Jump to content
BANGKOK 25 May 2019 07:50

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Building a hydro dam upstream has very little, if any, effect on a dam downstream. The volume of water is exactly the same, perhaps a little cooler.

In theory, yes. In practice, the dam often result in less water flow downstream as more is used for irrigation. Basically, the dam downstream can only release water if the dam upstream decides to release it. If China decides not to release any water during one dry year. Then where is Thailand going to get it's electricity from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many valid points have een raised on both sides. However I feel we all missed the real point - why are we using so much electricity and what can we do to be more efficient in the future. For example, the use of petroleum to power cars. In the 50s and 60s cars were "gas guzzlers" but by 2010 the fuel consumption of cars was much much more efficient. Currently electrical appliances are rated on their energy efficiency, but there maybe much more savings to be made. Many small savings applied across the board could make a big difference. I'm not saying we need to go back to the stone-age, but that we need to consider "cause and effect" more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thailand will become a nuclear super power after the next military coup you can almost see what the Junta would want from this. And stick even more medals on some obscure generals chest. Bad idea even to be thinking of a nuclear plant in Thailand and some of the untested uncertified planes accidently crash into it another chance then for Thailand to bury its head in the sand and blame someone else., when things go wrong.

Well, it does explain Thailand's recent obsession in improving relations with North Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple 5 minutes video on Thorium Reactors .... Well worth anyone's time.

This is the most amazing 5 minutes! Worth every second!

Just watched the full nearly two hours video. Well worth the time. Highly recommended.
I have bot yet had time to watch the full video but note the LFTR Is not the ADSR technology which can be made smaller and cheaper with even more benefits such as the ability to retulise and burn easte from existing Uranium / Plutonium reactors

Thorium does produce waste but it decays to current background radiation levels in about 300 years compared ti the thousands of years for Uranium.

Anybody really interested I suggest they buy the kindle book "Thorium the 8th Element" from Amazon. It will cost you about 50 Baht. Ot Pm me and I'll email you a copy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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......!

I agree with you 100%. But the average people will believe what superiors are telling them. All that crap of cheap electricity and other BS. And if they buy from Chinese, they might get a good business. Maybe rice in return for the next 1000 years? It would be so easy to use solar energy. Start with public buildings and then all new buildings. Of course no coal but you see even Ozzies ar blind and ignorant and try to destroy Barrier Reef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a travesty to allow in Thailand in so many ways! Mistakes swept under the rug from the start, a large part of the area that get's lit up, hidden from the public but exposed by the internet. A very sad and serious problem for many generations to live with. Sorry, I don't have faith in such systems working here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Denmark has just produced more renewable energy than it actually needs. What about technology such as Tesla batteries

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/07/teslas-batteries-could-be-bigger-business-than-electric-cars-elon-musk

There is no need for nuclear which, knowing this country, will take decades to come into operation whereas solar, wind & wave power can be harnessed in a relatively short time. You might want to look at the huge solar farms in Spain where they are now growing food on what was once arid land. Surely these are better options than nuclear.

Can you tell me when Denmark generated more renewable energy than it needs and for how long? Someone needs to tell the Danes as 3/4 of their power comes from coal and imported nuclear. Even the Danish govt green energy website only says they generate average 28%. But then facebook memes are believed by 99.9%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Denmark has just produced more renewable energy than it actually needs. What about technology such as Tesla batteries

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/07/teslas-batteries-could-be-bigger-business-than-electric-cars-elon-musk

There is no need for nuclear which, knowing this country, will take decades to come into operation whereas solar, wind & wave power can be harnessed in a relatively short time. You might want to look at the huge solar farms in Spain where they are now growing food on what was once arid land. Surely these are better options than nuclear.

Can you tell me when Denmark generated more renewable energy than it needs and for how long? Someone needs to tell the Danes as 3/4 of their power comes from coal and imported nuclear. Even the Danish govt green energy website only says they generate average 28%. But then facebook memes are believed by 99.9%

You could easily have found this yourself http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm-power-exceed-electricity-demand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the problem with nuclear power?All they have to do is let it be run by westerners ,,,,100%,,,

My personal problem with it is that it is not safe no matter who is running it, who built it or where it is located.

I can sympathise with your concerns.

But IMHO they are unfounded generally speaking.

I worked with a few Swiss guys many years ago.

Most of their power(in Switzerland) came from a combination of nuke and hydro power.

The nuclear power stations are built below massive dams.

At night time..the lowest electrical demand period..they would use massive pumps to pump water from reservoirs into the dams using the electricity from the nukes.

In the morning when the power usage peaked they would generate using hydro power from the water in the dams . Same in the evenings.

That way they kept the nukes on base load and humming along quite nicely.

Ever heard of Swiss nuclear incident?

Many of the US and I suspect the old USSR navy aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered. Don't hear too much about incidents with them.

Yes, the Swiss Lucens reactor had a meltdown in 1969 causing a massive leak of radiation. Workers had to seal off the cavern in which the reactor was located to the outside world for several years and a very costly clean up was required..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucens_reactor

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.

I don't think that's correct. Maybe you were thinking of radiotherapy with isotopes etc

X-ray machines work by firing electrons in a vacuum from a cathode to a tungsten anode. The anode then releases high energy X-ray photons which are channelled though a lead cylinder and series of filters and focussed on the part of the patient of interest.

There are no nuclear isotopes in an x-ray machine and they don't require anything from a nuclear reactor. Indeed, the first x-ray machine was built in 1896, some 50 years before the first nuclear reactors were built.

Finally, the big hoo-hah about thorium being the next big thing in nuclear power to replace uranium.

We've heard all that before back in the 1950s with uranium. We were promised, abundant, safe, clean energy "too cheap to meter". We were told "Cars would be powered by a pellet of uranium, the size of a grain of rice".

Then we had Windscale, Three mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, all accidents we were told by the nuclear industry would never happen.

And when you look at the cost of building the reactor, dismantling them at the end of their life and storing the waste for thousands of years, the claims about cheap energy fall flat. Indeed, when the UK privatised the nuclear industry in the 1990s I recall they had to ring fence off the decommissioning costs for it to go ahead.

The UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority set up to deliver the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy came up with an estimated decommissioning cost of about £72 billion in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decommissioning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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......!

I agree with you 100%. But the average people will believe what superiors are telling them. All that crap of cheap electricity and other BS. And if they buy from Chinese, they might get a good business. Maybe rice in return for the next 1000 years? It would be so easy to use solar energy. Start with public buildings and then all new buildings. Of course no coal but you see even Ozzies ar blind and ignorant and try to destroy Barrier Reef.

"...try to destroy Barrier Reef." In what way are they premeditating the destruction of the Barrier Reef? I would have thought that most Australians would want to protect the Barrier Reef to the best of their abilities? But hey, I was born in another country, so what would I know?

Always remember, what nature gives, nature can take away coffee1.gif Mankind has only a little influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the problem with nuclear power?All they have to do is let it be run by westerners ,,,,100%,,,

My personal problem with it is that it is not safe no matter who is running it, who built it or where it is located.

I can sympathise with your concerns.

But IMHO they are unfounded generally speaking.

I worked with a few Swiss guys many years ago.

Most of their power(in Switzerland) came from a combination of nuke and hydro power.

The nuclear power stations are built below massive dams.

At night time..the lowest electrical demand period..they would use massive pumps to pump water from reservoirs into the dams using the electricity from the nukes.

In the morning when the power usage peaked they would generate using hydro power from the water in the dams . Same in the evenings.

That way they kept the nukes on base load and humming along quite nicely.

Ever heard of Swiss nuclear incident?

Many of the US and I suspect the old USSR navy aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear powered. Don't hear too much about incidents with them.

Yes, the Swiss Lucens reactor had a meltdown in 1969 causing a massive leak of radiation. Workers had to seal off the cavern in which the reactor was located to the outside world for several years and a very costly clean up was required..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucens_reactor

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.

I don't think that's correct. Maybe you were thinking of radiotherapy with isotopes etc

X-ray machines work by firing electrons in a vacuum from a cathode to a tungsten anode. The anode then releases high energy X-ray photons which are channelled though a lead cylinder and series of filters and focussed on the part of the patient of interest.

There are no nuclear isotopes in an x-ray machine and they don't require anything from a nuclear reactor. Indeed, the first x-ray machine was built in 1896, some 50 years before the first nuclear reactors were built.

Finally, the big hoo-hah about thorium being the next big thing in nuclear power to replace uranium.

We've heard all that before back in the 1950s with uranium. We were promised, abundant, safe, clean energy "too cheap to meter". We were told "Cars would be powered by a pellet of uranium, the size of a grain of rice".

Then we had Windscale, Three mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, all accidents we were told by the nuclear industry would never happen.

And when you look at the cost of building the reactor, dismantling them at the end of their life and storing the waste for thousands of years, the claims about cheap energy fall flat. Indeed, when the UK privatised the nuclear industry in the 1990s I recall they had to ring fence off the decommissioning costs for it to go ahead.

The UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority set up to deliver the decommissioning and clean-up of the UKs civil nuclear legacy came up with an estimated decommissioning cost of about £72 billion in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decommissioning

Good comments. The clean-up of the Windscale fire site is still ongoing. It was so bad they even changed its name to Sellafield. The waste there from the Windscale fire and the nuclear waste accumulated since, will take many decades to "clean-up", with some estimates saying well into the next century. That's even without considering the decommissioning of THORP, and what to do with all the accumulated Plutonium ? Latest cost estimate for Sellafield alone is £53 billion, but it keeps rising every year. Finally where do you store all the clean-up waste ? Underground storage has been investigated, but West Cumbria is right on a seismic fault-line and the rock below is heavily fractured. The best place for long-term storage in the UK is the Thames Valley as that has clay to nearly 1000 metres depth, but not a cat in hells chance of it being built there !!! Additionally there's the decommissioning of all the old nuclear subs and that's not included in the NDAs budget.

However, to satisfy the pro nuclear guys, the coast of West Cumbria has now been severely blighted by hundreds of huge wind-turbines off-shore and with many on the Lake District fells sprouting the ugly monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...