Govt Scales Down Nuclear Plan

[saltandpepper]

Nuke in Thailand? No thanks. Seeing how they handle floods and other calamities, I just can't imagine how they would run this thing without a glitch. A mistake made in handling a flood is very bad, but at least it's gone in a few weeks. This nuke sh*t gonna be here for thousands of years. And it's not a 5,000 Baht per contaminated house compensation that gonna make populace happy!

[indyuk]

It's only because they have spent all the nation's dosh

That's a ridiculous remark Most of Thailand's financial issues arise from her sovereign dept, which in turn arises from debt which was incurred during the 1990's for the purpose of stabilizing the economy of Thailand which at that time was on the verge of collapse due to the demise of the Korean Won on Asia's economies and the collapse of Asia's property markets.

[Guest]

many countries are shutting them down at high cost of tax payer money (the electrical company only takes the profits as privatised but not the costs of clean up) => belgium and electrabel for example

what i still do not understand here in thailand : what does the country have ample of 12 hours per day ?

sun, sun and sun...

free for all, a little cost to harvest it ... why not make more use of it ???

Because it is expensive to install and has a low capacity factor, that is ratio of electricity actually produced to peak performance output, usually around 19% in sunny climates, because the sun don't shine at night.

The Australian solar farm (estimated cost THB30 billion) rated at 150MW takes up 12 sq km. Imagine the stink when rice farmers are kicked off their land to generate power for the BKK amart.

for anybody really interested in solar power, I recommend this link for an engineer's attitude to it ie real figures.

http://papundits.wor...ee-solar-plant/

The

The link was good to read, but imho he missing his point with mixing up the maximum efficiency of the panels and solar radiation to given location.

Anyway the price should always be calculated as price/KWh produced for whole system with maintenance during it's lifetime.

Currently nuclear power is the best way to go forward, but solar and other solutions are getting better and cheaper.. The benefit of this world wide CO2 scare is that now there is an motivation to develop alternative energy productions further.

[OzMick]

many countries are shutting them down at high cost of tax payer money (the electrical company only takes the profits as privatised but not the costs of clean up) => belgium and electrabel for example

what i still do not understand here in thailand : what does the country have ample of 12 hours per day ?

sun, sun and sun...

free for all, a little cost to harvest it ... why not make more use of it ???

Because it is expensive to install and has a low capacity factor, that is ratio of electricity actually produced to peak performance output, usually around 19% in sunny climates, because the sun don't shine at night.

The Australian solar farm (estimated cost THB30 billion) rated at 150MW takes up 12 sq km. Imagine the stink when rice farmers are kicked off their land to generate power for the BKK amart.

for anybody really interested in solar power, I recommend this link for an engineer's attitude to it ie real figures.

http://papundits.wor...ee-solar-plant/

The

The link was good to read, but imho he missing his point with mixing up the maximum efficiency of the panels and solar radiation to given location.

Anyway the price should always be calculated as price/KWh produced for whole system with maintenance during it's lifetime.

Currently nuclear power is the best way to go forward, but solar and other solutions are getting better and cheaper.. The benefit of this world wide CO2 scare is that now there is an motivation to develop alternative energy productions further.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first paragraph. the location chosen is about ideal for maximising sunlight received with very little cloud cover - similar to Arizona. It's biggest drawback is remoteness, a long way from major cities and industry, leading to even more inefficiency.

You seem to have missed the point that maintenance is claimed to be near zero, but failure to clean the panels has a big effect on output. Cleaning 645,000 is a major job, even if only undertaken twice /year.

BTW wholesale electrical power is sold in MWh. kWh is strictly retail, but probably more suitable for this installation. But understand that even with minimal maintenance, due to the high cost and low output, this is going to be very expensive electricity.

What he doesn't mention is the Energy In Energy Return ratio. Solar panels take a lot of energy to make, as do wind turbines. The EIERR is typically around 10 or less, while for a hydro dam it is around 100, and they also have a capacity factor up to near 100% if there is enough captured water. Most however do not because over-capacity is installed for intermittent use when prices are highest - HEP is great for load-following with very quick response times, and so is sold at much higher rates than base-load.

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you mean by the first paragraph. the location chosen is about ideal for maximising sunlight received with very little cloud cover - similar to Arizona. It's biggest drawback is remoteness, a long way from major cities and industry, leading to even more inefficiency.

You seem to have missed the point that maintenance is claimed to be near zero, but failure to clean the panels has a big effect on output. Cleaning 645,000 is a major job, even if only undertaken twice /year.

BTW wholesale electrical power is sold in MWh. kWh is strictly retail, but probably more suitable for this installation. But understand that even with minimal maintenance, due to the high cost and low output, this is going to be very expensive electricity.

What he doesn't mention is the Energy In Energy Return ratio. Solar panels take a lot of energy to make, as do wind turbines. The EIERR is typically around 10 or less, while for a hydro dam it is around 100, and they also have a capacity factor up to near 100% if there is enough captured water. Most however do not because over-capacity is installed for intermittent use when prices are highest - HEP is great for load-following with very quick response times, and so is sold at much higher rates than base-load.

I mean that each place in the world have certain amount of sun radiation during one year time (average). Max solar radiation (which is between 1000W/m2 - 1300W/m2) produce maybe 24*1000*20% energy to the ground. That assumed 20% is calculated during the year and includes clouds, rain, winter, mornings and evening. Effectively an 1000W solar panel will produce on average 200W when it's operating.

Then another thing is how efficient the panel is compared to it's area. Best are currently somewhere in 30%. This does meant that there need for more surface area to get the same amount of power. For example I'm looking for thin layer panels, which can be 10-15% efficient (eg. collect 100-150W/m2), but comes with a cheaper price tag. Therefore these thin panels are more cost efficiently for producing electricity. 100m2 roof could therefore produce 100m2*1000W/m2*0.20*0.10 = 2000W = 2KW average power for home usage.

In this same case the average solar radiation 20KW and Max solar radiation, during the midday is 100KW.

Maintenance cost should naturally include cleaning of the panels as well as taking care of the nuclear power plant generators and storing the nuclear waste for further usage.

[indyuk]

A mixed energy source policy is essential for national security and the confidence of foreign investors. It is at least ill advised to leave out any energy option from a national energy plan. In the future most of the current options on energy source will expire due first to scarcity and price and thereafter the gradual world wide elimination of each traditional energy source due to depletion. For example within 40 to 45 years all known reserves of crude oil will be exhausted, at 164 years all known natural gas fields will be exhausted, and at 410 years all known coal reserves will be exhausted.

Therefor all forms of known or emerging energy technology must be recognized in the Thai government energy plan including each type of nuclear energy whether fissionable or fusion-able.

At the moment Thailand depends on road, rail, air, river and canal for the distribution and import/export of goods. In the future this is likely not sustainable without a major upgrade of Thailand's Roads and Railways. This is particularly true for international routes because Thailand' neighbors will become ever more important to Thailand's prosperity.

I believe that the Thai government are addressing these issues fully right now.

[Soutpeel]

I believe that the Thai government are addressing these issues fully right now.

You mean they are adressing this in same way they are adressing flood prevention measures ?

[OzMick]

I'm not sure what you mean by the first paragraph. the location chosen is about ideal for maximising sunlight received with very little cloud cover - similar to Arizona. It's biggest drawback is remoteness, a long way from major cities and industry, leading to even more inefficiency.

You seem to have missed the point that maintenance is claimed to be near zero, but failure to clean the panels has a big effect on output. Cleaning 645,000 is a major job, even if only undertaken twice /year.

BTW wholesale electrical power is sold in MWh. kWh is strictly retail, but probably more suitable for this installation. But understand that even with minimal maintenance, due to the high cost and low output, this is going to be very expensive electricity.

What he doesn't mention is the Energy In Energy Return ratio. Solar panels take a lot of energy to make, as do wind turbines. The EIERR is typically around 10 or less, while for a hydro dam it is around 100, and they also have a capacity factor up to near 100% if there is enough captured water. Most however do not because over-capacity is installed for intermittent use when prices are highest - HEP is great for load-following with very quick response times, and so is sold at much higher rates than base-load.

I mean that each place in the world have certain amount of sun radiation during one year time (average). Max solar radiation (which is between 1000W/m2 - 1300W/m2) produce maybe 24*1000*20% energy to the ground. That assumed 20% is calculated during the year and includes clouds, rain, winter, mornings and evening. Effectively an 1000W solar panel will produce on average 200W when it's operating.

Then another thing is how efficient the panel is compared to it's area. Best are currently somewhere in 30%. This does meant that there need for more surface area to get the same amount of power. For example I'm looking for thin layer panels, which can be 10-15% efficient (eg. collect 100-150W/m2), but comes with a cheaper price tag. Therefore these thin panels are more cost efficiently for producing electricity. 100m2 roof could therefore produce 100m2*1000W/m2*0.20*0.10 = 2000W = 2KW average power for home usage.

In this same case the average solar radiation 20KW and Max solar radiation, during the midday is 100KW.

Maintenance cost should naturally include cleaning of the panels as well as taking care of the nuclear power plant generators and storing the nuclear waste for further usage.

I'm assuming you are in Thailand - do they have buyback into the grid of your excess here?

[OzMick]

A mixed energy source policy is essential for national security and the confidence of foreign investors. It is at least ill advised to leave out any energy option from a national energy plan. In the future most of the current options on energy source will expire due first to scarcity and price and thereafter the gradual world wide elimination of each traditional energy source due to depletion. For example within 40 to 45 years all known reserves of crude oil will be exhausted, at 164 years all known natural gas fields will be exhausted, and at 410 years all known coal reserves will be exhausted.

Therefor all forms of known or emerging energy technology must be recognized in the Thai government energy plan including each type of nuclear energy whether fissionable or fusion-able.

At the moment Thailand depends on road, rail, air, river and canal for the distribution and import/export of goods. In the future this is likely not sustainable without a major upgrade of Thailand's Roads and Railways. This is particularly true for international routes because Thailand' neighbors will become ever more important to Thailand's prosperity.

I believe that the Thai government are addressing these issues fully right now.

Fusion as in confusion. AFAIK there doesn't yet exist a fusion reactor that exports power.

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you mean by the first paragraph. the location chosen is about ideal for maximising sunlight received with very little cloud cover - similar to Arizona. It's biggest drawback is remoteness, a long way from major cities and industry, leading to even more inefficiency.

You seem to have missed the point that maintenance is claimed to be near zero, but failure to clean the panels has a big effect on output. Cleaning 645,000 is a major job, even if only undertaken twice /year.

BTW wholesale electrical power is sold in MWh. kWh is strictly retail, but probably more suitable for this installation. But understand that even with minimal maintenance, due to the high cost and low output, this is going to be very expensive electricity.

What he doesn't mention is the Energy In Energy Return ratio. Solar panels take a lot of energy to make, as do wind turbines. The EIERR is typically around 10 or less, while for a hydro dam it is around 100, and they also have a capacity factor up to near 100% if there is enough captured water. Most however do not because over-capacity is installed for intermittent use when prices are highest - HEP is great for load-following with very quick response times, and so is sold at much higher rates than base-load.

I mean that each place in the world have certain amount of sun radiation during one year time (average). Max solar radiation (which is between 1000W/m2 - 1300W/m2) produce maybe 24*1000*20% energy to the ground. That assumed 20% is calculated during the year and includes clouds, rain, winter, mornings and evening. Effectively an 1000W solar panel will produce on average 200W when it's operating.

Then another thing is how efficient the panel is compared to it's area. Best are currently somewhere in 30%. This does meant that there need for more surface area to get the same amount of power. For example I'm looking for thin layer panels, which can be 10-15% efficient (eg. collect 100-150W/m2), but comes with a cheaper price tag. Therefore these thin panels are more cost efficiently for producing electricity. 100m2 roof could therefore produce 100m2*1000W/m2*0.20*0.10 = 2000W = 2KW average power for home usage.

In this same case the average solar radiation 20KW and Max solar radiation, during the midday is 100KW.

Maintenance cost should naturally include cleaning of the panels as well as taking care of the nuclear power plant generators and storing the nuclear waste for further usage.

I'm assuming you are in Thailand - do they have buyback into the grid of your excess here?

As far as I know it's not supported, but I'm not really sure.

[Soutpeel]

A mixed energy source policy is essential for national security and the confidence of foreign investors. It is at least ill advised to leave out any energy option from a national energy plan. In the future most of the current options on energy source will expire due first to scarcity and price and thereafter the gradual world wide elimination of each traditional energy source due to depletion. For example within 40 to 45 years all known reserves of crude oil will be exhausted, at 164 years all known natural gas fields will be exhausted, and at 410 years all known coal reserves will be exhausted.

Therefor all forms of known or emerging energy technology must be recognized in the Thai government energy plan including each type of nuclear energy whether fissionable or fusion-able.

At the moment Thailand depends on road, rail, air, river and canal for the distribution and import/export of goods. In the future this is likely not sustainable without a major upgrade of Thailand's Roads and Railways. This is particularly true for international routes because Thailand' neighbors will become ever more important to Thailand's prosperity.

I believe that the Thai government are addressing these issues fully right now.

Fusion as in confusion. AFAIK there doesn't yet exist a fusion reactor that exports power.

There are no commerical fusion reactors anywhere in the world...Researchers have had a fusion reactor working...but the energy input required to get it going was more than the power it generated and fact the fusion reaction only lasted about a nano-second.....going to be a long while yet

[Chopperboy]

Still, the 54 reactors all have spent fuel rods that are more radioactive now than when new

If this is case then they are defying the laws of physics.... ....so the half life calculation dont apply then ? you have discovered the secret to perpetual power supply then old chap....

After the rods have been used in a reactor they become very radioactive as Plutonium and other elements are formed through the process of transmutation. Once removed they are so "hot" they need constant cooling in ponds for 10 years before they can even be considered for transporting. They remain dangerous for 100K's of years and need to be stored safely for that long.

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

[Soutpeel]

Still, the 54 reactors all have spent fuel rods that are more radioactive now than when new

If this is case then they are defying the laws of physics.... ....so the half life calculation dont apply then ? you have discovered the secret to perpetual power supply then old chap....

After the rods have been used in a reactor they become very radioactive as Plutonium and other elements are formed through the process of transmutation. Once removed they are so "hot" they need constant cooling in ponds for 10 years before they can even be considered for transporting. They remain dangerous for 100K's of years and need to be stored safely for that long.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Transmutation

You are of course correct from that point of view..I will withdraw my remarks, although dont believe its the Plutonium that the main problem, more like the strontium-90 and cesium-137... ...good pick up

[RubbaJohnny]

Crucial question is what is the regime's half life,for Radon Daughters around 4.2 days with the vote imminent who knows,and futhermore who cares the snouts vary but the trough remains uncleansed.

In a country where even the young accept corruption the corrupt will prosper.

Edited June 12, 2012 by RubbaJohnny

[RubbaJohnny]

Be great to think the governors planning 410 years hence and the 2000 plus years management of ionized detritus,thats if they are around next week and not all exiled in DoBUY

Edited June 12, 2012 by RubbaJohnny

[maidu]

Take solar first. Solar is only available say 12hours /day (and that is being ridiculously generous, it closer to 8 at full generation)

Solar tech is gaining by leaps and bounds. Anyone who does a bit of research on solar, knows there are ways to store power, for times when the sun isn't shining. Here's one four letter word: salt which, when liquified by concentrated solar reflectors, is an excellent way to store the sun's heat. There was a top exec (at IBM?) who stated, a few decades ago, that computers would never be more than a novelty item for a few people.

Making a sweeping imperative statement about solar at this juncture, is like saying, in 1895, that the auto will never be faster than a horse, and will, at best, be a novelty item just for the rich.

Nuclear has so many dire drawbacks, it could fill a book. Try this one, - which specifically deals with Thailand's nuclear ambitions. Germany and Japan figured it out. Are Thais smarter (and better engineers) than the Germans and Japanese?

[ronz28]

Listen to and read about the pain and suffering experienced by those who are living with radiation contamination in Japan. They are fighting against the nuclear industry who are planning to start up some nuclear power plants again. Do you want this for Thailand's future?

[OzMick]

Take solar first. Solar is only available say 12hours /day (and that is being ridiculously generous, it closer to 8 at full generation)

Solar tech is gaining by leaps and bounds. Anyone who does a bit of research on solar, knows there are ways to store power, for times when the sun isn't shining. Here's one four letter word: salt which, when liquified by concentrated solar reflectors, is an excellent way to store the sun's heat. There was a top exec (at IBM?) who stated, a few decades ago, that computers would never be more than a novelty item for a few people.

Making a sweeping imperative statement about solar at this juncture, is like saying, in 1895, that the auto will never be faster than a horse, and will, at best, be a novelty item just for the rich.

Nuclear has so many dire drawbacks, it could fill a book. Try this one, - which specifically deals with Thailand's nuclear ambitions. Germany and Japan figured it out. Are Thais smarter (and better engineers) than the Germans and Japanese?

Yes, you can store some heat, but the sun still only shines effectively for 8 hours. So you can have a 50MW plant for 8 hrs or a 20 MW for 16, allowing for the inefficiencies of your heat storage/recovery system.

And yes, the development of any engineering technology leads to improvements. But how do you collect more than 100% of the energy reaching an area. If solar panels approached 100% energy efficiency rather than the 30% they now claim, the world's newest and largest solar station would approach 500MW, but with a capacity factor around 20%, it will produce very expensive electricity. And for that amount of power, it still takes up 12 sq km - not a problem in oz, but a major one in other countries.

