Nuclear Power In Thailand Remains On The Cards For Political Parties

[webfact]

SPECIAL

Nuclear remains on the cards

By Watcharapong Thongrung

The Nation

Nuclear power remains on the cards for the three political parties most likely to form the next government and set energy policies.

At the "Krungthep Turakij-Nation Forum on Election Campaigns: Sustainable Energy Security", representatives of the Democrat Party, Pheu Thai Party and Chart Pattana Puea Pandin Party insisted that for energy security, nuclear power must be maintained as an option despite the disaster at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi power plant in Japan.

"I have dreamt of seeing a nuclear power plant in Thailand," said Pheu Thai's Pichai Naripthaphan. "Certainly, this needs public acceptance. Notably, in Japan, despite the disasters caused by the earthquakes and tsunami, the country admits it needs nuclear power to power household and industrial users."

Democrat Anik Amranand agreed. Nuclear power should not be ruled out following the disasters, she said. It could remain an option, but whether it would be employed would depend on public education and acceptance.

"We need to admit that while some are pursuing this option, others, particularly rural people, are against it," she said. "Certainly, if Thailand is to accommodate nuclear power plants, the best technology is a must. The legal framework must be clear and the plan must be endorsed by the public."

Energy Minister Wannarat Channukul, as the representative of Chart Pattana Puea Pandin, which has supervised the energy policy for years, noted 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 the environmental impact, we cannot rush a decision. What needs to be considered is how nuclear technology can be developed to the point where public confidence is strengthened. Meanwhile, we need to take into account Japan's measures in enhancing protection efficiency," he said.

During the three-hour discussion, which was joined by academics and representatives from the private sector, Chen Namchaisiri, vice chairman of the Federation of Thai Industries, even said Japan's disasters had increased his confidence in the safety of nuclear power.

He noted that the disasters confirmed that technology would be enhanced. The new technology would be able to withstand an earthquake of 9.0 on the Richter scale. Soon, the technology would be developed to ensure the smooth operations of the cooling system, which caused havoc at Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant.

"The authorities should admit the truth that alternative energy can never be a main source of fuel," he said. "To produce 1,000 megawatts from solar cells, it requires as much as 10,000 rai as well as a huge amount of investment. It can never replace the main energy types like natural gas, coal or nuclear."

Manoon Siriwan, an energy expert, also supported nuclear power as an option, on the condition that it would be the very last option. He said the decision process needed to take into account technology, with scientifically proven results, as well as the efficiency of demand-side management (DSM).

"The government must adopt the activists' model of educating the public about nuclear power. Things will never change if it maintains the old bureaucratic methods. With this, it will fail," he said.

Weerin Wangjiraniran, a researcher at Chulalongkorn University's Energy Research Institute, said the issue now was not whether or not to have nuclear power, but to decide what would replace nuclear if it was deleted from the energy roadmap.

He admitted that alternative energy could only complement energy demand. Australia can say no to nuclear power, thanks to abundant supplies of coal. However, in Thailand, natural gas accounts for 70 per cent of fuel used for power generation, but some must be imported.

"Should something happen to the transmission pipelines, we need a backup plan. Can we allow periodic blackouts those being experienced in Japan?" he asked.

"We need to be clear on what would replace nuclear if we say no to it. Have we done our best at wooing public support? Are we clear on the environmental impact of coal-fired power plants? How will we handle the greenhouse gas emissions? How do we handle the excessive dependence on natural gas for power generation? How will all this feed through to the electricity pricing formula? The government must be clear on these issues," Weerin said.

Aside from nuclear power, hotly debated at the forum was the issue of subsidies for diesel, liquefied petroleum gas and electricity.

Chen of the FTI opposed the permanent free electricity programme for households consuming no more than 90 units a month.

"The industrial sector is not the bad guy. We have been improving our energy efficiency. To us, electricity is not for comfort, but it's the production cost," he said.

"If the government wants to help low-income earners, it should allocate a budget for this purpose. If it wants the industrial sector to help, industrial plants should be issued two bills - one for the actual electricity cost and the other as donations. Then, the donation bill should be eligible for tax deduction," he said.

