They will start by emphasizing Thailand’s future needs for electricity. That in itself is not a contentious issue – though EGAT and others are addressing it from just one angle. For starters, EGAT’s projected numbers are not realistic.
|
Witoon Permpongsacharoen, who is secretary-general of the Foundation for Ecological Recovery asserts the following; “Thailand does not need nuclear power. The purported "need" is based on an unrealistically high power demand projection and an unjustifiably small amount of real alternatives allowed in the PDP 2007 (the official 15-year power development plan). Last year, actual energy consumption grew 3.3% compared to the projection (by EGAT) of 6.14%. The government's forecast of future power demand is more than double the past 15-year average of only 914 megawatts per year.”
|
In contrast, Thailand’s nuclear proponents paint a picture of ever-increasing demand for electricity. Besides the fact that nobody knows for sure what the future will bring, there are some related issues that beg to be mentioned.
First off, there’s rarely a mention of conservation, except for the offhand mention of greenhouse emission related to global warming. That’s what’s called a ‘canard’ or a ‘red herring.’ Although nuclear plants don’t emit carbon when powered up, they do have a carbon footprint. Just one of many ways that nuclear plants contribute nightily to CO2 emissions;
Mining requires very heavy machinery. Just one mine in Australia released the following numbers regarding the amount of diesel it will need to get through the top layer of rock – in order to access the ore it seeks: Roxby Downs estimates it will take one million liters of diesel per day for four years – that’s nearly 1.5 billion liters of fossil fuel just to get through the top layer of rubble. After that, they’ll need billions of additional liters of fuel to actually mine and process the ore they’re aiming for. So, next time of someone tells you that ‘nuclear emits no CO2, or has ‘no carbon footprint,’ you can look them in the eye and tell them ‘that’s hogwash!’ ….and tell them why. [thanks to Roger Beaumont of the Nation Newspaper for passing that info along].
And to say nuclear doesn’t emit carbon, while obfuscating the more dire issue of radioactive waste, is like telling your child to not spill her soup on the floor, while you’re draining the used oil for your car on the same floor.
EGAT in particular, and nuclear boosters in general don’t seem to realize that the #1 best way to deal with energy shortages in the future, is to encourage Thais to conserve energy. Perhaps it’s understandable that EGAT skirts that issue, as it’s in the business of selling the stuff, so why should it encourage people to buy less of what it sells? A similar sort of outlook might explain why President Bush was never a keen enthusiast for alternative power options in America. After all, for generations, his family had become rich selling Texan oil.
* * * * * * *
6. Some Nuke Related History
Does the name Hans Blix ring a bell? He was the Swede who was appointed by the UN to head a committee to look for ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq, prior to America’s second Gulf War. Well, roughly ten years before, Mr. Blix, as director of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), came to Thailand. His mission at that time was to convince the Thai government that nuclear energy was a good way to meet its future power needs. He told his eager listeners, “In the longer term it is inevitable and indispensable to use nuclear power and therefore any developing countries with fairly high levels of development, like Thailand, must begin to prepare for a nuclear period."
EGAT heads and the Thai generals in attendance appeared to agree heartily with his recommendation. Soon after, EGAT formed its first ‘feasibility study’ which lasted three years and came forth with a projected cost of $1,430 per kilowatt. [Note: current estimates for large-scale solar generated electricity are as low as 1 baht per Kw – but more details of that later].
The UN’s IAEA’s stated purpose is to ensure safe use of nuclear – especially as regards possible weapons off-shoots. The IAEA was not designed to act as a booster for nuclear – particularly in lieu of the fact that there is no UN agency that promotes alternative energy options.
Soon after Blix’s promotion and EGAT’s per/Kw numbers, (produced by a Japanese consulting firm with ties to nuclear contractors), the World Bank issued a paper which strongly advised Thailand against building any nuclear plants. The bank's report concluded that relying on natural gas, even if it had to be imported in liquefied form from Indonesia or the Persian Gulf, would be cheaper for Thailand than nuclear energy. It also estimates that nuclear power will cost Thailand $3,000 or more per kilowatt - 200 percent higher than the EGAT figure of a few months earlier – and many times higher than estimates for solar costs.
|
The following article is taken from a May 2008 syndicated
newsletter written
|
|
Kevin Bullis in the MIT Technology Review predicts that the silicon shortage that has kept solar energy expensive is ending, paving the way to widespread expansion in PV system usage worldwide.
Mr. Bullis goes on to say; “Solar electricity is about to get much cheaper, industry analysts predict, because a shortage of the silicon used in solar panels is almost over. That could lead to a sharp drop in prices over the next decade, making solar electricity comparable in price to power from the grid.”
Solarbuzz CEO Mike Bradford; says; “Crystalline silicon has long been the staple of the semiconductor industry - but it's also the active material in the most common types of solar panels. While only 15,000 tons of silicon were available for use in solar cells in 2005, by 2010, this number could grow to 123,000 tons, "What that means, practically, is that solar module prices are going to come down dramatically in the next three to five years,"
Bradford goes on to predict that over the next five years, production of solar panels will double each year. In a recent presentation, he said that prices for solar panels could drop by 50 percent or more – between 2007 to 2010.
In areas that get a lot of sun, that will translate to solar electricity costs of under 10 cents (3 baht) per kilowatt hour which will make large scale solar affordable.” Bradford concludes by saying; "You can't even begin to imagine the transformation that that's going to create."
|
During the latter part of the 20th century, no new nuclear power plants were ordered in North America. Similarly, Canada’s Ontario Hydro cancelled twenty planned nuclear plants. What did they know that Thailand didn’t know? Perhaps their policies had something to do with North Americans have had decades more experience than Thailand – in the nuclear power plant arena.
It’s no wonder that nuclear power plant manufacturers, like General Electric, became concerned. With the help of the IAEA and people like Blix, nuclear industry focused much of their marketing might on prestige-seeking Asia. Despite the marketing pressure from big players in the industry, there are currently less reactors in operation today than five years prior. There are also less plants under construction that ten years ago.
The U.S., which was the pioneer in nuclear power generation, has not had an order for a new nuclear plant in the past 20 years. Why is that so? It’s not for lack of development funds. The reason is the American people, who have been directly acquainted with nuclear longer than the citizens of most other countries, have realized that the drawbacks of nuclear power outweigh its benefits. Indeed, the U.S. is one of the few places in the world where functioning nuclear plants have been decommissioned.
Bikini Atoll, a remote little island in the Pacific Ocean, was used by the U.S. military about 60 years ago, to test atomic weapons. The handful of residents were moved off the island beforehand. They have no possibility of returning to their home island any time soon, as the radioactivity remains too intense.
* * * * * * *
7. Peaceful Ways to Assert The Will of the People
There are peaceful ways citizens of some countries can over-ride the wishes of their governments and large corporations. In other words, if a large and determined group of people decide to enact a policy shift, they can do it. They do it via a combination of free press, peaceful demonstrations, and the ballot box.
Such avenues that enable the will of the people to override government policy, or to challenge big business don’t exist in most countries. For example, in China, it’s currently near impossible for a popular peaceful movement to affect change. Same for Burma, North Korea, parts of the former Soviet Union, and most of Africa. Thankfully, a country like Thailand does not have as much entrenched control apparatus as China, and the other countries mentioned in the prior sentence. Yet true democratic avenues to change still have a ways to go in Thailand, as it remains a stratified society.
However, Asia governments’ attraction to nuclear has not abated. Below are listed several reasons why nuclear continues to appeal to Asian governments;
>>> