Public acceptance in nuclear power is key to building such plants in Thailand

[Red Queen]

Lets try wind powered turbines first, take baby steps.

It is amazing how far behind almost (almost) everyone in this alleged discussion is.

Wind powered turbines have been producing electricity into the national grid for years. Chatuchak's functioning, accident-free nuke reactor effectively powers most of the x-ray machines in this and neighbouring countries. Bangkok's nuke plant ALSO produces the isotopes for probably the most modern and efficient food irradiation plant in Asia, which is why so much Thai food is certified for export.

And yes to some ignoramus up there ^^ rice is irradiated and is, indeed "nuked" before it leaves for most markets, including the US. The government doesn't deny it - the government brags about subjecting rice to radiation, along with tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables. It's almost impossible that you haven't eaten some of that fine radiation yourself since so much of it gets on the local market, by design.

With current knowledge and possible public/private spending, enough electricity to meet demand will not, CAN not be produced from the standard, unimaginative methods so tiringly brought up over and over - wind, solar, waves.... It can NOT meet demand for generations, and that's if there are technological inventions and development we currently know nothing about. We may be able to adapt, but not (say) in 20 years.

In that 20 years, nuclear COULD be set up to be sustainable for many, many further generations. I doubt strongly it will be, but the thing is I *know* wind/solar/wave won't be. And I know you're as eager to charge your phone from a plug-in charger as I am, and as eager to watch a ball game on your electric TV set as I am and as joyful to log on to Thai Visa on your new-fangled electric computer as I am.

That's why the marvelous, developed carbon plants will be used into the foreseeable future. They are all that actually work, now or in the near (50-year) future, except for nuclear which most people view as most people here view - with a combination of ignorance and uninformed opposition - which will drive actual events anyhow. I've got well past hating nuclear ignorance, it's just a fact and it will drive government policy for now, for which I'll shrug and breathe that lovely coastal coal-flecked air from the power plant along with y'all.

Tell me more about the BKK reactor powering X-Ray machines in TL and neighbouring countries . Because I don't believe you.

Tell me more about the irradiation plants; do they use Cobalt or Caesium isotopes? Or something else? Because I don't believe you again. In any event, do you really not see a difference between the risks present in producing radiation sources for food plants and uranium based power-stations? Really?

Does Chernobyl not ring a bell somewhere in your mind? Fukushima? Three-mile island?

The point is that the education system in Thailand produces neither well-educated people nor competent people. This is indisputable. And yet you seem to be saying that they're OK with X-Ray machines so that's good enough. You cannot be serious.

Another irrelevant rant as per usual.

Chernobyl etc do ring a bell...of course they do.

Do not the deaths from car accidents prior to the introduction of seat belts and air bags also ring a bell.

Of course they do.

Thailand produces neither well-educated nor competent people. This is indisputable.

Really??.....who do you think runs the oil refineries and power plants in Thailand?

You seem to be very similar to a previous poster who simply cannot accept that the cold war is over and now needs to move on to another cause to satisfy whatever is lacking in your sad life.

If ytou're going to engage in ad-hominems lad, try to be more articulate.

[Red Queen]

Hmmm. You aren't really doing your case for supporting the level of Thai education and competence any favours if you don't know the difference between an amp and a volt. Apart from that, your rant was... interesting .----Red queen

Your quite correct Red Queen----- I don't know the difference between the 2......& I am not even khon Thai--maybe I should just stick to the shoe tying analogy, I do get a little depressed the way the colonials tend to view the "Natives" especially on this forum.....in the short time I have lived here (16 years) I have been around so many competent Thai people, in different professions. Even down to the girl in the bar who left school at 12 & speaks 4-5 languages--mainly to the farang who after 20 years here still finds it difficult to order a beer in Thai.

I find this country such a nice place to reside in----I just get blown away by the people that get up every morning, just looking to post something negative about it.

Well, it was obvious you don't know the difference and yes, perhaps you should stick to tying shoe-laces rather than posting BS. a good man knows his limitations and works within them

[Asiantravel]

Shirtless, just curious, when you last at Fukushima?

Shirtless or anyone else doesnt need to visit ..............not recommended

You only need to listen to people like Pippa Jones speaking with Australian ocean-going yachtsman Ivan MacFadyen in May............

Host: What about sea birds and all of that?

Macfadyen: As you get closer up to Japan they’re all gone, they’re not there anymore… Everything’s all gone, it’s just like sailing in a dead sea… there’s nothing…

Host: After Japan you headed [to] America, did you see any impact from…Fukushima?

Macfadyen: It’s dead. That’s where I coined the phrase, ‘The ocean’s broken’ – because, for thousands of miles, there’s nothing. No birds, no fish, no sharks, no dolphins, no turtles… they’re not there… all those beautiful creatures, they’re just all gone… We’d seen a whale, round about probably 1,000 miles [off] Japan, just lying on the surface with like a big tumor… just behind its head… it looked like it was going to die… it didn’t try to get away, it didn’t flap its tail, it didn’t do anything… It had such a profound effect on me… Just talking about it makes me feel like I want to cry.

[Red Queen]

Tell me more about the BKK reactor powering X-Ray machines in TL and neighbouring countries . Because I don't believe you.

Entirely your choice. But where do you think the isotopes come from, if not from that nuclear reactor? I choose not to tell you more because the information is so easily available and then you don't have to trust me about it at all. The isotopes come from somewhere. Find out where.

Tell me more about the irradiation plants; do they use Cobalt or Caesium isotopes? Or something else? Because I don't believe you again. In any event, do you really not see a difference between the risks present in producing radiation sources for food plants and uranium based power-stations? Really?

Same answer here. Your belief has nothing to do with it and does not affect the quite modern food irradiation plant. You can CHOOSE not to believe, there's not a thing I can — or want to — do about that. I personally don't *believe" anything at all on this subject but I do know some facts, and know how to find more.

Here's something I do believe, though. I believe you also know how. If you actually do not know, tell me and then I'll show you - but of course you won't trust me because you BELIEVE I made a false statement. Why not prove I did? Or didn't?

Tell me more about the irradiation plants; do they use Cobalt or Caesium isotopes? Or something else? Because I don't believe you again. In any event, do you really not see a difference between the risks present in producing radiation sources for food plants and uranium based power-stations? Really?

Does Chernobyl not ring a bell somewhere in your mind? Fukushima? Three-mile island?

The point is that the education system in Thailand produces neither well-educated people nor competent people. This is indisputable. And yet you seem to be saying that they're OK with X-Ray machines so that's good enough. You cannot be serious.

Nuclear power has clear dangers, risks.... and others that are not entirely clear such as terrorist attacks. Yes, it has dangers. So does every form of producing energy. Coal in Krabi has ENORMOUS risks, much greater than nuclear. The risk of terrorism or similar is very real there, and in Songkhla. But that's just a one-off comment, not all that germane. Yes, of course you are right - nuclear power has risks, but it also instills massive, irrational fears in people that aren't justified but are as real as your strange beliefs. We're not Vulcans, but we can be MORE logical than 80% of this thread.

As I say, I don't think nuclear stands a chance in Thailand or in most places. I think it should, but it probably won't. Even though more people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three-Mile Island.

X-rays are not generated with isotopes so what you claimed about Thailand supplying X-ray fuel for surrounding countries seems unlikely. Food irradiation in Thailand is done using X-ray accelerators not istopes as far as I'm aware so it is just as unlikely. And the reactor at NINT is a 53-year-old 1.3mw rector that would struggle to power 80 houses.

Apart from that, you were right on the money. No more from me on this though, my BS detection machine is going into overdrive. But be my guest, have the last word, which I'm sure will be ad-hominem because that would fit.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Red Queen

[Mudcrab]

If ytou're going to engage in ad-hominems lad, try to be more articulate.

If you are going to be critical...learn to spell.

My apologies for hitting a nerve...lad.

