Nuclear Power for Thailand

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby drake on Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:37 am

I regard nuclear energy in the same vein, as leaks are inevitable, and when they happen either today or 30 years from now, are catastrophic.

A statement that we, as a society, shouldn't engage in certain activities because "I know something really bad is going to happen some day for sure " is hardly an informed opinion based on rational analysis of empirical data.

Where are the numbers to support your conjecture that all, or even a significant many for that matter, nuclear reactors are doomed to a catastrophic end ?

I would not want anyone to believe what I say without checking for themselves. So for any that are interested, just google Nuclear Leaks, you will likely learn that I have not parroted words for anti-nukes kooks.


As we are discussing nuclear power generation in specific and NOT radioactive material/leak in general, as such,
you are rudely wasting people's time telling them to go down the google rabbit hole to look for data that does not exist.

Out of thousands of reactors ever built/operated world wide there were less than ten reactor accidents involving release of radioactive material in to the environment to date, less that 100 dead in total.
One in BKK has been operating for over 30 years with no incident.

Don't be telling anyone to go gooling for the list of reactors for the exact number either.
Small research reactors aren't listed, neither are the ones belonging to the military, nor the RTG/thermopiles the Russians scattered all over creation during the USSR years.

Also when a government finds itself short of money as all governments to from time to time, the over sight of industry becomes painfully weak.

Uh, right, so now that we are in a lull after a MAJOR global financial FUBAR that puts most government of the world deep in debts, how many nuclear accident caused by lax in regulation due to financial constraints can you point me to ?
For that matter, how many in history ?

So, Chicken Little, why so down on radiation ?
It's all around us all the time and thousands of radioactive particles hit our body every minute of our lives.
On an average day, at an average location on earth, one can expect to see 10-100 gamma particle hits per square centimeter per minute, easily tripling that number during a solar max period or at high altitude (fly much?).

Having said that, how many gamma particle does it take to trigger a genetic mutation in a cell theoretically ?
One.
User avatar
drake
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby ipsut on Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:49 am

Drake: Leaks are not inevitable you said. Hmm how about Japans Earth Quake? If it is designed and maintained by human beings, mistakes will be made. Its inevitable, sorry. Money prevented them from building the reactor higher up from the beach than they did. Money is almost always the weak link. The Japanese are limiting nuclear power, Taiwan is trying to as well. I hope Thailand follows suit.
User avatar
ipsut
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby drake on Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:23 am

ipsut wrote:Drake: Leaks are not inevitable you said. Hmm how about Japans Earth Quake? If it is designed and maintained by human beings, mistakes will be made. Its inevitable, sorry. Money prevented them from building the reactor higher up from the beach than they did. Money is almost always the weak link. The Japanese are limiting nuclear power, Taiwan is trying to as well. I hope Thailand follows suit.

Since you seem to really want to play with a sleeping dog, I must point out that it's view of nuclear power is mostly from engineering and technology standpoint because it's the only thing that is measurable and evaluable with some degree of certainty.

As for the uncertainty factor, to err is human.
As much as anyone want, we can not avoid "human error" but most good engineers do try to put in as much "safety margin" as their bosses and the beans counters will allow - just for one of those days when everything goes South and the monkeys pushed all the wrong buttons.
Planes do fall from the sky and automobile accidents do happen - more frequent and deadly than nuclear leaks but yet humans continue to use those technologies because their benefits out weight their risks.
Taking educated risks, that's what living an adult life is about isn't it ?
If anyone want to completely avoid human mistakes, this is the wrong planet.
Here, the issue is the same with radiation and nuclear energy.
Man CAN NOT live without being exposed to Nuclear power or radiation,
perhaps some want to exclude the use of man made technology but there is no way avoiding the natural ones.
For that matter, life wouldn't exist without Nuclear power and radiations in the first place.
Just look up on any clear day or night and remind self that them out there are billions of ginormous nuclear reactors burning and spewing out countless amount of radiation non stop. Some fine day when one of the little twinkly light turned itself in to a Cosmic Gamma Ray Burst source and point it's beam this way, life on earth will be all dead in an instant, except for perhaps cockroaches. And if all of the beams should missed earth, in about five billion years the Sun will go red giant and completely (re)absorbed the Earth - providing same result but now the survivability of cockroaches will be extremely poor.
Now THAT's inevitable.
Should we fret about all that ?
Create a committee to investigate and mitigate perhaps ?
Or just simply continue to live as the Hindus do,
continue to live life as it is knowing that Reality and Existence will end when the dreamer wakes.
But I digressed.

Fukushima reactors are 40+ years old first gen BWR design whose technology and they were scheduled for EOL (end of life) this year but someone, unfortunately, decided to extend their working permit for another 10 years.
Nature revoked the permit.
Apparently, the cause of the melt down was steam leak due to substandard pipe welds that blew when the quake hit and causing the turbine cooling pumps and emergency steam powered pumps to fail even before they were partially flooded.
The design didn't need electricity to run the emergency pumps and would have withstood the flood IF the welds had held.
Yet, as some of the constructions were clearly below specifications the reactors lived for their entire designed life expectancy and survived through all of the previous quakes of 'expected' intensity - a testament to the engineering and robustness of the system itself.
So far, there are less dead/injured/loss from this Nuclear event than the Tsunami itself or the Tsunami of 2004 but yet all the irrational anti Nukers are so focoused on it. Why ?
At the end, this will proved to be just a fraction of the Chernobyl incident and mostly forgotten.

