 2011

The Christian Science Monitor noted recently:

• Just as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.
• [Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to clean up Chernobyl] has also accused the IAEA of being too close with corporations. "This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry cannot perform properly."

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is no better.

As nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Duane Peterson (president of VPIRG & coordinator for the campaign to retire Vermont Yankee nuclear plant), investigative reporter Harvey Wasserman and Paul Gallay (executive director of Riverkeeper) point out in a roundtable discussion:

• The NRC won't even begin conducting its earthquake study for Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York until after relicensing is complete in 2013, because the NRC doesn't consider a big earthquake "a serious risk"

Congressman Markey has said there is a cover up. Specifically, Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake)

The budget for the NRC comes from the nuclear power companies [just like banks fund the Federal Reserve]

The NRC is wholly captive to industry

• The NRC has never turned down the request of a nuclear power plant to be relicensed in the United States. Relicensing is solely a paper process; there is no safety review.
• The NRC's assumptions regarding a worst-case accident are ridiculous. For example, the NRC assumes only 1% of the fuel could meltdown, while 70% melted down at Fukushima. The NRC assumes no loss of containment, while there has been a major loss of containment in reactors 1-3 (especially 2) at Fukushima.
• "If there was a free market in energy, nuclear power would be over ... immediately". Nuclear plant owners can't get insurance; they can only operate because the U.S. government provides insurance on the taxpayer dime. The government also granted a ridiculously low cap on liability
• If we had no subsidies for nuclear, coal or oil, we'd have a clean energy economy right now
• We have 4 reactors in California - 2 at San Onofre 2 at San Luis Obispo - which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.
• No state or federal agency knows who would be in charge in case of an accident at Indian Point. It's like the Keystone Cops

Then this Thai Lunatic talks about FREE Electricity. I heared that bullshit fifty years ago in all the advertising in connection with selling the public with the San Onofre, CA Nuclear power plant. If you are interested ask the people in Southern California about electricity prices, they for sure are NOT FREE.

Edited April 28, 2011 by swerver

[Anon999]

If those responsible in Bangkok would only be able to think from 12 to noon, they would see, that the endless shining sun could easily resolve all energy problems in Thailand. Sites like "Andasol" in Spain, water heating on rooftops running steampowered generators, using electricity to produce storable hydrogen, and such, would be enough to free Thailand from burning fossil fuels, not to mention nuclear energy. The postponement of the construction of nuclear plants is not enough, a rethinking is inevitable.

I'm more than one-hundred percent with you.

Among the many lunatics on the loose in Thailand there is one who is a SUPER LUNATIC his name is Wannarat Channukul and of all Thai Government Post he holds the post of Energy Minister. The people that wear white coats employed by the Lunatic asylum should be send out to locate this nuclear lunatic, put him in a straight jacket and take him to the asylum and make sure he will NEVER escape from the asylum.

This Forum isn't large enough for me to post all the reports I have in my archive about the most recent nuclear disaster in Japan, let alone 3-Mile Island meltdown and Chernobyl explosion.

… Thailand still needs further reviews by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he added

Let me insert one of most recent in my archive.

Nuclear Overseers Are "Fake" Agencies Funded and Controlled by the Nuclear Power Industry

April 18, 2011

The Christian Science Monitor noted recently:

• Just as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.
• [Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to clean up Chernobyl] has also accused the IAEA of being too close with corporations. "This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry – and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform properly."

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is no better.

As nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Duane Peterson (president of VPIRG & coordinator for the campaign to retire Vermont Yankee nuclear plant), investigative reporter Harvey Wasserman and Paul Gallay (executive director of Riverkeeper) point out in a roundtable discussion:

• The NRC won't even begin conducting its earthquake study for Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York until after relicensing is complete in 2013, because the NRC doesn't consider a big earthquake "a serious risk"

Congressman Markey has said there is a cover up. Specifically, Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake)

The budget for the NRC comes from the nuclear power companies [just like banks fund the Federal Reserve]