[steven23]

Please..please Thailand...start first with renewable energy (wind, solar, water, waste, lors... )

[Red Queen]

If ytou're going to engage in ad-hominems lad, try to be more articulate.

If you are going to be critical...learn to spell.

My apologies for hitting a nerve...lad.

Touche.

Whoever you think I am, I'm not. Try to control your automatic responses, they're probably wrong.

[Mudcrab]

X-rays are not generated with isotopes so what you claimed about Thailand supplying X-ray fuel for surrounding countries seems unlikely. Food irradiation in Thailand is done using X-ray accelerators not istopes as far as I'm aware so it is just as unlikely. And the reactor at NINT is a 53-year-old 1.3mw rector that would struggle to power 80 houses.

Apart from that, you were right on the money. No more from me on this though, my BS detection machine is going into overdrive. But be my guest, have the last word, which I'm sure will be ad-hominem because that would fit.

Oh dear.

A 1.3 milliwatt rector? Or was that reactor?

Like a AAA battery perhaps.

Glad there were no "istopes" involved

Love it....from the same person who vilified another poster who didn't know the difference between an Amp and a Volt.

Love it!

Lad

[rickb]

Those that refer to Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, etc. are all referring to ancient nuclear plant designs. Actually, Three Mile Island was a success story of safety systems that protected the plant from a major disaster. Fukushima would not have been a problem if the original designer of the plant was required to consider tsunami effects on the plant. Unfortunately, that was not one of the design requirements. Nuclear power plants are a very viable solution to power demands in any country. However, the country that intends to build one must comply with all of the safety requirements. There is sufficient knowledge existing today to make a very safe nuclear plant. If Thailand commits to complying with all of these safety standards, then there should be no reason to be concerned. Those people that work with EGAT are not the same people that manage pedestrian crossing systems, as mentioned in response #6 above. I have worked with EGAT in the past and found their people to be very capable engineers. I would put my faith and trust in these people. Those that think EGAT is not capable of managing a nuclear power plant (or even a coal-fired power plant, for that matter) probably have no knowledge of the skill levels of those working for EGAT now. I fully support nuclear power in Thailand's future. I also fully support renewable engery, like wind and solar, but these are very costly options at this time and need to be phased in with other options as well. EGAT is smart to be thinking about fuel diversification as their present power generation scheme relies too heavily on gas and purchased power from neighboring countries.

[Red Queen]

X-rays are not generated with isotopes so what you claimed about Thailand supplying X-ray fuel for surrounding countries seems unlikely. Food irradiation in Thailand is done using X-ray accelerators not istopes as far as I'm aware so it is just as unlikely. And the reactor at NINT is a 53-year-old 1.3mw rector that would struggle to power 80 houses.

Apart from that, you were right on the money. No more from me on this though, my BS detection machine is going into overdrive. But be my guest, have the last word, which I'm sure will be ad-hominem because that would fit.

Oh dear.

A 1.3 milliwatt rector? Or was that reactor?

Like a AAA battery perhaps.

Glad there were no "istopes" involved

Love it....from the same person who vilified another poster who didn't know the difference between an Amp and a Volt.

Love it!

Lad

Well. my post clearly says mw (that's megawatt to the poorly educated, milliwatt is something different, which you ought to know if you got past 3rd-grade). Perhaps I should have written MW or Mw for the intellectually-challenged, but really, would anyone actually build a 1.3 milliwatt nuclear reactor? I thought it was obvious but perhaps not to all. My apologies for over-estimating you.

It's like teaching quantum mechanics to my dog sometimes, or a mud crab, they seem to be paying attention but they're only wondering what time dinner is.

As for spalling; don't let one 'touche' go to your head lad, my keyboard is Thai (so of course it doesn't work well) and I don't usually use a spall-chacker, perhaps I should.

None of which alters the apparent fact that the poster I was actually replying to was either lying or is just as challenged - but then at least he didn't think there was a 1.3mW nuclear reactor in Thailand.

