Nuclear Power Plant Issue Raised By Cm Uni Professor

[Jai Dee]

“Nuclear Power Plant” Issue Raised

A university recently floated the idea of producing “Nuclear Power Plant” as an alternative to the shortages of electricity, and power supply.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nikorn Mangkorntong (นิกร มังกรทอง), Associate Dean Faculty of Science, Chiangmai University, spoke during the seminar concerning producing electricity by nuclear power plants. Dr Nikorn said that Thailand should find alternative energy, adding that the best alternative energy is “Solar Cell”. He, however, said that “Solar Cell” does not work as its expenses are too high.

Dr Nikorn further explained that countries in the western hemisphere are resorting to the study of “Nuclear Power Plant”. However, he warned that if the plants are not carefully managed, it may lead to repercussions such as damages caused to the communities.

Electricity can be produced by two types of reactors, namely Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion. He said that none of today's technology can allow Nuclear Fusion to be produced.

Therefore, the only reactor used for producing electricity from a Nuclear Power Plant is the Nuclear Fission, the process of splitting atoms.

The radiation created by Nuclear Power Plant does not harm the environment.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 24 July 2006

[Florin]

Wow, that is a truly horrendous article...language translation issues aside, who wrote the content?? It looks like the work of a mediocre 4th grade student.

Also, isn't the rest of the world turning AWAY from nuclear reactors these days?

[Jai Dee]

Wow, that is a truly horrendous article...language translation issues aside, who wrote the content??

The Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department.

[h90]

Wow, that is a truly horrendous article...language translation issues aside, who wrote the content?? It looks like the work of a mediocre 4th grade student.

Also, isn't the rest of the world turning AWAY from nuclear reactors these days?

It sounds like parents tell a 5 year old child about it.

else you are wrong since maybe 6-12 month all the countries changed their mind and want to get back to nuclear power. latest I heard was pudel blair who told that, but there were several others as well.

[Pink Mist]

get with the program team nuclear is the way to go, it's a long process to build a reactor though, so start now.

[stumonster]

get with the program team nuclear is the way to go, it's a long process to build a reactor though, so start now.

beyond the FUD , Nuke plants are the future for most countries - just don't let the accountants oversee the engineers.

[Ricardo]

Without wishing to be too negative, would anyone on this forum really want to live next-doors to a Thai nuclear power-plant, built to the same high standards as the new airport ?

[Tywais]

Actually not a new concept for Thailand by any means (original source from pdf file, reason for quoting here):

"History

In early 1970s when nuclear power was favoured by most industrialized countries, other

developing nations were also persuaded to join the trend. Thailand was no exception. The Country's

electricity demand was around 2,000 MW and growing rapidly at more than 10% per year. A study by a reputed international consultant indicated that a 600 MW nuclear power plant was feasible. At that time, the introduction of a nuclear power plant seemed to be inevitable and a first attempt to develope human resources began. Chulalongkorn University (CU) was asked to train very well qualified engineers from the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand ( EGAT).

The training program began as a cooperative program between EGAT, CU and the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace (OAEP). The training focused on basic nuclear reactor theory with practical sessions using the nuclear research reactor at the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace (OAEP). About four batches of engineers were trained. In 1975 when the Nuclear Power Project seemed imminent, CU established, with the help of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) expert, a Master of Engineering and a Graduate Diploma Programs in Nuclear Technology to take care of the nuclear formal training.

The M. Eng. Program is a common 2-year master degree curriculum while the Graduate Diploma is a 1-year training program for specialists. Applicants with Bachelor's degrees in Engineering like electrical, mechanical, chemical, etc. and in Science like physics, chemistry, even biology and pharmacy could be accepted. The programs were quite flexible and two streams were offered, i.e., energy option and applications of nuclear techniques and isotopes in industry and other scientific disciplines. Research topics were mostly in the following areas :

- nuclear reactor calculation

(1) Dean of Faculty of Engineering

(2) Head of the Department of Nuclear Technology

- nuclear reactor fuel cycles

- nuclear electronics and instrumentation

- radiation safety and shielding

- radiation measurements and applications

- radioisotope production and utilization.

After the discovery of extensive gas fields in the Gulf of Thailand and of abundant deposits of lignite in the Northern Province of Lampang, EGAT has naturally opted for the indigenous fossil fuels and has postponed the nuclear option until now. In relation to this development the energy option of the two programs became relatively inactive but the other options still attracted a reasonable number of students, thus allowing the energy option to be maintain at a minimum level.

At present, the nuclear option is once again considered as an alternative to imported coal and gas because by the year 2010 the indigenous energy sources will be all committed and if no new deposits of fossil fuels are found then energy has to be imported, either as electricity from neighbouring countries or as solid or liquid fuels. When this second attempt at nuclear power was considered in 1993, CU has taken the initiative of developing a comprehensive Human Resources Development program in nuclear technology."

Source: http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/

Edited July 24, 2006 by tywais

[chownah]

Nuclear Fusion research keeps moving ahead. You could read all about it at the ITER web site:

http://www.iter.org/

But....don't hold your breath...the earliest they are projecting for a commercial reactor is something like 30 years away still.

I've been following fusion research for a long long time now and while it is taking alot longer than most would have predicted, it has been making steady progress and the progress that is being made is making people more confident that it will eventually work...but they are outfront about the fact that there are not guarantees....but so far there are no difficulties seen that can not in principle be overcome....its exciting to know that I may live to see it happen.

Do you find it surprising that an organic farmer would be making this post...it sort of surprised me.....one reason is that with the fusion reactor there is no possibility of a melt down like with a fision reactor and the amount of radioactive left-overs is reduced to a much much more manageable level and none of the radioactive left-overs are suitable for making a nuclear bomb....HOORAY...Iran could have one...no problem!!!!

[katana]

Thailand has actually had a nuclear research reactor on-line since 1962. Its located in Vibhavadi Rangsit Road, near the airport.

Thailand was the first country in SEA to go nuclear.

http://www.oaep.go.th/english/trr1m1.html

[Khun Jean]

It is such a pity that the old excuse 'it is to expensive' is used when the subject of solar energie is raised.

Start mass producing solar cells and it will be very very cheap.

Just to compare:

If a 15" TFT flatscreen monitor can be sold for 2000 baht why is it that a solar cell of the same size is 10.000 baht. A TFT is much more difficult to produce with a lot more failures.

I guess the economies are not ready for alternative energie as they are built around the use of fossil fuels.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Khun Jean

[Guest endure]

Laurence Godfrey anyone?

[Scott]

I think nuclear is the way to go. I think this would be a good project to put in the new city next to the airport!

[ovenman]

Laurence Godfrey anyone?

Yes, this thread definitely brought him to mind.

[h90]

Without wishing to be too negative, would anyone on this forum really want to live next-doors to a Thai nuclear power-plant, built to the same high standards as the new airport ?

Made from thai engineers accourding to Thai standards (ground rods, for what should that be???).

At least it would need so long till they can start it that I am already 20 years dead....

[PeaceBlondie]

Speaking of twenty years, teacher friends of mine were anti-nuclear activists in Texas around 1984. They toured a newly built nuclear power plant and asked the useful life of the plant, or of the fuel rods. Answer: 20 years, presumably referring to the fuel. Power plants are now as old as 40 years, which suggests that the fuel cells have been removed twice.

To me, that's the real problem, nuclear waste. Thailand is proud of its historical past, but is it best for Thailand to accumulate nuclear waste which will be 'hot' for many tens of thousands of years?

And is the statement in the OP, about nuclear energy being environmentally harmless, a big lie? There's the risk of contamination during operation, and there's the waste problem.

[Plus]

It's a tricky one, I don't see any easy way to Thailand - solar cells is still Sci-fi, nuclear - who would trust Thais with something so dangerous? Hydro-power needs to be imported from Burma and Laos, coal, gas and oil cannot be relied on in the future.

They should go nuke, I think, even it's way over their heads as accidents here are unavoidable. Let's build Udon Chernobyl.

[Khun Jean]

Chernobyl is a thing of the past. Do a search about pebble reactors.

I disagree solar cells are Sci-Fi. They are used more and more. Streetlight use them to charge at daytime and use the stored energy at night. I think making a solar cell in the shape of a roof tile would be great. Especially in Thailand where the angle of sunshine is very good it seems the way to go. Rural areas will be the first to benefit from it. I read somehwere it is even subsidised now in Thailand.

A nuclear plant is more necessary for providing energy to a large city. Current designs are much safer than a lot of the old plants that are in use around the world. If something bad would happen with a nuclear plant, god forbid, it probably will be in a country that uses nuclear energy a long time.

[h90]

Chernobyl is a thing of the past. Do a search about pebble reactors.

I disagree solar cells are Sci-Fi. They are used more and more. Streetlight use them to charge at daytime and use the stored energy at night. I think making a solar cell in the shape of a roof tile would be great. Especially in Thailand where the angle of sunshine is very good it seems the way to go. Rural areas will be the first to benefit from it. I read somehwere it is even subsidised now in Thailand.

A nuclear plant is more necessary for providing energy to a large city. Current designs are much safer than a lot of the old plants that are in use around the world. If something bad would happen with a nuclear plant, god forbid, it probably will be in a country that uses nuclear energy a long time.

you never saw thai engineers working. Whats that?? The backup system, lets sell it for 1500 Baht and buy a bottle black label for that money, it works well without the backup system.

Anyway on Monday we shall check the software, instead we can drink the black label.

At the years service we must change that O-Ring and it costs 2000 Baht.

Hmm it is black, so it is rubber, Somchai sells that size for 2 Baht, lets call him he should make an offer for 1900 and we share profit.....

I am supplier for technical products and belive me it is working like that......

So Cherno-bury is possible...

[Khun Jean]

A humerous reply, it will never happen that way of course.

Nuclear energy is something far more serious than installing a grounding rod by the local energy specialist aka supermarket employee.

It will probably will be build by foreigners and they will do a large part of the maintenance too. There are very smart people in Thailand you know.

Cherno-bury is out of the question.

[Plus]

Ah, the grounding, Thai electricians don't know what it's for, or fuse boxes. All you need is a bigger, thicker wire, maybe a nail.

It won't be operated by foreigners, just like Skytrain and MRT.

Years ago there was a funny quote in the papers - one Thai scientist argued against micro-biological research here: "You can't give Thais something dangerous, germs will escape and kill lots of people".

[kmart]

get with the program team nuclear is the way to go, it's a long process to build a reactor though, so start now.

beyond the FUD , Nuke plants are the future for most countries - just don't let the accountants oversee the engineers.

I hope never in Thailand. Unless the local mindset changes significantly.

Most big industrial projects here are flawed at the planning stage already. Add to that collusion on bidding; inferior materials tacitly approved; nepotism; and blatant disregard for safety standards, and you have a real Cherno Buri waiting to happen.

[h90]

A humerous reply, it will never happen that way of course.

Nuclear energy is something far more serious than installing a grounding rod by the local energy specialist aka supermarket employee.

It will probably will be build by foreigners and they will do a large part of the maintenance too. There are very smart people in Thailand you know.

Cherno-bury is out of the question.

yes but only till the next crazy politican does not get enough coffee money, get angry and start one of these well known "Thais can do it better, we don't need these farangs" speeches.

You saw it on the subway and it crashed.

You will see it on the new airport.

Maybe for nuclear they can get some cheap, but good russians or indians or pakistani, the two last one know how to handle nuclear and how to handle monkeys, so they would be perfect and cheap...

[Old Man River]

Should a large Thai nuclear power plant be on the agenda, I think we all would have felt a whole lot more comfortable about this had the country not recently lost one of its experts in this field in Dr. Sippondha Ketudat (PHD, Harvard, Nuclear Physics). He was a good man, who gave a lot to his country and will be missed.