The NRC is wholly captive to industry

• The NRC has never turned down the request of a nuclear power plant to be relicensed in the United States. Relicensing is solely a paper process; there is no safety review.
• The NRC's assumptions regarding a worst-case accident are ridiculous. For example, the NRC assumes only 1% of the fuel could meltdown, while 70% melted down at Fukushima. The NRC assumes no loss of containment, while there has been a major loss of containment in reactors 1-3 (especially 2) at Fukushima.
• "If there was a free market in energy, nuclear power would be over ... immediately". Nuclear plant owners can't get insurance; they can only operate because the U.S. government provides insurance on the taxpayer dime. The government also granted a ridiculously low cap on liability
• If we had no subsidies for nuclear, coal or oil, we'd have a clean energy economy right now
• We have 4 reactors in California - 2 at San Onofre 2 at San Luis Obispo - which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.
• No state or federal agency knows who would be in charge in case of an accident at Indian Point. It's like the Keystone Cops

Then this Thai Lunatic talks about FREE Electricity. I heared that bullshit fifty years ago in all the advertising in connection with selling the public with the San Onofre, CA Nuclear power plant. If you are interested ask the people in Southern California about electricity prices, they for sure are NOT FREE.

I'm surprised your avatar isn't a ban the bomb symbol. Obviously your view is that nuclear power is not acceptable under any circumstances which is true to a degree. That being where a plant is potentially subject to major damage or destruction due to natural causes and it is well documented what areas are subject to those destructive forces. However, there are many other places in the world where the risk of a disaster is minimal and where the benefit of year round sunshine and/or other natural sources to generate electricity are not available or are unreliable. Consequently your 'one size fits all' attitude sounds very familiar and is attributable to activists in general.

[HerbalEd]

If those responsible in Bangkok would only be able to think from 12 to noon, they would see, that the endless shining sun could easily resolve all energy problems in Thailand. Sites like "Andasol" in Spain, water heating on rooftops running steampowered generators, using electricity to produce storable hydrogen, and such, would be enough to free Thailand from burning fossil fuels, not to mention nuclear energy. The postponement of the construction of nuclear plants is not enough, a rethinking is inevitable.

I'm more than one-hundred percent with you.

Among the many lunatics on the loose in Thailand there is one who is a SUPER LUNATIC his name is Wannarat Channukul and of all Thai Government Post he holds the post of Energy Minister. The people that wear white coats employed by the Lunatic asylum should be send out to locate this nuclear lunatic, put him in a straight jacket and take him to the asylum and make sure he will NEVER escape from the asylum.

This Forum isn't large enough for me to post all the reports I have in my archive about the most recent nuclear disaster in Japan, let alone 3-Mile Island meltdown and Chernobyl explosion.

… Thailand still needs further reviews by the International Atomic Energy Agency, he added

Let me insert one of most recent in my archive.

Nuclear Overseers Are "Fake" Agencies Funded and Controlled by the Nuclear Power Industry

April 18, 2011

The Christian Science Monitor noted recently:

• Just as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.
• [Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to clean up Chernobyl] has also accused the IAEA of being too close with corporations. "This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry – and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform properly."

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is no better.

As nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Duane Peterson (president of VPIRG & coordinator for the campaign to retire Vermont Yankee nuclear plant), investigative reporter Harvey Wasserman and Paul Gallay (executive director of Riverkeeper) point out in a roundtable discussion:

• The NRC won't even begin conducting its earthquake study for Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York until after relicensing is complete in 2013, because the NRC doesn't consider a big earthquake "a serious risk"

Congressman Markey has said there is a cover up. Specifically, Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake)

The budget for the NRC comes from the nuclear power companies [just like banks fund the Federal Reserve]

The NRC is wholly captive to industry

• The NRC has never turned down the request of a nuclear power plant to be relicensed in the United States. Relicensing is solely a paper process; there is no safety review.
• The NRC's assumptions regarding a worst-case accident are ridiculous. For example, the NRC assumes only 1% of the fuel could meltdown, while 70% melted down at Fukushima. The NRC assumes no loss of containment, while there has been a major loss of containment in reactors 1-3 (especially 2) at Fukushima.
• "If there was a free market in energy, nuclear power would be over ... immediately". Nuclear plant owners can't get insurance; they can only operate because the U.S. government provides insurance on the taxpayer dime. The government also granted a ridiculously low cap on liability
• If we had no subsidies for nuclear, coal or oil, we'd have a clean energy economy right now
• We have 4 reactors in California - 2 at San Onofre 2 at San Luis Obispo - which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.
• No state or federal agency knows who would be in charge in case of an accident at Indian Point. It's like the Keystone Cops

Then this Thai Lunatic talks about FREE Electricity. I heared that bullshit fifty years ago in all the advertising in connection with selling the public with the San Onofre, CA Nuclear power plant. If you are interested ask the people in Southern California about electricity prices, they for sure are NOT FREE.

