Govt Scales Down Nuclear Plan

[Guest]

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.

That could be a good start. Still the nuclear or coal backbone is needed for years to come.

I'm far more interested to find solutions and combining things together, than trying to pressure governments on political way

Ok. This is what I see in my small mind, what the near future (20-40 years) could look like.. don't kill me for this - improve it!

Part of the energy production is localized. Homes will become small scale power plants. On tropics, we can make the electricity with the solar panels, we also collect rain water for home usage. One of the benefits of this is that the country / city wide electricity / water infrastructure don't have to grow with the same speed as the consumption grows. Smaller cables and pipes will be ok.

Other places will use their best ways to make electricity. Thermal, waves, wind ..

Home produced energy is stored locally for the usage of the own home and also the for the electric/fuel cell cars. Part of the stored energy is in molten salt batteries, which can provide energy for faster consumption. Part of the excess energy is stored as hydrogen, which can be turned back to electricity by home fuel cell .. and some of it can be pumped in to the car. In case of an emergency, hydrogen can be delivered to the homes with trucks. The molten salt batteries could locate on the homes, or those could be part of the village infrastructure.

On an larger scale, nuclear power plants are still up and running as an stabilizing factor. Those provide steady feed of electricity in case some part of the country is battered with severe storm for an longer period of time (batteries empty as well as hydrogen storage). There would also be seaweed -> methane -> electricity power plants for the same purpose.

[OzMick]

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.

That could be a good start. Still the nuclear or coal backbone is needed for years to come.

I'm far more interested to find solutions and combining things together, than trying to pressure governments on political way

Ok. This is what I see in my small mind, what the near future (20-40 years) could look like.. don't kill me for this - improve it!

Part of the energy production is localized. Homes will become small scale power plants. On tropics, we can make the electricity with the solar panels, we also collect rain water for home usage. One of the benefits of this is that the country / city wide electricity / water infrastructure don't have to grow with the same speed as the consumption grows. Smaller cables and pipes will be ok.

Other places will use their best ways to make electricity. Thermal, waves, wind ..

Home produced energy is stored locally for the usage of the own home and also the for the electric/fuel cell cars. Part of the stored energy is in molten salt batteries, which can provide energy for faster consumption. Part of the excess energy is stored as hydrogen, which can be turned back to electricity by home fuel cell .. and some of it can be pumped in to the car. In case of an emergency, hydrogen can be delivered to the homes with trucks. The molten salt batteries could locate on the homes, or those could be part of the village infrastructure.

On an larger scale, nuclear power plants are still up and running as an stabilizing factor. Those provide steady feed of electricity in case some part of the country is battered with severe storm for an longer period of time (batteries empty as well as hydrogen storage). There would also be seaweed -> methane -> electricity power plants for the same purpose.

I'm sorry to piss on your parade, but this post and the other concerning deaths per TW should be joined, because what you are proposing is lethal.

Hydrogen is the nastiest material material I have worked with, and that includes ammonia, SO₂, concentrated sulphuric acid and chlorine. It leaks so readily, self-ignites, burns with a flame near invisible in daylight, burns so hot, and has a flammable range of 4-94%. Colourless and odourless, it gives you no sensory warning. Working requires bronze tools and extreme care. I would rather live in a neighbourhood where every home had a live artillery shell than one where every home had pressurised hydrogen. Methane is similarly nasty but not so prone to leaks but is not be taken casually.

Power stations have battery rooms for back-up control circuity power. They are dangerous places with restricted access. They have to be force-vented continuously to prevent explosions which still occur because they have a heady mix of hydrogen, oxygen and DC current.

Safer batteries will still entail storage of large amounts of energy and DC voltages which throw an arc much harder to break and cause far nastier injuries. And batteries are bloody expensive and likely to become more so, have a limited life, and you will need a lot of them to power your house for 16 hours per day.

[Guest]

I'm sorry to piss on your parade, but this post and the other concerning deaths per TW should be joined, because what you are proposing is lethal.

Hydrogen is the nastiest material material I have worked with, and that includes ammonia, SO₂, concentrated sulphuric acid and chlorine. It leaks so readily, self-ignites, burns with a flame near invisible in daylight, burns so hot, and has a flammable range of 4-94%. Colourless and odourless, it gives you no sensory warning. Working requires bronze tools and extreme care. I would rather live in a neighbourhood where every home had a live artillery shell than one where every home had pressurised hydrogen. Methane is similarly nasty but not so prone to leaks but is not be taken casually.

Power stations have battery rooms for back-up control circuity power. They are dangerous places with restricted access. They have to be force-vented continuously to prevent explosions which still occur because they have a heady mix of hydrogen, oxygen and DC current.

Safer batteries will still entail storage of large amounts of energy and DC voltages which throw an arc much harder to break and cause far nastier injuries. And batteries are bloody expensive and likely to become more so, have a limited life, and you will need a lot of them to power your house for 16 hours per day.

If you restrict thinking of future to what you see today, the future is not going to advance.

You can change hydrogen to methane if you wish. I just used it as it's pretty easy to produce and it's burning product is water.

Then again. I remember reading from somewhere that hydrogen could be stored with pressure tanks using carbon fibers/nanotubes.These tanks would be pretty resistant.

If the power is produced with solar cells, those would probably locate at the roof. Short cables to the hydrogen generator unit and place the H2 tanks close to the roof as well. In case of leakage, hydrogen gas finds it's way up to the sky.

Some development of high pressure H2 tanks.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage.html

Hydrogen was used on toy balloons before which were given to the kids. Even the airships were filled with hydrogen gas.. and then there was the Zeppelin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin

[OzMick]

I'm sorry to piss on your parade, but this post and the other concerning deaths per TW should be joined, because what you are proposing is lethal.

Hydrogen is the nastiest material material I have worked with, and that includes ammonia, SO₂, concentrated sulphuric acid and chlorine. It leaks so readily, self-ignites, burns with a flame near invisible in daylight, burns so hot, and has a flammable range of 4-94%. Colourless and odourless, it gives you no sensory warning. Working requires bronze tools and extreme care. I would rather live in a neighbourhood where every home had a live artillery shell than one where every home had pressurised hydrogen. Methane is similarly nasty but not so prone to leaks but is not be taken casually.

Power stations have battery rooms for back-up control circuity power. They are dangerous places with restricted access. They have to be force-vented continuously to prevent explosions which still occur because they have a heady mix of hydrogen, oxygen and DC current.

Safer batteries will still entail storage of large amounts of energy and DC voltages which throw an arc much harder to break and cause far nastier injuries. And batteries are bloody expensive and likely to become more so, have a limited life, and you will need a lot of them to power your house for 16 hours per day.

If you restrict thinking of future to what you see today, the future is not going to advance.

You can change hydrogen to methane if you wish. I just used it as it's pretty easy to produce and it's burning product is water.

Then again. I remember reading from somewhere that hydrogen could be stored with pressure tanks using carbon fibers/nanotubes.These tanks would be pretty resistant.

If the power is produced with solar cells, those would probably locate at the roof. Short cables to the hydrogen generator unit and place the H2 tanks close to the roof as well. In case of leakage, hydrogen gas finds it's way up to the sky.

Some development of high pressure H2 tanks.

http://www1.eere.ene...en_storage.html

Hydrogen was used on toy balloons before which were given to the kids. Even the airships were filled with hydrogen gas.. and then there was the Zeppelin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeppelin

The problem is not the tanks, it is the volatility of the material, the lack of sensory warning and the difficulty of handling. If you think that is going to change in the near or distant future, you are deluding yourself.