He noted that subsidies were like a drug and that the addiction would cause long-term impact on the economy and lead to inefficient energy consumption. By subsidising diesel prices, the government has shown it has no confidence in the market mechanism. Goods prices should be allowed to increase when the cost rises, and they will come down naturally.

Weerin added that the energy subsidy did not promote energy efficiency. While consumers do not reduce consumption, there is no competition among business operators. Meanwhile, as fossil fuels are cheap, it would also jeopardise the government's policy on alternative energy.

"The subsidy should be a short-term measure and there must be a trigger point when it must be lifted," he said.

Manoon said the diesel subsidy had cost the government more than Bt70 billion since December 17 and there had been no positive economic results. The amount should have been used to improve energy efficiency in the transport sector.

While Wannarat said that the diesel subsidy was the right policy and that it did not go against the energy conservation plan, Democrat Anik insisted the party believed in the market mechanism.

She said the policy would only be short term, to help contain inflation. Anik noted the party had plans to improve transport sector efficiency and further reduce energy imports. She noted the burden on free electricity policy was minimal to the industrial sector.

Pichai concluded that for energy security, it needed cooperation from all parties.

"It would be wise for voters to cast their votes to a particular party. Majority votes will ensure that the winning party has a mandate to push for major policies like nuclear power or ones for alternative energy," he said.

-- The Nation 2011-05-03

[phanu]

Good news... That's the best way if Thailand wants to have new train, new subway... :-)

[aripengu]

Good news... That's the best way if Thailand wants to have new train, new subway... :-)

Yes...and have a nice peaceful quiet area like around Fukushima.

Since there is almost no sunshine and no roofs in Thailand.

[Frajuhe]

A very good idea to fix the problem of population in this area and create a new mutant form of thai people. Maybe with four arms and no brain like the present political level.

[vont]

Let them bring it up.....

I and many other social scientists and physicists currently residing in Thailand would help the locals

argue the points against the govt regardless of whoever is heading it and wanting a giant piece of the big pie.

The Thai politicians are insane to the extreme, but most Thais are not so insane as far as I know.

The govt officials are cooking the books openly but the people who know at the moment has little power to cause any change.

If and when the time comes, as far as I know there are many farangs like myself here who are willing to lend a helping hand. :jap:

[Robby nz]

Not a single mention of hydro throughout.

A fair proportion of Thailands power must surely come from this source as there are quite a number of dams around and I believe Thailand also buys hudro power from Laos, Burma and I think Cambodia.

There are some points against hydro dams as they do alter the dynamics of a river and daming a river takes up land but for those who still believe in greenhouse gas it is probably the cleanest option.

Hydro does not have to be huge and can, patricularly in a country that has monsoon rains act as a storage for irrigation in dry times of the year.

A series of small hydro schemes would have more benefits than just power.

I suspect they would cost about the same or less than Nuke and would have a longer lifespan with no problems of disposing of spent fuel.

Personal solar cells (for each house) for more remote areas are also an option and could well be cheaper than running lines over considerable distances.

[sirchai]

Good news... That's the best way if Thailand wants to have new train, new subway... :-)

[/quote)

That's the scariest I've ever heard. Even high speed trains made in China would scare the shit out of me.:jap:

Edited May 3, 2011 by sirchai

[Yeppe]

It needs only one Mai Pen Rai moment and Thailand has their own Fukushima... STAY AWAY FROM NUCLEAR POWER!!! Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Ireland etc has no nuclear power so why do you need it? Use a solar power - I think you have got some sun shine enough there, eh? Don´t be mad like some countries´s leaders who have chosen a nuclear!!!!! You don´t even have money to clean up the mess - just look at the Japan for the costs of that disaster!!!! Once you make a spill - no farangs will come there anymore to get radiation bath, so where do you get the money then???? That would be the end of Thailand. I repeat STAY AWAY FROM BIG BIG BIG PROBLEMS (=NUCLEAR). Don´t even think of Nuclear - the shitest option available.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Yeppe

[chainarong]

Only way to go until you have a earthquake, then it seems to have a mind all of it's own, I'm afraid there is some area's of this stuff that requires a little bit more fine tuning, its bigger that our learned Friends would have us believe, might be a good idea to put it the back burner , another 50 years might do.

[RPCVguy]

I agree that the dangers of nuclear are extreme. There are so very many ways for problems and so narrow a path of compliance so as to have safety. Nuclear Fission is inherently dirty, scattering its waste into whatever it contacts, and leaking further from there. Humans have "invested" so much into acquiring and refining , but are incapable of the ages of care the process requires at the other end.

The dilemma of nuclear waste. 100,000 years of protection - yea, no problem! That only represents 40 time the time since Buddha that the waste material MUST be stored safely. That mny nations have started down that foolish path does not mean Thailand must follow. Indeed, Thailand will be ahead of the game for not having started that direction.

Also as others have said, there is plenty of sun and even a good deal of wind. I hope wisdom might prevail!

[rreddin]

I agree that the dangers of nuclear are extreme. There are so very many ways for problems and so narrow a path of compliance so as to have safety. Nuclear Fission is inherently dirty, scattering its waste into whatever it contacts, and leaking further from there. Humans have "invested" so much into acquiring and refining , but are incapable of the ages of care the process requires at the other end.

The dilemma of nuclear waste. 100,000 years of protection - yea, no problem! That only represents 40 time the time since Buddha that the waste material MUST be stored safely. That mny nations have started down that foolish path does not mean Thailand must follow. Indeed, Thailand will be ahead of the game for not having started that direction.

Also as others have said, there is plenty of sun and even a good deal of wind. I hope wisdom might prevail!

A few scary posts and some very good points. I am not in favour of generating electricty in nuclear power stations. There are other means of doing it without the risks. Recently, I saw a tv programme about a German company that was developing a system of generating electricity by using solar power to super heat water, which then drove the generators. They were doing this in southern Spain. Unlike photo-electric cells, which do not work when it is dark, this system was deonstrated to work 24 hours a day. That is just one of many non-nuclear options.

However, the key point in the OP is "security of energy supply". Thailand does not want to become dependent on Laos and Burma for the majority of its electricity supply, even though the hydo-electric power stations planned to be built are intended to supply Thailand. It is the mindset that Thailand must and can do everything for itself and not be dependent on others that is behind the desire for a nuclear power station.

[vont]

I agree that the dangers of nuclear are extreme. There are so very many ways for problems and so narrow a path of compliance so as to have safety. Nuclear Fission is inherently dirty, scattering its waste into whatever it contacts, and leaking further from there. Humans have "invested" so much into acquiring and refining , but are incapable of the ages of care the process requires at the other end.

The dilemma of nuclear waste. 100,000 years of protection - yea, no problem! That only represents 40 time the time since Buddha that the waste material MUST be stored safely. That mny nations have started down that foolish path does not mean Thailand must follow. Indeed, Thailand will be ahead of the game for not having started that direction.

Also as others have said, there is plenty of sun and even a good deal of wind. I hope wisdom might prevail!

A few scary posts and some very good points. I am not in favour of generating electricty in nuclear power stations. There are other means of doing it without the risks. Recently, I saw a tv programme about a German company that was developing a system of generating electricity by using solar power to super heat water, which then drove the generators. They were doing this in southern Spain. Unlike photo-electric cells, which do not work when it is dark, this system was deonstrated to work 24 hours a day. That is just one of many non-nuclear options.

However, the key point in the OP is "security of energy supply". Thailand does not want to become dependent on Laos and Burma for the majority of its electricity supply, even though the hydo-electric power stations planned to be built are intended to supply Thailand. It is the mindset that Thailand must and can do everything for itself and not be dependent on others that is behind the desire for a nuclear power station.

The ultimate and ulterior motives of those in power and crying for nuclear power generator for Thailand is nothing but....

how much can I and my friends or family members benefit from this giant project?

There is no other motive for these detestable politicians to wanting nuclear for Thailand.

Practically, none of these morons has even seen a spent fuel rod in their life time.

They won't even care less about the storage problems currently faced by Washington for so many decades already.

Most of these demeaning figures would be already in jail, had they been doing what they have been practising, in a more advanced country, such as Aussie, England or the U.S., just to cite a few.

The worst is.... most of the Thais polled are willing to accept such detestable dishonest practices as normal and usual.... just so they have something to eat everyday....!

Oh my dear.... where is Thailand heading, really....

[maraudingscot]

Well, Strange as it may seem. Having just come back from holiday in sunny Thailand, I returned to work and had a conversation with a bloke early this morning, and he said his mate was looking for engineers to "START" building a nuclear plant in Thailand. like immediately? And here I am reading a discusion about whether or not they will vote on building one? Looks as though it may be a forgone conclusion already!

Any big areas being cleared in Thailand at moment!

[vont]

Well, Strange as it may seem. Having just come back from holiday in sunny Thailand, I returned to work and had a conversation with a bloke early this morning, and he said his mate was looking for engineers to "START" building a nuclear plant in Thailand. like immediately? And here I am reading a discusion about whether or not they will vote on building one? Looks as though it may be a forgone conclusion already!

Any big areas being cleared in Thailand at moment!

The immediacy as most people perceived might take a while to materialize.

If you could check into it and see which company doing the hiring and when will it commence to pay engineers, as much as your friend know.

There has not been any large area being cleared for preparation.

The central eastern coastal areas have been tentatively targeted for over a decade now but

nothing really materialize yet. People in Surat and Songkhla are dead set against its perils.

Last few months, different actors and actresses appearing on a tv ad touting nuclear benefits to villagers,

and the compensation involved; but it stopped running after about two weeks on air.

Let us know if you learn of anything more on this. Much appreciate your efforts as well.

Edited May 3, 2011 by vont

[PingManDan]

OH MY GOD !!!!

[Yeppe]

Where are they gonna jettison the nuclear waste? Into the Chao Praya river maybe? I saw that in Finland they have been building their 5th plant which is BADLY late due to the safety systems of the plant. Like cement and the sand used didn´t pass the quality test. How about in Thailand? I think all things would pass, just give 100 Baht and anything goes. And the day when they start the thing - we will have a huge mushroom in the sky. Next thing we call help from farangs to clear the mess up. I bet that if there will be a nuclear plant in Thailand it will release spills and finally explode. I can guarantee you that. Be proud not to have such a killer plant in Thailand! Just forget the whole thing! Use solar power and utilize the currents of the Gulf of Thailand. No - there is no wind in Thailand - I was a kite boarder - AND THERE IS NO WIND IN THAILAND - only little bit wind in Pranburi.

[RickBradford]

Nuclear power is by far the safest form of power available.

Per terawatt-hour [terawatt (TW) = 1,000 gigawatts], deaths in the coal industry are 160/TWH. which is 4,000 times higher than the 0.04/TWH figure for nuclear. Even hydro (0.1/TWH) wind (0.15/TWH) and especially solar (0.44/TWH) are more dangerous. Details here.

Just think about it; an antiquated Japanese nuclear plant was hit by a massive, unprecedented earthquake and tsunami, yet nobody has died as a result of radiation, no matter how much people (or more accurately, the media) are panicking.

Of course if a nuclear plant is built in Thailand, the usual suspects will be in line to take their (substantial) tea money, but is Thailand really less capable of handling advanced technology than Indonesia, Pakistan, or the Philippines?

I wonder why those foreign companies trust Thailand to build all those wafer fabrication plants, computers, disk drives, printers, modern cars etc etc etc

[RPCVguy]

Nuclear power is by far the safest form of power available.

Per terawatt-hour [terawatt (TW) = 1,000 gigawatts], deaths in the coal industry are 160/TWH. which is 4,000 times higher than the 0.04/TWH figure for nuclear. Even hydro (0.1/TWH) wind (0.15/TWH) and especially solar (0.44/TWH) are more dangerous. Details here.

Just think about it; an antiquated Japanese nuclear plant was hit by a massive, unprecedented earthquake and tsunami, yet nobody has died as a result of radiation, no matter how much people (or more accurately, the media) are panicking.

Of course if a nuclear plant is built in Thailand, the usual suspects will be in line to take their (substantial) tea money, but is Thailand really less capable of handling advanced technology than Indonesia, Pakistan, or the Philippines?