That is where we are heading. As energy prices increase due to increasing scarcity of fossil fuels, solar and wind will be increasingly viable, but that doesn't help the consumer. We are going to have to learn to live far more energy efficiently.

There will also be a BIG increase in HEP because of its relative cheapness and flexibility.

Edited June 12, 2012 by OzMick

[Keesters]

Thailand will also seek to produce at least 10 percent of the overall power production in the form of renewable energy

I think they could make it 100% if they harnessed all the hot air & BS coming out of parliament. There certainly seems a neverending supply of it.

[Guest]

For the stable countries nuclear power is still the way to make electricity. For Somalia or Thailand, maybe not yet.

Japan have had it's misfortunes with nuclear bombs and power. This causes even irrational fear, which made the nuclear power plants to be put on service break for now. They do have get good alternatives for power production, which I doubt. I would guess most of the Japan nuclear plants are up and running after one cold winter.

Germany have invested a lot for home based solar panels. This is good naturally. Then again, they have huge amount of coal on their ground. So basically they replace nuclear production with coal. Russia produces huge amount of natural gas and there is a new gas pipe from Russia to Germany for the needs of Central Europe. This is good, but then again.. what happens if Russia decides to increase the price of the gas? Or simply stop the gas flow due political differences? It would not be a nice winter in Central Europe..

The green parties in Germany and any other countries have a great influence for peoples minds. The problem is that they tend to kick realities away and try to go with ideas which do not work in the real life... the great youth!

Coal burning causes way more radiation to the environment than any other form of energy production, fission power included. It also causes lot's of small particles to be released to the air. Germany and other civilized countries have better equipment to collect these particles. China does not. Western Europe is restricted with CO2 limits and can not therefore produce goods in comparative prices, the production has moved to China.. this is what is the result of this 'green movement'.

(Sorry, the text is in Finnish. Just states 'Thanks Green party! CO2 restrictions cleaned the nature of Finland).

Yes. There is unanswered questions what to do with the nuclear waste. This does not mean that there will not be good solutions in the future. Someday, hopefully, we'll get back the "let's go forward with nuclear sciences and technologies" feeling and there will be better solutions invented.

[Reasonableman]

Japan have had it's misfortunes with nuclear bombs and power.

Somewhat of an understatement, don't you think, since two major Japanese cities were devastated by the former, and huge tracts of the country rendered radioactive by the latter.

And Russia also had a small problem, I seem to recall... what was it now... Chernobyl?

[Guest]

Then back to alternatives

I see that we have 2 sources of energy on our planet.

1) Fusion power from the sun, which includes direct solar usage, wind power, water power, coal, oil, gas etc.

Coal etc is just stored energy which have been produces earlier.

2) Big bang / supernova power, which includes uranium, plutonium throntium etc .

Producing electricity directly from the solar power is still expensive compared to other methods. This is likely to be changed when the science is going forward.

In the near future (5-10 years) the solar panels will be printed to an plastic in cheap way. Thin film solar panels are already on production, but the price tag is still high. On longer term we'll learn how to mimic the nature and produce electricity (or store the energy for later usage) with synthetic photosynthesis.

We'll probably also start culturing seaweed on the seas and then harvest the products, turn it in to methane with an biological process and use the methane with fuel cells. I'm happy to see that there is new development for the small scale fuel cells as well. Some companies have started to create home scale devices as well http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/63761-small-scale-fuel-cell-designed-for-the-home

The green parties will do what ever they can to close the wind mills in the future. The same parties which today embrace it. This is due they soon realize that the wind mills disturb and kill bird life. This process has already started http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/

[OzMick]

The things we do to satisfy greenies! 2 examples:

1/ a landfill garbage dump in Sydney was full, so covered. The methane being emitted was captured to a tank, and a V8 motor generator set adapted and installed to turn waste into electricity. The retail value of the energy produced was less than the cost of maintenance.

2/ Highway improvements north and north-west of Newcastle saw hundreds of trees felled. They were being stacked and burned until decided they would be chipped, trucked and burnt at Bayswater PS. Truck unloading and belt feeding facilities installed, initially 5% mix with coal tried. Then 2%. Then 1%. Moisture content of wood played havoc with PF transport temp control. Quietly abandoned. Nett loss in $millions.

[OzMick]

Then back to alternatives

I see that we have 2 sources of energy on our planet.