When you release hydrogen from water it comes out at atmospheric pressure or slightly less under slight compressor suction and stored at low pressure in a floating receiver. Two further stages of compression are necessary for efficient storage. Great care has to be taken to keep the O₂ and H₂ apart. The compressors are in a separate room usually open to the air, and the switchgear in yet another room continuously ventilated. Bronze tools have to be used to reduce the chance of a spark. All light fittings and switches are explosion proof.

It is NOT a black box to which you connect a solar panel, a garden hose and a Hydrogen cylinder.

I have worked for 8 years in an ammonia plant, and 20 in a power station which had its own H₂ generation plant - H₂ is used in the alternators to reduce windage friction. There have been incidents.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Bayswater+hydrogen+fire&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Subsequent to that little episode, the Hydrogen plant at Liddell PS was scrapped and hydrogen produced at nearby Bayswater transported to Liddell. A truck load of HP cylinders was being filled from the BW HP storage when the coupling leaked, self-ignited and burnt with intense heat in close proximity to the hydrogen plant. It was impossible to shut the HP outlet and had to be allowed to burn itself out.

We've learned a lot though since the Hindenburg. Look at Challenger.

[maidu]

All this talk about H. H is not the issue here, U is.

As for efficiencies: Yes, it's a valid consideration, but probably less dire than safety / costs / and cleanliness of energy sources.

[g00dgirl]

been put off for three years, from 2023 to 2026

Suits me, I'll be sterile by then anyway.

Lets asumme 2026...the first power wouldnt be until around 2034 then...

I am pretty sure that 2026 was more like the planned date for the plants to be in full operation. 5 of them are planned throughout Thailand. One in Surat Thani, south of Chumpon and one somewhere in Nakorn Sri Thammarat, the others further up north.

I have read a lot about the development in the past (because one plant is planned just 10 km away from the in-laws home in Tha Chana, Surat Thani.

In 2009 they did the site survey in that village already, there were a few protestors in the district office back then. They considered Lamae before that, but there was some opposition, too.

After Fukushima it went quiet, all political parties promised there would be no plans for nuclear power in Thailand before the elections, but recently planning has started again.

Locals I spoke to either did not know about it or said that there would hardly be a way to prevent it.

Construction was planned to start between 2013 and 1014, something like this.

I have tried to raise awareness in the village that even in safe operation the plant would be a health problem, that nuclear material would need to be transported, a place for nuclear garbarge needs to be found and told them about my experiences as a child in Europe during Chernobyl, how even in Germany we could not go outside and play outide for a while and no produce from the garden was to be eaten, etc ..

For me personally even the risk that there will be a nuclear plant in the village is sadly affecting my long term plans (such as won't build a house there) wich is truly sad because I don't have family elsewhere. But would you want to live 10-15km from a nuclear power plant or own property there?

For my son this means he won't grow up near his family, cousins, ..so you see even the plans are negatively affecting peoples lives.

Edited June 16, 2012 by g00dgirl

[maidu]

been put off for three years, from 2023 to 2026

Suits me, I'll be sterile by then anyway.

Lets asumme 2026...the first power wouldnt be until around 2034 then...

I am pretty sure that 2026 was more like the planned date for the plants to be in full operation. 5 of them are planned throughout Thailand. One in Surat Thani, south of Chumpon and one somewhere in Nakorn Sri Thammarat, the others further up north.

I have read a lot about the development in the past (because one plant is planned just 10 km away from the in-laws home in Tha Chana, Surat Thani.

In 2009 they did the site survey in that village already, there were a few protestors in the district office back then. They considered Lamae before that, but there was some opposition, too.

After Fukushima it went quiet, all political parties promised there would be no plans for nuclear power in Thailand before the elections, but recently planning has started again.

Locals I spoke to either did not know about it or said that there would hardly be a way to prevent it.

Construction was planned to start between 2013 and 1014, something like this.

I have tried to raise awareness in the village that even in safe operation the plant would be a health problem, that nuclear material would need to be transported, a place for nuclear garbarge needs to be found and told them about my experiences as a child in Europe during Chernobyl, how even in Germany we could not go outside and play outide for a while and no produce from the garden was to be eaten, etc ..