I wonder why those foreign companies trust Thailand to build all those wafer fabrication plants, computers, disk drives, printers, modern cars etc etc etc

Rick, I appreciate that you point out the long term and continuous (while used) health affects of coal. But the cleaner alternatives of wind and solar are not comparable as to potential harm. I see these two options as quite attractive, already being used in Germany as demonstrated in this video

The secure and constant provision of power anywhere and at anytime by renewable energies is now made possible thanks to the Combined Power Plant. The Combined Power Plant links and controls 36 wind, solar, biomass and hydropower installations spread throughout Germany. It is just as reliable and powerful as a conventional large-scale power station.

The Combined Renewable Energy Power Plant shows how, through joint control of small and decentralised plants, it is possible to provide reliable electricity in accordance with needs. The Combined Power Plant optimally combines the advantages of various renewable energy sources. Wind turbines and solar modules help generate electricity in accordance with how much wind and sun is available. Biogas and hydropower are used to make up the difference: they are converted into electricity as needed in order to balance out short-term fluctuations, or are temporarily stored. Technically, there is nothing preventing us from 100 per cent provision with renewables.

This plant is likely one of the reasons that Germany has declared it will be shutting down their nuclear plants by 2020.

The dangers for nuclear are "to date" as per that industry, and are statistically flawed in that it neglects representing the duration of nuclear toxicity of the 100,000 years required to securely and safely house the fuel and its wastes, added to the mining and extraction costs. You likely don't want to hear much about deaths and still births from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, but news that needs be shared so as to counter the continuation of using nuclear power to boil water

http://www.democracy...rsary_of_worlds => Dr. Jeff Patterson, the immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility and has visited the Chernobyl disaster site. Physicians for Social Responsibility has just released a new Nuclear Reactor Accident Evacuation Zone Mapping Tool; and Dr. Janette Sherman, specialist in internal medicine and toxicology. She edited the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature. She recently wrote the article, "Chernobyl, 25 Years Later." While Jane Sherman is also articulate and reasoned in this video "Chernobyl_ A Million Casualties"

I see the example of what has happened in a society that prides itself on precision and engineering (Japan) as an incredible opportunity to wake up and believe in the dangers in attempting to harness nuclear energy. Looking at the physical processes happening in Fukushima, are there signs that radiation of longer lasting isotopes being formed and released? Yes. Are there concerns that a chain reaction will generate a "dirty-bomb" like explosion? Absolutely!

Is there any safe level of radioactivity? Not if that material gets lodged into, breathed into, consumed as food and absorbed into one's body. A Serious study accessing data previously in Russian only - of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster say any of this radiation is cancer causing - each particle emits high energy radiation. "The dose from a singly internal alpha particle track to a single cell is 500mSv! The dose to the whole body from the same alpha track is 5 x 10-11 mSv. That is 0.000000000005mSv. But it is the dose to the cell that causes the genetic damage and the ultimate cancer." http://rense.com/general93/decon.htm article is by Chris Busby.

Here is the formal report http://www.fairewind...mittee-radiatio was issued BEFORE the disaster at Fukushima was upgraded to a level 7.

Lastly, should you want to believe that your chances are still good... http://lucaswhitefie...kushima-matters

The basic issue of pollution (chemical and radiation) is discussed in this You-Tube http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[electau]

Nuclear power for base load commercial electricity production must be discussed as one of the viable replacements for coal.

Use third and forth generation reactors.

There are already over 400 reactors in service through out the world. Ther has only been on serious accident and that was in the Ukraine. It should never have been allowed to be commisioned in the first place, but politics took precedence.

The steam engine was dangerous once but safety problems were overcome.

We have Nuclear, Solar thermal, Geothermal, and then Solar photovoltaic, Hydro electric, and Wind turbine generation.

We should use them all where they are commercially viable and practicable.

[RickBradford]

In case anyone thinks that Physicians for Social Responsibility is some kind of high-minded medical organisation, it should be pointed out that it is just another Green lobby group, only this time set up by doctors and nurses.

Physicians for Social Responsibility is the medical and public health voice working to prevent the use or spread of nuclear weapons and to slow, stop and reverse global warming and the toxic degradation of the environment.

I do not doubt that it is possible to run an economy on renewable energy, as long as you are prepared to triple everyone's electricity bills -- which Greens would love to do, but politicians may find harder to ram through. There is a wealth of evidence to show that renewable energy is not cost-effective and requires huge infrastructure costs (to link all those windmills to the grid, for example).