1) Fusion power from the sun, which includes direct solar usage, wind power, water power, coal, oil, gas etc.

Coal etc is just stored energy which have been produces earlier.

2) Big bang / supernova power, which includes uranium, plutonium throntium etc .

Producing electricity directly from the solar power is still expensive compared to other methods. This is likely to be changed when the science is going forward.

In the near future (5-10 years) the solar panels will be printed to an plastic in cheap way. Thin film solar panels are already on production, but the price tag is still high. On longer term we'll learn how to mimic the nature and produce electricity (or store the energy for later usage) with synthetic photosynthesis.

We'll probably also start culturing seaweed on the seas and then harvest the products, turn it in to methane with an biological process and use the methane with fuel cells. I'm happy to see that there is new development for the small scale fuel cells as well. Some companies have started to create home scale devices as well http://www.tgdaily.c...ed-for-the-home

The green parties will do what ever they can to close the wind mills in the future. The same parties which today embrace it. This is due they soon realize that the wind mills disturb and kill bird life. This process has already started http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/

Hydro electricity is the purest form of collecting solar energy. It is also the cheapest, most reliable, and most flexible in availability and delivery (load-following). Future generations will look back at dam-phobia as insanity.

[Guest]

Japan have had it's misfortunes with nuclear bombs and power.

Somewhat of an understatement, don't you think, since two major Japanese cities were devastated by the former, and huge tracts of the country rendered radioactive by the latter.

And Russia also had a small problem, I seem to recall... what was it now... Chernobyl?

Those events are huge but fortunately very rare. If we look back the history it was just 70 years ago when there was 2 nuclear bombs dropped to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These cities are up and running today. Even if we have an major catastrophy, time will sort it out.

The problem is local and short term. On the longer term and global scale, nuclear is way better way to produce energy than anything else currently.

As weird as it might sound, these cases of nuclear meltdowns are good for science studies. Something new is learned which will help in the case of future accidents. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/14250489

[Reasonableman]

Well, that may be little consolation for those who have been affected (killed, maimed, affected by increased incidence of radiation-related diseases), those who are still being affected (e.g. with cancers), and those who will be affected in the future by nuclear events, accidental and deliberate.

[Guest]

Well, that may be little consolation for those who have been affected (killed, maimed, affected by increased incidence of radiation-related diseases), those who are still being affected (e.g. with cancers), and those who will be affected in the future by nuclear events, accidental and deliberate.

I agree with this, personal tragedies are always sad.

Still there much much more people are affected and killed from other sources of energy production. If I recall correctly, more people die because of solar panels than from the nuclear power when compared to the amount of energy produced. This is because of installation accidents, dropping from the roof etc.

Here is one link. I have no way to verify that, but it will at least give an starting point. http://nextbigfuture...gy-sources.html

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)

Coal – China 278

Coal – USA 15

Oil 36 (36% of world energy)

Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)

Biofuel/Biomass 12

Peat 12

Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)

Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)

Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)

Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)

Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

[Reasonableman]

Perhaps we should address the issue of solar-panel-installer falldown, which has a very localized short-term impact, as well as nuclear meltdown, which has a rather more global, long-term impact. Safety harnesses on solar-panel installers might help.

Yes, it's a shame when others die... even more so if and when you are one of them.

[Guest]

Perhaps we should address the issue of solar-panel-installer falldown, which has a very localized short-term impact, as well as nuclear meltdown, which has a rather more global, long-term impact. Safety harnesses on solar-panel installers might help.

Yes, it's a shame when others die... even more so if and when you are one of them.

In that path it's good to think of an old research medical doctor who is on an verge to invent full cure for malaria. Should he or she start fixing peoples broken legs or just concentrate on his/hers research?

When planning, we should address the situation as an whole. Not as personal tragedies. On personal level it's naturally very different case. Personal tragedies might spark finding the solutions, but to make solutions viable requires seeing the big picture.

On personal level I'm far from a person who thinks today's culture of consuming is a great thing. I prefer clean nature and air above most of the things.

Still I have to accept that the energy consumption is an will rise in the future. This has to be addressed no matter what. Currently there is only carbon based energy forms and the nuclear fission. If nuclear power is lowered, the carbon based will be increased. Solar will come some day, but it's still not ready yet. On personal level, I would love it would be there already.

[Reasonableman]

I prefer to think that the threat of a polluting energy source going off-stream will put more pressure on the development of alternatives, and on government action to make those alternatives more viable. In Thailand, Government subsidies for commercial and domestic solar installations may be one of these actions.