For me personally even the risk that there will be a nuclear plant in the village is sadly affecting my long term plans (such as won't build a house there) wich is truly sad because I don't have family elsewhere. But would you want to live 10-15km from a nuclear power plant or own property there?

For my son this means he won't grow up near his family, cousins, ..so you see even the plans are negatively affecting peoples lives.

I thought EGAT tried holding a community meeting there, several years ago, but most locals were kept out of the hall, so the shunned peons protested, and wound up commandeering the podium, and bolloxing the meeting. If you follow this stuff, you'll notice that EGAT is very secretive, and understandably so. They never want to say precisely where the sites will be, and they hate having open community meetings, because they know they're standing on shaky ground. As much as possible, EGAT will try slipping the N thing with as little transparency as humanly possible. They're like bad boys who know they're planning a dangerous ruse, so they avoid telling their parents (the general public), and keep us in the dark.

[Guest]

The problem is not the tanks, it is the volatility of the material, the lack of sensory warning and the difficulty of handling. If you think that is going to change in the near or distant future, you are deluding yourself.

When you release hydrogen from water it comes out at atmospheric pressure or slightly less under slight compressor suction and stored at low pressure in a floating receiver. Two further stages of compression are necessary for efficient storage. Great care has to be taken to keep the O₂ and H₂ apart. The compressors are in a separate room usually open to the air, and the switchgear in yet another room continuously ventilated. Bronze tools have to be used to reduce the chance of a spark. All light fittings and switches are explosion proof.

It is NOT a black box to which you connect a solar panel, a garden hose and a Hydrogen cylinder.

I have worked for 8 years in an ammonia plant, and 20 in a power station which had its own H₂ generation plant - H₂ is used in the alternators to reduce windage friction. There have been incidents.

https://www.google.c...lient=firefox-a

Subsequent to that little episode, the Hydrogen plant at Liddell PS was scrapped and hydrogen produced at nearby Bayswater transported to Liddell. A truck load of HP cylinders was being filled from the BW HP storage when the coupling leaked, self-ignited and burnt with intense heat in close proximity to the hydrogen plant. It was impossible to shut the HP outlet and had to be allowed to burn itself out.

We've learned a lot though since the Hindenburg. Look at Challenger.

Naturally one needs to be careful with both H2 and O2. H2 wishes to bond together with oxygen and oxygen in it's pure form will bond together with almost anything it can contact.

You are talking about plant scale constructions. That will bring more problems to the issue.

H2 as the lightest of the molecule sand is very likely to fly up to the space if let out from the system. On smaller scale there is no need for manual ventilation, just an escape route for the H2 to get out. Naturally not to let the H2 to bind together with pure O2 nor any heat source.

For energy storage, there is no absolute perfect way. There is ways to do and then we just have to take care of the process so that there will not be accidents.

Same goes with the nuclear power. No perfect solutions, but good ways to produce electricity.. and once again, take care of the byproducts as well.

[Guest]

I thought EGAT tried holding a community meeting there, several years ago, but most locals were kept out of the hall, so the shunned peons protested, and wound up commandeering the podium, and bolloxing the meeting. If you follow this stuff, you'll notice that EGAT is very secretive, and understandably so. They never want to say precisely where the sites will be, and they hate having open community meetings, because they know they're standing on shaky ground. As much as possible, EGAT will try slipping the N thing with as little transparency as humanly possible. They're like bad boys who know they're planning a dangerous ruse, so they avoid telling their parents (the general public), and keep us in the dark.

Most, if not all of these protesters are just bunch of very loud people who do not understand what they are protesting against.

When they do, they are much more quiet.

Ever yet. I don't think that Thailand is ready for nuclear power yet. Just too many things can be done with corruption over intelligence and thinking of the future in long term planning.

[raro]

"I want every red shirt to invade the nuclear power station and pull it down brick by brick.

ah but that would be the first flaw in their cunning plan....they are not built with bricks...