With regard to nuclear, it's worth looking at what has happened in that industry to date, rather than horror sci-fi scenarios about what might conceivably happen.

France has been running nuclear power stations for 45 years, and now gets 78.8% of its energy from its 59 nuclear plants, having killed nobody in the process, freeing the country from dependence on foreign oil and reducing its CO2 emissions to 1/10th of those in the UK.

If the Green movement cared about saving the planet rather than feeding their egos by telling everyone else what to do, they would endorse nuclear as the cleanest, most efficient and safest way of generating power.

[phanu]

Good news... That's the best way if Thailand wants to have new train, new subway... :-)

Yes...and have a nice peaceful quiet area like around Fukushima.

Since there is almost no sunshine and no roofs in Thailand.

55555555

I don't understand why peaople are affraid regarding nuclear....

I'm not !!! I think that it's one of the best way for having energy

[RPCVguy]

Nuclear power for base load commercial electricity production must be discussed as one of the viable replacements for coal. Use third and forth generation reactors. There are already over 400 reactors in service through out the world. Ther has only been on serious accident and that was in the Ukraine. It should never have been allowed to be commisioned in the first place, but politics took precedence.

The steam engine was dangerous once but safety problems were overcome. We have Nuclear, Solar thermal, Geothermal, and then Solar photovoltaic, Hydro electric, and Wind turbine generation. We should use them all where they are commercially viable and practicable.

We are discussing nuclear power, amid renewable and fossil fuel options. Three accidents have made major news in the first half century of "safe" operation: Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and now Fukushima. Note what might yet remain scattered over the future life span of this material being dangerous = 3x 100,000 yrs / 50 years = 3x 2,000 = 6.000 supposedly acceptable safe accidents. hmmmm? Cancer from radiation can develop over a 5 - 60 year time range, with a million radiation deaths (cancer rate increases plus still born births) from Chernobyl alone (See the Busby paper I quoted above.) Early estimates are 200,000 deaths from Fukushima

But I guess you are not counting those cancer and still births costs as costs of the industry/ Many people however believe those costs are real and do not appreciate having them dumped onto the collective medical costs of a society.

In case anyone thinks that Physicians for Social Responsibility is some kind of high-minded medical organisation, it should be pointed out that it is just another Green lobby group, only this time set up by doctors and nurses.

Physicians for Social Responsibility is the medical and public health voice working to prevent the use or spread of nuclear weapons and to slow, stop and reverse global warming and the toxic degradation of the environment.

I do not doubt that it is possible to run an economy on renewable energy, as long as you are prepared to triple everyone's electricity bills -- which Greens would love to do, but politicians may find harder to ram through. There is a wealth of evidence to show that renewable energy is not cost-effective and requires huge infrastructure costs (to link all those windmills to the grid, for example).

With regard to nuclear, it's worth looking at what has happened in that industry to date, rather than horror sci-fi scenarios about what might conceivably happen.

France has been running nuclear power stations for 45 years, and now gets 78.8% of its energy from its 59 nuclear plants, having killed nobody in the process, freeing the country from dependence on foreign oil and reducing its CO2 emissions to 1/10th of those in the UK.

If the Green movement cared about saving the planet rather than feeding their egos by telling everyone else what to do, they would endorse nuclear as the cleanest, most efficient and safest way of generating power.

Rick, your argument about costs is similar to Electau, except you've added in a dig against anything "Green" It does show consistency as we've previously disagreed over climate change. (http://www.thaivisa....le/page__st__75)

You are extrapolating the "safety" record of an industry over the newest and tiniest percent of its existence and ignoring the cost in life and future mutations. Next, you cite France as a model of safety. France has a safe record, but only until it's day comes. This is an extremely unforgiving industry in terms of the consequences.

Lastly, what are the current industry supports for coal, oil and gas? Huge for many nations in terms of tax loopholes. Then add in the costs of militarily securing or protecting access in regions that are [politically unstable. Compare those industry supports to the essentially one-time grid connection costs. Add in the benefits of having a scattered supply versus a potential target for terrorist of a large power plant with higher capital costs.... and that the renewable sources are just that, renewable from what is supplied each day from the sun and the wind it generates. Renewables are the low cost once all the issues are connected. Why not include in those costs as your earlier post did for the health affects of coal?