I'm surprised your avatar isn't a ban the bomb symbol. Obviously your view is that nuclear power is not acceptable under any circumstances which is true to a degree. That being where a plant is potentially subject to major damage or destruction due to natural causes and it is well documented what areas are subject to those destructive forces. However, there are many other places in the world where the risk of a disaster is minimal and where the benefit of year round sunshine and/or other natural sources to generate electricity are not available or are unreliable. Consequently your 'one size fits all' attitude sounds very familiar and is attributable to activists in general.

Having worked on nuclear reactors as a Radiological Safety Technician I have this to say. Nuclear power plants are a very ignorant/stupid way to go. Earthquake area or not, there are bound to be accidents ... it's inevitable. And those accidents can and have create(d) deadly contamination that lasts for thousands of years. Compare that to a natural disaster like hurricane Katrina which can do billions of dollars of damage, and yet that damage can be repaired in a decade or two or three .... but it doesn't take thousands of years. There's also the tons of nuclear waste that's being swept under the carpet, and lots of it is leaking right now, even though it will be lethally hot for thousands of more years. It boggles the mind why, even after Chernobyl and Japan, people still cling to the myth of "safe and clean" nuclear energy.

[Soutpeel]

Having worked on nuclear reactors as a Radiological Safety Technician I have this to say. Nuclear power plants are a very ignorant/stupid way to go. Earthquake area or not, there are bound to be accidents ... it's inevitable. And those accidents can and have create(d) deadly contamination that lasts for thousands of years. Compare that to a natural disaster like hurricane Katrina which can do billions of dollars of damage, and yet that damage can be repaired in a decade or two or three .... but it doesn't take thousands of years. There's also the tons of nuclear waste that's being swept under the carpet, and lots of it is leaking right now, even though it will be lethally hot for thousands of more years. It boggles the mind why, even after Chernobyl and Japan, people still cling to the myth of "safe and clean" nuclear energy.

Where did you work ?......as in all my years working commerical nuclear construction/operational never heard the term "lethally hot" anywhere from people in the business? and also isnt the job title Health Physics technician ? not Radiological safety technican....just curious...

[HerbalEd]

Having worked on nuclear reactors as a Radiological Safety Technician I have this to say. Nuclear power plants are a very ignorant/stupid way to go. Earthquake area or not, there are bound to be accidents ... it's inevitable. And those accidents can and have create(d) deadly contamination that lasts for thousands of years. Compare that to a natural disaster like hurricane Katrina which can do billions of dollars of damage, and yet that damage can be repaired in a decade or two or three .... but it doesn't take thousands of years. There's also the tons of nuclear waste that's being swept under the carpet, and lots of it is leaking right now, even though it will be lethally hot for thousands of more years. It boggles the mind why, even after Chernobyl and Japan, people still cling to the myth of "safe and clean" nuclear energy.

Where did you work ?......as in all my years working commerical nuclear construction/operational never heard the term "lethally hot" anywhere from people in the business? and also isnt the job title Health Physics technician ? not Radiological safety technican....just curious...

Since your questions not-so-subtly implie I am a fraud/troll, I will give you details: In the mid-sixties I worked for the Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company ... the largest shipyard in the world. I worked as a Radiological Safety Technician in what was called the Radcon Department (aka "Health Physics"). My duties included survey and quantification of radiation levels of reactor areas, air, water, dust, various "hot" items (e.g., valves, rod containers, waste materials, etc.). I did this work on Polaris Submarines, and in the refueling of two of the reactors of the USS Enterprise. Many times I had the dubious pleasure of being right beside a fully-open nuclear reactor and seeing the beautiful blue glow emanating from the water-covered rods.

I also experienced many regulatory and safety violations, including the loss of highly-radioactive materials (which were never found); accidental leakage of radioactive water into the adjacent James River; a radioactive "dust storm" which was caused by a chimney-effect when a reactor head was lifted off the reactor. Scores of workers were instantly contaminated and the reactor area went very hot very quickly. Ooops!! However, none of these incidents were ever reported by the news media.

As to "lethally hot": As a long time lecturer and writer I've learned to speak/write to my audience in language and metaphor which they understand. So you'll have to forgive me if I did not use the more technical language of "people in the business" ... I did so on purpose.

Edited May 2, 2011 by HerbalEd