In most countries...

Sent from my Nexus S using Thaivisa Connect App

[Guest]

Hmm.. Googling "Thailand energy production" was total miss.

There is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Thailand wikipedia page, which contains not so much information.

I talked an week ago with an Aussie who said that 60% of the electricity produced in Thailand is done by diesel generators. For me this was an big surprise. How any country in current world be so dependent of one source of energy?

What is the real numbers of the energy productions in Thailand?

[Keesters]

Hmm.. Googling "Thailand energy production" was total miss.

There is this http://en.wikipedia....rgy_in_Thailand wikipedia page, which contains not so much information.

I talked an week ago with an Aussie who said that 60% of the electricity produced in Thailand is done by diesel generators. For me this was an big surprise. How any country in current world be so dependent of one source of energy?

What is the real numbers of the energy productions in Thailand?

According to http://siteresources...hai.pdf diesel is only 0.02%. natural gas is 66%. I know the doc is old (2007) but it's all I could find.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Keesters

[OzMick]

Can I bring in another factor affecting the future supply of energy, the wholesale price?

When you look at the daily demand curves for energy, they resemble waves with a low trough (night) between one pair, and a higher trough (day) between the next 2. Energy supplied up to the level of the low trough is base load supplied by the largest and most reliable units at a price which cover their costs plus reasonable profit, because due to the size and design of these units it is better/cheaper to run them continuously.

Up to the level of the high trough and most of the peaks, we see intermittent and variable load units, smaller and more labour intensive but able to reduce load or even shut down when not required. While they may be kept as spinning reserve, there is still a lag time for them to take up load increases.

The final type is load-following generators which can quickly change output to match the fluctuation in demand.

Nukes are base load generators as are larger coal-fired. Solar and wind can be considered base load if you have enough geographically diversified. sun and wind might not be available here but they are always available somewhere.

Biomass is good for intermittent, as you can get a better price, which compensates for what is really a poor grade fuel.

HEP can be sold as base if you have to release a set amount for irrigation, but it is a waste as they are very good at load-following. So are diesels.

Last year base load energy in NSW sold at around $45/MWh ranging between $34 and $65 depending on season. Intermittent sold around $300/MWh and $5/MWh for spinning reserve (ie paid not to produce, but available). The top price on the spot market was just under $10,000/MWh.

If you build a hydro dam you could average out the annual flow and fit generators to that capacity and sell as base load. Or you can fit much larger capacity, sell your irrigation flow as base load, enough to prevent overflows as seasonal intermittent, and have enough water/MW capacity to reap the cream.

Edited June 17, 2012 by OzMick

[animatic]

been put off for three years, from 2023 to 2026

Suits me, I'll be sterile by then anyway.

Yeah, but you can still melt....

[swillowbee]

... for Christ's sake! ... what does it take to drive a stake through this disaster-in-the-making's heart?

... a Thai-built, Thai-owned, Thai-operated nuclear power plant should be considered by ASEAN nations as tantamount to an act of war! ... justification for a pre-emptive strike!

... this sort of stuff should scare the be-jesus out of anyone who has lived and worked in this country, or lives downwind or downriver of Thailand.

Edited June 17, 2012 by swillowbee

[ronz28]

Solar boom heads to Japan. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-17/solar-boom-heads-to-japan-creating-9-6-billion-market-energy.html

Thailand can avoid the Japanese tragedy and endless costs by moving straight to solar. Canceling its plans for nuclear power will help preserve human life. http://enenews.com/nobel-prize-winner-only-way-to-preserve-human-life-is-to-completely-turn-away-from-nuclear-power-nhk-video

[OzMick]

Solar boom heads to Japan. http://www.bloomberg...ket-energy.html

Thailand can avoid the Japanese tragedy and endless costs by moving straight to solar. Canceling its plans for nuclear power will help preserve human life. http://enenews.com/n...power-nhk-video

Did you not bother reading the earlier posts or simply ignored them?