[Puschl]

France has been running nuclear power stations for 45 years, and now gets 78.8% of its energy from its 59 nuclear plants, having killed nobody in the process, freeing the country from dependence on foreign oil and reducing its CO2 emissions to 1/10th of those in the UK.

Great to hear that France has drastically changed its energy mix since 2008, and has cut CO2 emissions to almost 1/7th of the 2007 values.

Oh, wait. Never trust a statistic you haven't forged yourself. Here's what the European Union's Market Observatory for Energy says about France's energy mix in 2008: http://ec.europa.eu/..._2010_d2008.pdf

Only 41% of the energy consumption in France comes from nuclear sources. Oil (33%) and gas (14%) are the next biggest sources.

Domestic energy production is dominated by nuclear (83%) and a growing share of renewables (15%).

Well, the imported oil and gas that gets burned in french vehicles and furnaces are foreign production, while the (mostly imported) uranium that gets processed and fissioned locally is domestic production

As for CO2 emissions, here's the figures on the UN Millennium Development Goals Indicators website: http://mdgs.un.org/u...l.aspx?srid=749

According to this source, in 2007 France emitted 0.37Gt (billion metric tons), while the UK emitted 0.54Gt. Hardly one tenth, even if you correct the ratio by a few percent by comparing emissions per citizen.

Now back to the global question that is also Thailand-related: Is nuclear the answer to rising energy needs? Uranium, like oil, is a monetary football on the global market. Resources, although far more abundant than oil (in energy units), are finite. It's not a commodity that gets cheaper through mass production. An increased demand will drive prices up. At the same time the waste storage problem becomes more and more pressing. I have the feeling that today's decision makers blindly trust in future technical advances, not knowing whether or at what cost they will occur. Here I'm not talking about the often smiled at 100,000 years. Most of the long lived actinides are not drastically more dangerous than the original uranium ore. I'm speaking of the medium lived fission products, that are hot for the next 300 or more years. Consider we now would just about be relieved from a legacy born during King Narai's reign, and we still would have to service all battlegrounds from the American war of independence. Not many unpredictable events occurred since those days, right?

Photovoltaic is not the only form of solar energy. Solar towers can run 24/7 (thermal energy collected during daytime gets converted to electricity day and night) and provide base-load. The often used argument that solar is polluting or expensive (mining of rare earths) is not valid for them. The rainy season negatively impacts their efficiency. Whoa, got floods? Use their potential energy while the sun is insufficient. Energy from produce? Still on my radar. An integrated effort of the Ministries of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce and Natural Resources could sure yield projects that harmonize growing bio-fuel output without adverse effects on the environment and food production. Plenty of potential hubs to be announced. Guess your great-great-great-grandchildren would be grateful.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Puschl

[RickBradford]

^^

So the debate hasn't moved on at all, then.

1) You characterise nuclear power in terms of what might happen in a cataclysm involving radio-active material, not what has actually happened over the last 50 years (a generally excellent safety record whose serious incidents were not as bad as portrayed by the press)

2) You talk about integrated solar and other renewable technologies without mentioning the fundamental point that these are simply not cost effective and will send electricity prices through the roof.

Even that hallowed bastion of Left-Wing environmentalism, Nature Magazine, concedes the point.

In its new Climate Change Journal it says "The Fukushima disaster sounds yet another warning call of the need for safe and clean energy sources, but the need to mitigate climate change will keep nuclear in the picture for some time yet."

[vont]

^^

So the debate hasn't moved on at all, then.

1) You characterise nuclear power in terms of what might happen in a cataclysm involving radio-active material, not what has actually happened over the last 50 years (a generally excellent safety record whose serious incidents were not as bad as portrayed by the press)

2) You talk about integrated solar and other renewable technologies without mentioning the fundamental point that these are simply not cost effective and will send electricity prices through the roof.

Even that hallowed bastion of Left-Wing environmentalism, Nature Magazine, concedes the point.

In its new Climate Change Journal it says "The Fukushima disaster sounds yet another warning call of the need for safe and clean energy sources, but the need to mitigate climate change will keep nuclear in the picture for some time yet."

RickBradford

This kind of statement and argument is probably very persuasive for freshmen that because....

.... a generally excellent safety record whose serious incidents were not as bad as portrayed by the press.... Just to take your point just step further....

just say for your side of the argument sake....

the nuclear accident happens just once in a 100 years....

what happens to the surrounding areas then.... is it cheap, the most economical per kilowatt then....?

what happens to the affected environments....?

what happens to the living organisms....?

and what happens to the humans....?

nuclear per unit may be cheap in the present NOW....

but in totality, it is the worst bastard of the bunch....

I for one and also numerous other farangs, currently living happily and productively in Thailand, ranking from former farmers, agriculturalists, former ceos and scientists et al, are absolutely not in favor of nuke in southeast asia or any other places on this entire earth.

if i may add, before arguing for nuke in Thailand, why not search out those state representatives in the u.s., who are running practically 24 hrs a day, trying their darnest to locate a community that would allow them to store the spent fuel remains even under their unused mountain ranges.

you'll be surprised.

i was for the nuke when i was an undergraduate. however, after post graduate studies with learning experiences in the devastation of just one nuclear mishap.... i become an.... against nuke for life.

NO, IN NO WAY, IS NUCLEAR POWER WORTH ITS LONG TERM DEVASTATION. sorry.

[whybother]

Solar power isn't all it's cracked up to be, either. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html

Solar panels don’t come falling out of the sky – they have to be manufactured. Similar to computer chips, this is a dirty and energy-intensive process. First, raw materials have to be mined: quartz sand for silicon cells, metal ore for thin film cells. Next, these materials have to be treated, following different steps (in the case of silicon cells these are purification, crystallization and wafering). Finally, these upgraded materials have to be manufactured into solar cells, and assembled into modules. All these processes produce air pollution and heavy metal emissions, and they consume energy - which brings about more air pollution, heavy metal emissions and also greenhouse gases.

[473geo]

I think nuclear electricity development should go ahead, I suggest the plant is placed near the ocean for cooling purposes, I suggest somewhere between Bangkok and Pattaya is where this safe electricity plant is placed.........close to the main beneficiaries of such low risk advancement..........also providing employment opportunity..........

I think it would only be fair to have a poll of the Bangkok and Pattaya residents as to the locality within their region they would prefer?

Edited May 7, 2011 by 473geo

[whybother]

I think nuclear electricity development should go ahead, I suggest the plant is placed near the ocean for cooling purposes, I suggest somewhere between Bangkok and Pattaya is where this safe electricity plant is placed.........close to the main beneficiaries of such low risk advancement..........also providing employment opportunity..........

I think it would only be fair to have a poll of the Bangkok and Pattaya residents as to the locality within their region they would prefer?

Where ever they choose to put nuclear power plants (or anything for that matter), there are always the NIMBYs. (Not In My Back Yard)

[RickBradford]

I think nuclear electricity development should go ahead, I suggest the plant is placed near the ocean for cooling purposes, I suggest somewhere between Bangkok and Pattaya is where this safe electricity plant is placed.........close to the main beneficiaries of such low risk advancement..........also providing employment opportunity..........

I think it would only be fair to have a poll of the Bangkok and Pattaya residents as to the locality within their region they would prefer?

Where ever they choose to put nuclear power plants (or anything for that matter), there are always the NIMBYs. (Not In My Back Yard)

There's already a whacking great power plant at Bang Pa Kong just north-east of Chonburi city, complete with its own big river, good transport links (you can see it from either motorway) and few immediate residents.

[dunkin2012]

I think nuclear electricity development should go ahead, I suggest the plant is placed near the ocean for cooling purposes, I suggest somewhere between Bangkok and Pattaya is where this safe electricity plant is placed.........close to the main beneficiaries of such low risk advancement..........also providing employment opportunity..........

I think it would only be fair to have a poll of the Bangkok and Pattaya residents as to the locality within their region they would prefer?

Where ever they choose to put nuclear power plants (or anything for that matter), there are always the NIMBYs. (Not In My Back Yard)

There's already a whacking great power plant at Bang Pa Kong just north-east of Chonburi city, complete with its own big river, good transport links (you can see it from either motorway) and few immediate residents.

whoever thinks of nuclear plants is from the stone-age.....

believe me not?