Opponents of nuclear power always point to historical negatives, as insignificant as they are, rarely if ever admitting to what else are available or what good had come from Nuclear Science and Technologies so far.
Today, other Nuclear technologies beyond BWR or Uranium Cycle fuels are available. Nobody talks about them much.
From what I gathers the anti-nuke don't want them because their singular reason for existence will be mitigated and the pro-nuke don't want them because it's a competing technology and there is less money in it.

As for decisions rashly made by politicians at the behest of Green Loons the world over to abandon Nuclear Power,
some things are better left to adults and we will sort that all out in due time.

:cheers:

FYR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_an ... _accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors
User avatar
drake
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby dutchboy on Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:44 am

For those opposed and in favour of Nuclear Power Plants (the conventional ones that is), check this out:

http://www.iter.org/

Nuclear fusion, using water (actually some atoms inside water) as fuel and producing a minimal amount of non-lethal radiation.

The solution for the future (if they can make it work). Test sites are being built in Japan and France.

It's a multi-nation initiative, and the sole goal of the ITER project is to find a way to generate Nuclear fusion energy safely and cost effective.

Keep your fingers crossed.
User avatar
dutchboy
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby chimp on Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:22 am

The same old arguments will continue for years, but the fact is Thailand will need new and safest nuclear power units since Thailand doesn't have abandon energy sources. Nuclear power can be operated safely and cheaply when properly comply with international standards and safety routines.
User avatar
chimp
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:39 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby ipsut on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:33 pm

chimp wrote:The same old arguments will continue for years, but the fact is Thailand will need new and safest nuclear power Nuclear power can be operated safely and cheaply when properly comply with international standards and safety routines.


Yes the same old arguments will continue as they will never be fully answered. Yes calculated risks are a fact of daily human life, however the consequenceses of nuclear mistakes are at present to large to allow. Japan is limiting its future exposure, and Taiwan has been considering if continuing with their latest reactor is something that should be done, ( of course they will as too much money has been spent already and really thats all its about ). I'd prefer limits to growth rather than the unlimited growth Thailand and most other countries seem to enjoy.
User avatar
ipsut
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby hawaiiman on Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:24 pm

The world's only relatively fail safe nuclear reactors were either designed for or copied from the designes for the usa navy. The 2 big problems with fission reactors are the extremely long half life of some of the by products of fission, particularly in reactors using plutonium. To err is human, it's true, but if the oops lasts for centuries, that's something to be avoided. The other side is the long half life of the contaminated building and spent fuel, and other materials that must be buried, or whatever.It's a big mess which just keeps on getting bigger, and passes the mess on to future generations. Not smart.
Energy needs are out of hand because of overpopulation, unrealistic usage, and the growth is good mantra. Energy solutions are complex. There isn't any one size fits all. Conservation, improved infrastructure and a mix of sustainable means of production will solve the problem. Too bad people prefer sound bites to real thought.
User avatar
hawaiiman
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:11 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby flippogirl on Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:17 am

Isn't Nuclear (the conventional one) energy great?

If a "normal" power plant has a problem, the effects are limited and short lived.

If a Nuclear Power plant has a problem, you get this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/world ... hpt=ias_c2

Makes you think if it is all worth of it, or you should just switch off the light and airconditioning.
User avatar
flippogirl
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:47 pm

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby hawaiiman on Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:47 pm

Leaks happen. Ok, so what? I would think that deaths would be a more significant concern. EVERY conventional form of energy is far more deadly. Check the number of deaths from accidents with: coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear is insignificant by comparison. No one has proved (yes I mean scientific proof)that small amounts of radiation are harmful. If release of radiation was the standard to ban a technology, then coal and gas would be quickly shut down as they release vast amounts of radiation, compared to nukes, due to the radon and other naturally occurring elements they contain.
Don't get me wrong, I oppose commercial uses of fission as they are now designed, but the facts are the facts.
"Japanese milk tests positive for radiation!!" the headline screams. So what? Milk contains phosphorous which is naturally radioactive. ALL milk tests positive for radiation.
Hysteria is hysteria.
LFTR nuke plants can offer a tested technology to fulfill the promise of nuclear power. Look it up.
User avatar
hawaiiman
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:11 am

Re: Nuclear Power for Thailand

Postby drake on Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:51 am

hawaiiman wrote:LFTR nuke plants can offer a tested technology to fulfill the promise of nuclear power. Look it up.


Yeah, I'm a fan of Thorium tech myself but the issue of Nuclear Energy has been sooo hugely muddled by the NGOs of the world and most people, who don't bother to educate themselves on the topic or lack the ability/inclination thereof, had been so conditioned to have a negative gut reaction upon exposure to the word 'Nuclear' and/or 'Radiation' you can't even get a word in edgewise.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, burnt corpses, walking dead, Nuclear, bad.....
Radiation exposure, skin boils off, hair falls out, die painful death, Nuclear, bad, bad....
Three Miles Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, radiation leaks, contaminations, evacuations, Nuclear, bad, bad, bad....
LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa.....

Most anti-Nuke Thais believe that Thailand should 'remain' Nuke Free and no Nuclear reactor should ever be built in Thailand for any reason - as if the one that'd been running in Chatujak since 1962 doesn't exist.

We may have to wait until China and India get their Thorium reactors commercialized before it will catch on.

Ironically, Thailand has it's own Thorium deposits.... :lol:
User avatar
drake
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 7:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to Thai environment, energy, safety issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests