Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 April 2019 05:44

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

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.

The functioning nuclear reactor at Atom for Peace is a small boiling water reactor.....used for reaearch only.....hardly worth a mention, as these quite common in developing countries.

What's your point? It's the same thing. Maintaining a chain reaction.

If anything, the commercial nuclear power plant is the easier to operate since it's sole purpose is to generate heat. The research reactor is used for a variety of other purposes such as producing isotopes for the medical and scientific purposes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think My Ben Rai attitude is going to cut it when it comes to anything High tech in Thailand. IE Submarines, Nuculear missles<Nuclear anything, Basically anything that is not made from dirt...........

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The functioning nuclear reactor at Atom for Peace is a small boiling water reactor.....used for reaearch only.....hardly worth a mention, as these quite common in developing countries.

What's your point? It's the same thing. Maintaining a chain reaction.

If anything, the commercial nuclear power plant is the easier to operate since it's sole purpose is to generate heat. The research reactor is used for a variety of other purposes such as producing isotopes for the medical and scientific purposes

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You sir, have very little knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have them visit Chernoybl. Just back from a 2 day tour. What an incredible disaster. Belaurs is still paying some 6% of their GDP to deal with this issue. And will continue to do so for many years to come. Nobody knows the full scope of that disaser, but it was massive.

Thailand should lead the way on greener technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All complete tosh, of course, and, with Thailand's track record of "safety" (not to mention the security aspect as well), no-one in their right minds would ever countenance such a potential disaster waiting to happen.

This regularly recurring theme is solely about Thailand wanting to "play with the big boys"..............

If Thailand wants to play with the big boys, they cannot p($$ like puppies. Build a condo instead and call it a power station. That way you can waste money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new hub is coming, the hub of nuclear disasters. The TAT will say that the reactor meltdown hasn't discouraged tourists the numbers are 50% up. The ministry for agriculture denies rumours that Thai rice is radioactive. The ban on fishing in Thai waters has nothing to do with fears of uncontrolled discharge of radioactive waste say's PM, it is to preserve fish stocks. The EU recommends that fruit from Thailand be washed, peeled and then burnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://ostc.thaiembdc.org/13en/thailand-institute-of-nuclear-technology-public-organization-tint/

"So don't let the door hit your dumbass on the way out." The information about Chatuchak is informative, but is overshadowed by the juvenile and crude comment. Better luck next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shirtless, just curious, when you last at Fukushima?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they ever get around to building a Nuclear Power Plant here in Thailand,

I will be on the first plane out.with someone like Somchai Simpson at the

controls. Lets see how they get on with the Fast Trains first !.

regards Worgeordie

Yes back home , where the reactors are 35 + years old (and older) , some with cracks in reactor containment vessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm a fan of Nuclear power.

There is no reason why Thailand can't have excellent, efficient, and carbon neutral nuclear power. Modern designs of pebble bed reactors can't explode via runaway reaction (there are still conventional explosion risks). Thorium is a wonderful energy source - a meter sized ball of thorium can power Bangkok for a year.

The international community would have to oversee the entire process. That is, unless the reactors come from India or China, which would introduce some unknown factors.

Look at the science of it, and not the hyperbole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's for research only and is very, very small. But yes, it's a reactor. Thailand is not listed as a country with nuclear power capabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#List_of_nuclear_reactors_by_country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they ever get around to building a Nuclear Power Plant here in Thailand,

I will be on the first plane out.with someone like Somchai Simpson at the

controls. Lets see how they get on with the Fast Trains first !.

regards Worgeordie

Yes back home , where the reactors are 35 + years old (and older) , some with cracks in reactor containment vessel.

good point, but here the cracks would be built in from day one. To be fair, i don't think that even a Thai government would trust a Thai firm or sub contractor with the building of a reactor, nor, i think, would key positions involving safety be given to Thai's, for all their posturing they know their own short comings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...