[Plus]

Yestereday there was another report in the papers, yet another scientist spoke in favor of nuclear plants.

He said there were only two disasters in the world so far - in the US and Russia.

Makes you feel safe, that scientist, as if he knows about the disasters and knows what caused them and so it will be taken care of.

Except that Chernobyl is in Ukraine (which was part of the USSR, not Russia).

You can't trust these people with paper clips, let alone nuclear plants.

In the end Thailand will go nuclear, and there will be some accidents, a trade off, nothing really major. I'm not going to live long enough to see it happen anyway.

[Payboy]

Anyone remember the Cobalt 60 pencils that ended up in the scrap yard after they were decommissioned from medical use?

[Ijustwannateach]

This is a terrible idea for Thailand. Even in countries like the U.S. and Japan there is no clear solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste (the first isotopes have half-lifes of something like 4.5 billion years, and then they decay to other radioactive substances which can still be dangerous for another billion years or so) and both countries have had some pretty close calls with nuclear accidents.

There is NO room for error, waste, or graft in building a nuclear power facility, especially if it is designed to be large enough to power cities. I'd say Thailand would need some serious foreign investment to start, and a much more technocratic upper class to make it a long term success. Nuclear meltdowns don't give a *#$% about status.

"Steven"

[Martin]

There are two problems with nuclear fission:

Number One: Is it morally justifiable to produce waste that will be lethal for thousands of years?

And if you say that vitrification will develop so well, and at affordable expense, that future generations could not be endangered by the waste, will you please wait till that is proved.

Number Two: Producing the materials to build a nuclear power station, never mind mining the uranium and refining it and enhancing it, uses a huge amount of energy, and creates a lot of pollution. Can we see full figures for the cost of this, at the prices of the years in the future when it will all be being done (not today's lower prices)?

I was a nuclear reactor controller for eleven years from 1966 to 1977, and we whiled away a lot of boring hours when the reactors were producing flat out on automatic control in winter by calculating things like Number Two above. We always ended up with the firm opinion that we were the only generation of nuclear reactor controllers that there ever would be. Our reactors were as big a financial disaster as Concorde (though similarly hi-tech glamorous) and there was no way that we could work out that future generations of reactor would be any less loss-makers.

Politicians and academics latch on to nuclear. It is a nice one for them as they can appear knowledgeable and will be well retired long before events prove them wrong.

Pontificating about what is really needed---which is to get the consumers to be a lot more thrifty and frugal and reduce their demand for electricity---is not so glamorous an occupation. (And what would be the point of getting 'Professor' or 'Prime Minister' in front of your name if there wasn't glamour?)

Edited August 1, 2006 by Martin

[Plus]

Unfortunately I think Thais will go nuclear sooner or later.

[PeaceBlondie]

Perhaps the decison process would go like this: (silent thoughts in italic):

Thai physicist: Sir, we have the technology and the expertise. All of us got our Ph.D.'s by cheating

Politician: Okay, how much will it cost? Will this make me a billionaire in baht, or in dollars?

Engineer: well, to produce XXX kilowatt hours, each would cost 35 million baht to build the plant.That's the least wild guess we could come up with in 18 hours

Economist: The construction cost and purchase of the fuel would cost 9 trillion baht.Probably more like 19 trillion, but they don't want to hear that YET, mai yet

Politician: Okay, we build it for 9 trillion. I wonder how much 10% of 9 trillion baht is.....

Opposition party: But gentlemen, what about decomssioning costs? What does engineering and finance say about that?Maybe our party will be in power by then

LONG PAUSE.

Engineer: They didn't give us time to figure that out...what's the half-life of this isotope? Is it million or billion?

Economist: Nobody knows; maybe the net worth of the USA.

(the engineer and economist quickly confer, twenty seconds)

Economist: Gentlemen, mai bpen rai.

Politician: Okay, we build it. We announce it will be operational in.....90 days.

TRUTH: a lawyer friend of mine attended a nuclear waste disposal planning conference. They had to guess what symbols to put on the storage cannisters that would make sense over the next 9 billion years.