Jump to content
BANGKOK

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

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 coffee1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...