« Prev Page 15 of 15 13 14 15 364 replies to this topic

[caf]

Soutpeel, on 2009-11-06 22:22:50, said:

caf, on 2009-11-05 16:56:07, said:

Thailand does not require international certification. It is a sovereign state.

To operate a Nuclear commercial nuclear power station, yes it does....if it does not, it will not get the fuel rods for the reactor (s),

Really?

So how did Iran get nuclear?

[thaihome]

caf, on 2009-11-07 00:46:35, said:

Soutpeel, on 2009-11-06 22:22:50, said:

caf, on 2009-11-05 16:56:07, said:

Thailand does not require international certification. It is a sovereign state.

To operate a Nuclear commercial nuclear power station, yes it does....if it does not, it will not get the fuel rods for the reactor (s),

Really?

So how did Iran get nuclear?

Don't keep up much do you?  

The issue with Iran is about their uranium enrichment program, that is making the fuel themselves, so they do not have to buy fuel on the regulated world market.  Iran claims this is for use in power generation, but most of the rest of the world is convinced it for production of  a nuclear device.
The also mine the uranium themselves as well.
TH

[Soutpeel]

thaihome, on 2009-11-07 11:53:22, said:

caf, on 2009-11-07 00:46:35, said:

Soutpeel, on 2009-11-06 22:22:50, said:

caf, on 2009-11-05 16:56:07, said:

Thailand does not require international certification. It is a sovereign state.

To operate a Nuclear commercial nuclear power station, yes it does....if it does not, it will not get the fuel rods for the reactor (s),

Really?

So how did Iran get nuclear?

Don't keep up much do you?  

The issue with Iran is about their uranium enrichment program, that is making the fuel themselves, so they do not have to buy fuel on the regulated world market.  Iran claims this is for use in power generation, but most of the rest of the world is convinced it for production of  a nuclear device.
The also mine the uranium themselves as well.
TH

TH..

Very nicely explained...

[NomadTad]

The idea that nuclear power is cheap is an oxymoron. I hail from the states and we've been going back and forth for years trying to figure out what part of the country will be the lucky recipient of spent fuel rods with a radioactive half life of 20,000 years. Current winner is Iron Mountain near Las Vegas where we will bury tons and tons of this stuff. That should add an even greater 'glow' to the Las Vegas strip (during the day no less). There is nothing cheap about it. But the two real money makers here will be the Thai cement compnaies that have to house all this nonsense and the clean crws that have to maintain it for hundreds of years. Buy Siam Cement as a hedge.

[Tonto21]

If you don’t think nuclear power in Thailand is a good idea, just start spreading the rumour that the west thinks it’s a great idea, just what Thailand needs.......The Thai government will u-turn on the idea so fast, you’ll hear their eye balls snap back into place

[caf]

thaihome, on 2009-11-07 11:53:22, said:

caf, on 2009-11-07 00:46:35, said:

Soutpeel, on 2009-11-06 22:22:50, said:

caf, on 2009-11-05 16:56:07, said:

Thailand does not require international certification. It is a sovereign state.

To operate a Nuclear commercial nuclear power station, yes it does....if it does not, it will not get the fuel rods for the reactor (s),

Really?

So how did Iran get nuclear?

Don't keep up much do you?  

The issue with Iran is about their uranium enrichment program, that is making the fuel themselves, so they do not have to buy fuel on the regulated world market.  Iran claims this is for use in power generation, but most of the rest of the world is convinced it for production of  a nuclear device.
The also mine the uranium themselves as well.
TH

So which countries gave it international certification ?  which was your original point, though you seem to have forgotten you said that.

[brahmburgers]

fullcave, on 2009-10-12 15:58:08, said:

Anybody know where are they building it???

Bkk Post had a small map, a few days ago, which indicated about 20 potential sites.  All but two of the sites were along the coast.  Two were in the middle of Thailand, probably near sizable lakes, as all nuke plants need a large water source.  The map was essentially the same as the map drawn months earlier, in the anti-nuclear E-booklet 'EGAT's Thaitanic'

caf, on 2009-11-06 07:42:53, said:

i do not think there will be any discussion; and any protest will be like pissing in the wind.

Protests can be effective, particularly non-violent ones.  If you need a refresher on that, go back and check out the biographies of Ghandi and M.L.King.

Tonto21, on 2009-11-07 16:40:49, said:

If you don't think nuclear power in Thailand is a good idea, just start spreading the rumour that the west thinks it's a great idea, just what Thailand needs.......The Thai government will u-turn on the idea so fast, you'll hear their eye balls snap back into place

Thais, like Asians in general, have a love hate relationship with 'the west'.   On the one hand, there are those, like Malaysia's former PM Mahathir, who would poke holes at western ways every chance he got, but then he privately sent his kids to western universities.  It's fashionable for Thais to find fault with western ways, yet look around and see them all, particularly college aged youngsters, copying western ways in more ways than you can count.

One of the main reasons Thailand's EGAT wants nuclear power, is it sees Vietnam going nuclear, and hears about Indonesia and Burma have plans to do the same.  Thailand, which fancies itself as the most modern of SE Asian countries, doesn't want to be left out of the nuclear club.  It feels it will lose face.   If EGAT's heads weren't stuck in the sand, they'd see they would 'gain face/prestige' by taking a bold look at viable alternative power sources that are cheaper, both in the near and the far term, are cleaner, and safer.

Concentrated solar is not some pie-in-the-sky concept that may be viable sometime in the future.  It's proven technology.  The proof can be seen in operating sites in Spain, western Europe, the US, Canada, in Australia and other places where innovative thinking is encouraged rather than stifled.

[Deke]

brahmburgers, on 2009-11-07 19:45:11, said:

Concentrated solar is not some pie-in-the-sky concept that may be viable sometime in the future.  It's proven technology.  The proof can be seen in operating sites in Spain, western Europe, the US, Canada, in Australia and other places where innovative thinking is encouraged rather than stifled.

Just because something is technically possible doesn't mean that it is the best solution.

Do you want to be the first person to give up your air conditioner and refrigerator or would you prefer to pay four times the rate for electricity that you do now?  That is what you are implying if you want to rely on solar energy.

If not, look at what makes practical economic sense within realistic environmental guidelines.

Nuclear power has an obvious place within a mix of diversified generation options.

[Soutpeel]

NomadTad, on 2009-11-07 14:51:16, said:

The idea that nuclear power is cheap is an oxymoron. I hail from the states and we've been going back and forth for years trying to figure out what part of the country will be the lucky recipient of spent fuel rods with a radioactive half life of 20,000 years. Current winner is Iron Mountain near Las Vegas where we will bury tons and tons of this stuff. That should add an even greater 'glow' to the Las Vegas strip (during the day no less). There is nothing cheap about it. But the two real money makers here will be the Thai cement compnaies that have to house all this nonsense and the clean crws that have to maintain it for hundreds of years. Buy Siam Cement as a hedge.

Fuel rods will not be stored near Las Vegas.....fuel rods are reprocessed, "the tons and tons of this stuff" you refer to is in fact what is called low level waste. You are correct however in saying they are stored in concrete drums.

[caf]

Thailand does not require international certification. It is a sovereign state.

To operate a Nuclear commercial nuclear power station, yes it does....if it does not, it will not get the fuel rods for the reactor (s),
[/quote]

Really?

So how did Iran get nuclear?
[/quote]


Don't keep up much do you?  

The issue with Iran is about their uranium enrichment program, that is making the fuel themselves, so they do not have to buy fuel on the regulated world market.  Iran claims this is for use in power generation, but most of the rest of the world is convinced it for production of  a nuclear device.
The also mine the uranium themselves as well.
TH
[/quote]

So which countries gave it international certification ?  which was your original point, though you seem to have forgotten you said that. Thailand like Iran will do what they want.  No need for international certification as you put it.
[/quote]

[Soutpeel]

caf, on 2009-11-08 08:34:37, said:

So which countries gave it international certification ?  which was your original point, though you seem to have forgotten you said that. Thailand like Iran will do what they want.  No need for international certification as you put it.

Caf....agreeing with TH on this...you don't have  clue about what you are taking about

No "countries" gave Iran "international certification"..."certification" comes from the IAEC

Iran was orginally granted "certification" from the IAEC for commercial nuclear, ie power stations, they have taken the technology, and the perception is they are trying convert it for military purposes..ie the enrichment program and sanctions. Anyone who knows a little bit about nuclear physics (obviously not you) will know that commercial grades of fuel are not enriched enough to go "bang"

A lot of the world perception as regards Iran's nuclear program is based on propaganda from the Iranians and scare mongering by the US/Israel, As Israel wants to be the only country in the region with a military nuclear program.

Back to the topic at hand, Thailand are signatories to IAEC, therefore Thailand cannot "do what they want" as regards commerical nuclear power, if they want the technology, expertise and assistance to construct anything, they have to play by the rules or they don't get anything...it really is that simple...and before you suggest they will get the technology from China or India or even Russia, all counties mentioned are members of the same body...

[caf]

brahmburgers, on 2009-11-07 19:45:11, said:

fullcave, on 2009-10-12 15:58:08, said:

Anybody know where are they building it???

Bkk Post had a small map, a few days ago, which indicated about 20 potential sites.  All but two of the sites were along the coast.  Two were in the middle of Thailand, probably near sizable lakes, as all nuke plants need a large water source.  The map was essentially the same as the map drawn months earlier, in the anti-nuclear E-booklet 'EGAT's Thaitanic'

caf, on 2009-11-06 07:42:53, said:

i do not think there will be any discussion; and any protest will be like pissing in the wind.

Protests can be effective, particularly non-violent ones.  If you need a refresher on that, go back and check out the biographies of Ghandi and M.L.King.

Tonto21, on 2009-11-07 16:40:49, said:

If you don't think nuclear power in Thailand is a good idea, just start spreading the rumour that the west thinks it's a great idea, just what Thailand needs.......The Thai government will u-turn on the idea so fast, you'll hear their eye balls snap back into place

Thais, like Asians in general, have a love hate relationship with 'the west'.   On the one hand, there are those, like Malaysia's former PM Mahathir, who would poke holes at western ways every chance he got, but then he privately sent his kids to western universities.  It's fashionable for Thais to find fault with western ways, yet look around and see them all, particularly college aged youngsters, copying western ways in more ways than you can count.

One of the main reasons Thailand's EGAT wants nuclear power, is it sees Vietnam going nuclear, and hears about Indonesia and Burma have plans to do the same.  Thailand, which fancies itself as the most modern of SE Asian countries, doesn't want to be left out of the nuclear club.  It feels it will lose face.   If EGAT's heads weren't stuck in the sand, they'd see they would 'gain face/prestige' by taking a bold look at viable alternative power sources that are cheaper, both in the near and the far term, are cleaner, and safer.

Concentrated solar is not some pie-in-the-sky concept that may be viable sometime in the future.  It's proven technology.  The proof can be seen in operating sites in Spain, western Europe, the US, Canada, in Australia and other places where innovative thinking is encouraged rather than stifled.

I don't need a refresher course, thanks.  Protesting today in Thailand is not at all relevant to protesting in different places and different times. I agree youtr point about Gandi and King but it would not work here.

[caf]

Soutpeel, on 2009-11-08 14:13:32, said:

caf, on 2009-11-08 08:34:37, said:

So which countries gave it international certification ?  which was your original point, though you seem to have forgotten you said that. Thailand like Iran will do what they want.  No need for international certification as you put it.

Caf....agreeing with TH on this...you don't have  clue about what you are taking about

No "countries" gave Iran "international certification"..."certification" comes from the IAEC

Iran was orginally granted "certification" from the IAEC for commercial nuclear, ie power stations, they have taken the technology, and the perception is they are trying convert it for military purposes..ie the enrichment program and sanctions. Anyone who knows a little bit about nuclear physics (obviously not you) will know that commercial grades of fuel are not enriched enough to go "bang"

A lot of the world perception as regards Iran's nuclear program is based on propaganda from the Iranians and scare mongering by the US/Israel, As Israel wants to be the only country in the region with a military nuclear program.

Back to the topic at hand, Thailand are signatories to IAEC, therefore Thailand cannot "do what they want" as regards commerical nuclear power, if they want the technology, expertise and assistance to construct anything, they have to play by the rules or they don't get anything...it really is that simple...and before you suggest they will get the technology from China or India or even Russia, all counties mentioned are members of the same body...

Being abusive actually weakens any credibility you think you have.

Iran and Thailand will do what they want - irrespective of western rules.

If you can't be civil in a forum, move your ignorant attitude to another forum.

[NomadTad]

Soutpeel, on 2009-11-07 06:09:57, said:

NomadTad, on 2009-11-07 14:51:16, said:

The idea that nuclear power is cheap is an oxymoron. I hail from the states and we've been going back and forth for years trying to figure out what part of the country will be the lucky recipient of spent fuel rods with a radioactive half life of 20,000 years. Current winner is Iron Mountain near Las Vegas where we will bury tons and tons of this stuff. That should add an even greater 'glow' to the Las Vegas strip (during the day no less). There is nothing cheap about it. But the two real money makers here will be the Thai cement compnaies that have to house all this nonsense and the clean crws that have to maintain it for hundreds of years. Buy Siam Cement as a hedge.

Fuel rods will not be stored near Las Vegas.....fuel rods are reprocessed, "the tons and tons of this stuff" you refer to is in fact what is called low level waste. You are correct however in saying they are stored in concrete drums.

You are part right as fuel rods are reprocessed. But high-level, not just low level, nuclear waste at Yucca (Iron) Mountain.  More importantly low-level nuclear waste -- contaminated resins, filters, wood, paper, plastics, pipes, structural steel and pressure vessels that can be hazardous for up to 500 years. Not counting hospitals and the like, there are 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the states... that is ton after ton of low level hazardous stuff.

[PeaceKay]

Don't know if anyone knows it or not, but just recently former President George W Bush visited the Prime Minister of India.  He is loved by the Indian people for allowing them to advance their nuclear base.  (Assumedly energy-wise that is).