To achieve the 25% of current output in solar power, Thailand will need 250sq.km of solar panel installations at a current cost of B600 billion. To meet the goal of 25% in 10 years they would have to double that.

All the current generating units would need to stay in service to cover the morning and evening peaks when solar is not available, but these might be largely reduced by the fact that recovering the cost of those solar panels may well push the price of electricity beyond that affordable to most Thais.

Edited June 18, 2012 by OzMick

[ronz28]

Yes, I read and consider all of the posts here. The learning curve continues to bring the cost of solar power down but the more that is know about nuclear power it is clear that costs of dealing with any disaster or even clean up of spent fuel rods is being ignored and passed on by industry to the taxpayer outside of the price for electricity. Radiation effects such as cancers, heart disease, other radiation related deaths, permanent destruction of farmland, homes, schools cities, food supplies, etc. is all ignored by the proponents of the nuclear power industry.

Agreed hydroelectric power is one of the cheapest and cleanest ways to produce electricity but opportunities are limited to the new dams Thailand can build.

Wind energy is also cheap and any locations in Thailand with sufficient wind should use these.

Natural gas is cheap and available to power electric power plants in the US but limited in Thailand.

There has to be a mix of power sources in the electric grid but solar power output matches the timing of human activity and the resulting demand for electric power during daylight hours, therefore solar power production should be greatly increased. Storing solar power overnight is still being worked on but solutions are available and others are under development. The costs of solar energy are up front and fully known/disclosed. However, the costs for building nuclear power plants are monumental, up front and financed by governments with low cost loans, etc. but additional costs are hidden in the piles of extremely radioactive spent fuel rods sitting at every nuclear power plant waiting for cleanup by some process that hasn't been invented yet.

[ronz28]

Truth and future of nuclear power from Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen http://www.fairewinds.org/sites/fairewinds.org/files/capitol_forum-gundersen.mp3

[thaihome]

Yes, I read and consider all of the posts here. The learning curve continues to bring the cost of solar power down but the more that is know about nuclear power it is clear that costs of dealing with any disaster or even clean up of spent fuel rods is being ignored and passed on by industry to the taxpayer outside of the price for electricity. Radiation effects such as cancers, heart disease, other radiation related deaths, permanent destruction of farmland, homes, schools cities, food supplies, etc. is all ignored by the proponents of the nuclear power industry.

Solar power is a long way from being competitive with fossil fuel or nuclear power generation. Without government subsidies it would likely die off except as a niche industry.

Typical hysteria, half truths, and hyperbole by the anti –nuclear lobby. The proponents of nuclear power don’t ignore the problems, but they do put it an objective perspective. The number of deaths attributable to nuclear is minuscule when compared to either oil or coal.

Agreed hydroelectric power is one of the cheapest and cleanest ways to produce electricity but opportunities are limited to the new dams Thailand can build.

Wind energy is also cheap and any locations in Thailand with sufficient wind should use these.

Natural gas is cheap and available to power electric power plants in the US but limited in Thailand.

Thailand generates about 6% of its electricity from hydro power plants. There is very limited places left for new dams. They import a significant amount from dams in Laos.

The vast majority of Thailand power is generated by natural gas, something like 70%. About 24% of that is imported from Myanmar.

There has to be a mix of power sources in the electric grid but solar power output matches the timing of human activity and the resulting demand for electric power during daylight hours, therefore solar power production should be greatly increased. Storing solar power overnight is still being worked on but solutions are available and others are under development. The costs of solar energy are up front and fully known/disclosed. However, the costs for building nuclear power plants are monumental, up front and financed by governments with low cost loans, etc. but additional costs are hidden in the piles of extremely radioactive spent fuel rods sitting at every nuclear power plant waiting for cleanup by some process that hasn't been invented yet.

The process and cost to safely store spent fuel rods is known, but due to the fear mongering, that fact is ignored by people like you.