[Halion]

Definitely the duck that thought it was a swan

[Alain Donat]

If you want some info regarding the thai R&D nuclear power plant, you can visit T.I.N.T website

http://www.tint.or.th/index.php/en/thai-research-reactor-2

[pendingo]

The day Thailand operates a nuclear reactor will mark my last day in the Kingdom.

A country which to date cannot operate a functioning, safe, pedestrian crossing system within its urban areas is not one yet ready for the storage of radioactive material.

Well goodbye then because Thailand already has a functioning nuclear reactor in Chatuchak. It was comissioned in 1961 and has been operating from 1962 until today.

So don't let the door hit your dumbass on the way out.

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere Seekingasylum. Chatuchak is a radioactive waste management center with a small research reactor that is in no way connected to the national grid. See http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1997/sess13/13-33.htm and also a report on energy consumption in Thailand for 2013 (latest I could find) which outlines the current status of Thailand's nuclear power programme which as you will see is still at the discussion stage https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014/2014-03-17-03-21-WS-INIG/DAY3/COUNTRY/Thailand_v1.pdf.

Edited July 30, 2015 by pendingo

[NCC1701A]

"a Honda Click with a sidecar flipped over today carrying nuclear waste material near Bangkok... The driver ran away but was soon turned himself in. When asked why he was using a scooter to carry the nuclear waste material he said his uncles Toyota pickup truck would not start."

[gk10002000]

Sorry but I just don't see the Thai infrastructure and mentality supporting the dedication and attention to detail and incident reporting that a nuclear power plant requires.

[BuaBS]

I already wrote it twice on TV : the solution for Thailands growing energy needs is Russian gas. In about 3 years the Russia-China gas pipeline should be finished. This gas will reach SW China too , and from there is is only a short distance to Chiang Rai. It's cheap , clean , good for Thailand-China-Russia even Myanmar.

And for peak power (aircons) , more solar power on roofs. No need to play around with nukes.

Edited July 30, 2015 by BuaBS

[pendingo]

The day Thailand operates a nuclear reactor will mark my last day in the Kingdom.

A country which to date cannot operate a functioning, safe, pedestrian crossing system within its urban areas is not one yet ready for the storage of radioactive material.

Well goodbye then because Thailand already has a functioning nuclear reactor in Chatuchak. It was comissioned in 1961 and has been operating from 1962 until today.

So don't let the door hit your dumbass on the way out.

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere Seekingasylum. Chatuchak is a radioactive waste management center with a small research reactor that is in no way connected to the national grid. See http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1997/sess13/13-33.htm and also a report on energy consumption in Thailand for 2013 (latest I could find) which outlines the current status of Thailand's nuclear power programme which as you will see is still at the discussion stage https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014/2014-03-17-03-21-WS-INIG/DAY3/COUNTRY/Thailand_v1.pdf.

Sorry Seekingasylum I meant Time Traveller in my reply.

[a99az]

Why can't power be taken from the large number of hot springs that are dotted all over Thailand? I would have thought that such plants would be very safe and very green.

[AleG]

Get these so called geniuses to visit Fukushima and see how thats going 4 years and still not under control .

Fukishima had old design BWR (Boiling Water Reactors) which nobody builds any more. Nuclear generation has come a long way since Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima.

Newer reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000® PWR are very safe to run. Compared to the death rate in coal mining, never mind CO2 production, nuclear is going to be a mainstay in the 'mix' of power generation for some time.

People need to educate themselves about it, instead of the knee jerk reactions I see on this forum.

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants

I always thought the argument against nuclear power of "Chernobyl!!!" (yes, that's about the extent of the argument) is like arguing against cars because cars built in 50s Soviet Russia weren't safe.*

Well, there's been a bit of development since then in both areas.

Personally I'm waiting for India to fire up the Thorium reactor they are working on, that technology has enormous potential.

* To extend the analogy the Chernobyl accident would had been a 50s Soviet car that some bright spark decided to make a test of what would happen if they cut the brake lines and rolled it down a steep hill.

[a99az]

Just seen that Thailand does have a small number of geothermal generators. So why not invest in more of these?

[plachon]

More wasted oxygen......whilst a couple major players...Japan & Germany have decided to stop or reduce their dependence on nuclear energy, Thailand would be indebted for decades if only 1 power reactor was constructed.....and that after 10-20 years planning and developement.

Whether Thailand would be permitted to purchase the source is a major factor also.

The Philipines have a reactor, albeit rather old technology nowadays, but have been unable to purchase fuel for obvious reasons.

Renewable energy is the way of the future.....definately not coal, not nuclear......!

Renewables are fine except when it's night time or when there's no wind. Oh and yeah, they'll need to make 3/4ths of the land area of the country available for solar and wind farms as well. So dream on !

Please read the story carefully. Thailand IMPORTS almost half of it's electricity! That presents a very big risk to the country. In the case of disruption of those supplies.

Nuclear is a sensible option. There is no reason for people to fear nuclear power plants. More people die each day from coal fired power plant emissions than have died from nuclear power plants in their entire history.

The Japanese accident is a perfect example. They have about 50 reactors.....49 of them were fine after the earthquake. Yet the one that was damaged was built in a tsunami danger zone that never should have been built there to begin with. That is, it was not cause by a design fault, but by the wrong location.

Technology no provides much safer reactors than the type built 30 to 40 years ago

China has several commercial nuclear reactors operating, and there safety standards are no better than thailands.

You highlight the following, as if "importing" electricity was some unforeseen accident or anomaly of power planning: Thailand IMPORTS almost half of it's electricity! That presents a very big risk to the country. In the case of disruption of those supplies.

What you fail to realise is that it is the very same people planning to build nuclear plants were the ones who decided to allow Thailand to become heavily dependent on imports of Lao hydropower. And they are currently in the process of building quite a few more dams in Laos, including the massive Xayaburi dam, all with the intention of export to Thailand. So like it or not, Thailand is stuck in an increasing pattern of reliance on Laos for its power, no matter what you or other pro-nuclear power advocates think.

The underlying issues though is not whether one source is inherently better or safer than another, but the piss-poor planning and wastage of opportunity to move to a safe, modern, reliable, sustainable and renewable form of power generation that has marked EGAT and the cronies at the top of the Energy Ministry and in successive governments for years. Nuclear power is no more the answer than Lao hydropower, as both are inherently unsustainable and sunset technologies where most social and environmental costs are externalised or passed on to future generations to deal with, although at least the former has the advantage of being relatively less biodiversity, land and water hungry than the latter, which will prove an expensive mistake for the citizens of Laos in the long term.

[fred Kubasa]

Probaly any inital installation will be done by outside people & be proper but considering Thailamd's inabulity to do

required maintenance, on anything, ( see : who forgot to install batteries in offshore Phuket early tsunami warning system ),

it could result in Thailand becoming a mushroom cloud.

[Time Traveller]

The day Thailand operates a nuclear reactor will mark my last day in the Kingdom.

A country which to date cannot operate a functioning, safe, pedestrian crossing system within its urban areas is not one yet ready for the storage of radioactive material.

Well goodbye then because Thailand already has a functioning nuclear reactor in Chatuchak. It was comissioned in 1961 and has been operating from 1962 until today.

So don't let the door hit your dumbass on the way out.

I think you've got your wires crossed somewhere Seekingasylum. Chatuchak is a radioactive waste management center with a small research reactor that is in no way connected to the national grid. See http://www.wmsym.org/archives/1997/sess13/13-33.htm and also a report on energy consumption in Thailand for 2013 (latest I could find) which outlines the current status of Thailand's nuclear power programme which as you will see is still at the discussion stage https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014/2014-03-17-03-21-WS-INIG/DAY3/COUNTRY/Thailand_v1.pdf.

Sorry Seekingasylum I meant Time Traveller in my reply.

where in my post did I say it was connected to the grid? He was commenting about nuclear reactors, not nuclear power plants.

My reply was to highlight riduculous fears people have over nuclear power technology. The same process has been operating without a problem in Thailand for 50 years. Why not make use of this potential?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Time Traveller

[Time Traveller]

More wasted oxygen......whilst a couple major players...Japan & Germany have decided to stop or reduce their dependence on nuclear energy, Thailand would be indebted for decades if only 1 power reactor was constructed.....and that after 10-20 years planning and developement.

Whether Thailand would be permitted to purchase the source is a major factor also.

The Philipines have a reactor, albeit rather old technology nowadays, but have been unable to purchase fuel for obvious reasons.

Renewable energy is the way of the future.....definately not coal, not nuclear......!

Renewables are fine except when it's night time or when there's no wind. Oh and yeah, they'll need to make 3/4ths of the land area of the country available for solar and wind farms as well. So dream on !

Please read the story carefully. Thailand IMPORTS almost half of it's electricity! That presents a very big risk to the country. In the case of disruption of those supplies.

Nuclear is a sensible option. There is no reason for people to fear nuclear power plants. More people die each day from coal fired power plant emissions than have died from nuclear power plants in their entire history.

The Japanese accident is a perfect example. They have about 50 reactors.....49 of them were fine after the earthquake. Yet the one that was damaged was built in a tsunami danger zone that never should have been built there to begin with. That is, it was not cause by a design fault, but by the wrong location.

Technology no provides much safer reactors than the type built 30 to 40 years ago

China has several commercial nuclear reactors operating, and there safety standards are no better than thailands.

You highlight the following, as if "importing" electricity was some unforeseen accident or anomaly of power planning: Thailand IMPORTS almost half of it's electricity! That presents a very big risk to the country. In the case of disruption of those supplies.

What you fail to realise is that it is the very same people planning to build nuclear plants were the ones who decided to allow Thailand to become heavily dependent on imports of Lao hydropower. And they are currently in the process of building quite a few more dams in Laos, including the massive Xayaburi dam, all with the intention of export to Thailand. So like it or not, Thailand is stuck in an increasing pattern of reliance on Laos for its power, no matter what you or other pro-nuclear power advocates think.

The underlying issues though is not whether one source is inherently better or safer than another, but the piss-poor planning and wastage of opportunity to move to a safe, modern, reliable, sustainable and renewable form of power generation that has marked EGAT and the cronies at the top of the Energy Ministry and in successive governments for years. Nuclear power is no more the answer than Lao hydropower, as both are inherently unsustainable and sunset technologies where most social and environmental costs are externalised or passed on to future generations to deal with, although at least the former has the advantage of being relatively less biodiversity, land and water hungry than the latter, which will prove an expensive mistake for the citizens of Laos in the long term.

Well that's the trade off, they just better hope that China don't decide to compete with Thailand in buying electricity from Laos or to build more dams upstream and slowing water flow downstream into the Laos hydroelectic dams.

A battle for water will really get ugly.

[Ulic]

I will take it that these are just words and nothing will come of it. ............Thank God .

[lvr181]

Thinking of the unfortunate happenings around 3 nuclear meltdowns - lets ban motor vehicles. Thousands more are killed by them than nuclear disasters. Guns kill many people also. And what about knives? Animals kill people. Should we eliminate them? And taking it to the ridiculously extreme - people kill people!

I raced cars and motorcycles for many years (as have done thousands of others) and having had a couple of accidents with both I survived fully intact. Some may question my mentality since (hah hah) but I undertook all the safety precautions available and survived. There are risks to living. Learn to recognise, control and minimise the risks and this applies to nuclear power plants also

[PatOngo]

In the future I can imagine atomic warheads attached to high tech Yasothon bamboo rockets.

[727Sky]

A simple 5 minutes video on Thorium Reactors .... Well worth anyone's time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

[tony5150]

Nuclear power is our only answer. As long as it's a breeder reactor all will be fine. Solar and wind just won't cut it for world demands. Fossil fuels are damaging the planet and causing global warming. We need to go bio fuels and or electric cars. And end the opec cartel. Put the Arab nations back in the desert where they belong.

[quandow]

They can't manage a COUNTRY let alone a nuclear power plant.