You have no idea about Thailands energy production or future plans, why are you posting?

TH

[ronz28]

Yep, that's why nuclear fuel rods are left in place because proper storage is too costly for the industry to do it. No fear mongering hear just the facts, so con artists won't get away with their totally biased baloney and continue to contaminate the planet with radiation everywhere.

You only discredit yourself when you twist the post of others. Focus on supporting your own statements with links to expert facts and you would add to the discussion.

[maidu]

Solar panels (PV or photovoltaic) are just one facet of solar. Concentrated solar is, to me, the tsunami wave of the future. Already, large arrays are in operation in Europe and the US. The US military is segueing to solar by leaps and bounds. And the myth that solar only operates during times when the sun is shining, is archaic. There are existing and developing ways with which solar can be stored. Thailand won't be at the vanguard of solar development or implementation, but they're good a mimicking others' good ideas. In 20 to 40 years, Thai city fathers will see that concentrated solar is the smart way to go (by observing successes in farang countries). But that will be after spending a trillion baht on nuclear, and realizing it was a mistake. ....and so it goes.

[ronz28]

I hope Nuclear power fades as a relic of the past in favor of clean energy. I am still following the Rossi cold fusion device and his latest claim is there are close to 20 reactors working above 600 Celsius... Soon (weeks) we will publish the report of the high temperature reactor validation. That is hot enough to power a little steam generator or Stirling engine and cleanly produce electricity in your home at one tenth the current cost, desalinate water etc. Many people are skeptical but Rossi also has many supporters and we should know soon if this is the real deal or it fails.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/06/rossi-approx-20-reactors-running-above-600c/comment-page-1/

[PingManDan]

Not only scale it down but should drop it all together, can you see a reactor run by Thai's,

if so, time to move somewhere else

[Tep]

I talked an week ago with an Aussie who said that 60% of the electricity produced in Thailand is done by diesel generators. For me this was an big surprise. How any country in current world be so dependent of one source of energy?

What is the real numbers of the energy productions in Thailand?

This is not correct. Gas provides more than 70% of Thailand's power generation. You can see the figures for 2010 in the annual energy statistics compiled by the Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency www.dede.go.th and you can download the 2010 2nd Revision Power Development Plan from EGAT's website.

Fuel diversity has long been an key objective of government energy policy. It should be noted however that the 2 coal Independent Power Producer (IPP) projects from the 1996 round had to change fuel source (to gas) and location because of community protests. The primary strategy to deal with over reliance of gas as outlined in the 2010 PDP is to increase power purchase from neighbouring countries, predominantly Lao. Fuel Diversity is also one of the issues to justify the use of nuclear.

[ronz28]

I like that website Tep. http://www.dede.go.th/dede/images/stories/dede_aedp_2012_2021.pdf among other info focuses on the domestic vs. import production. Wind, solar and other alternatives can be mostly domestic expenditures, manufactured and operated in Thailand by Thais and avoid a drain of Thai currency from Thailand's domestic economy as long as the alternatives selected are really cost competitive.

The problem with nuclear is the costs are not competitive when proper disposal of the spent fuel rods are considered and can be endless as in Japan's experience.

Once a country goes down a certain energy path inertia keeps it going far beyond where it makes economic sense. U.S. now produces natural gas for a price of $2.65 per MMBtu due to new fracking techniques but many utilities, etc. are still paying over $80 a barrel to foreign countries for crude oil when it could be using far cheaper domestic natural gas and avoid the drain or US dollars to foreign countries for that purpose.

[ronz28]

A new model of E-Cat has been developed. It is a model that can remain stable at very high temperatures without the need for coolant. http://pesn.com/2012...id_State_E-Cat/

An extended test of around twenty high-temperature solid-state E-Cat modules is currently taking place. Each module has one reactor core producing approximately ten kilowatts of output. The units have been operating for around two months now and will continue operating for a few more weeks.

http://nextbigfuture...(nextbigfuture)

The temperature can be precisely modulated, and the unit could, in theory, operate as a stand alone device providing a heat source. If combined with a thermal photovoltaic device -- a technology that can convert infrared radiation directly into electricity -- it could become a solid state electric generator.

However, with total stability at temperatures above 600C, these units could also produce the very high temperature steam.

In a modern boiler that produces super critical steam for turbines powering electric generators, the walls or tubes of the boiler have to reach temperatures slightly higher than the temperature of the steam that is needed.

It sounds like we are on the verge of a major change in the way we produce electricity and old technology problem Nukes are on the way out to be replaced by these new clean energy machines producing electricity for your home, etc.

Edited July 4, 2012 by ronz28

[Guest]

Could you do an short summary, how does this ECAT cold fusion works. Write it, don't copy from another source.

I'm too lazy to check if the sites you linked are 'The Onion' style of sites. Anyway the discussion sounds more like kiddie talk.

I suppose this is the ECAT thingy.

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

Andrea Rossi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Rossi_(entrepreneur)

As it would be wonderful to believe that this system would work.. and the functionality could be re-produced independently by various Universities, well .. at this point I would not click the 'Donate' button on the websites.

There has been various self made scientists who are doing very big scientific breakthroughs. They ask for the money, donations, sell shares etc. At the end of the day these thingies proof to be pure slideware and the people who invested their money to the thingies, have already lost their savings.

[ronz28]

Could you do an short summary, how does this ECAT cold fusion works. Write it, don't copy from another source. No, DIY.

I'm too lazy to check if the sites you linked are 'The Onion' style of sites. Anyway the discussion sounds more like kiddie talk.

I suppose this is the ECAT thingy.

http://en.wikipedia....nergy_Catalyzer

Andrea Rossi

http://en.wikipedia...._(entrepreneur)

As it would be wonderful to believe that this system would work.. and the functionality could be re-produced independently by various Universities, well .. at this point I would not click the 'Donate' button on the websites.

There has been various self made scientists who are doing very big scientific breakthroughs. They ask for the money, donations, sell shares etc. At the end of the day these thingies proof to be pure slideware and the people who invested their money to the thingies, have already lost their savings.

Right, I wouldn't invest but I will buy the product and lower my electric costs if and when it is sold at my local Home Depot. Meanwhile, I will fight any attempt by my local utility to spend even the equivalent of one baht on Nukes because products like these and solar power obviate the need for world contaminating Nukes.

[Guest]

Could you do an short summary, how does this ECAT cold fusion works. Write it, don't copy from another source. No, DIY.

I'm too lazy to check if the sites you linked are 'The Onion' style of sites. Anyway the discussion sounds more like kiddie talk.

I suppose this is the ECAT thingy.

http://en.wikipedia....nergy_Catalyzer

Andrea Rossi

http://en.wikipedia...._(entrepreneur)

As it would be wonderful to believe that this system would work.. and the functionality could be re-produced independently by various Universities, well .. at this point I would not click the 'Donate' button on the websites.

There has been various self made scientists who are doing very big scientific breakthroughs. They ask for the money, donations, sell shares etc. At the end of the day these thingies proof to be pure slideware and the people who invested their money to the thingies, have already lost their savings.

Right, I wouldn't invest but I will buy the product and lower my electric costs if and when it is sold at my local Home Depot. Meanwhile, I will fight any attempt by my local utility to spend even the equivalent of one baht on Nukes because products like these and solar power obviate the need for world contaminating Nukes.

Browsing the text fast, I did not notice anything what could have caused fusion reaction. Not even what kind of fusion it would be.

I'd say that you might get old before you can find these thingies on your home depot.

Nukes normally refer to nuclear bombs, which is quite not the case with nuclear power.

You are allowed to make an off-grid home and go for full solar power. I have actually wanted to do that for the last 4 years, but unfortunately I'm not an billionaire who wishes to become an millionaire. The solar technology, well the energy storing technology is not there yet.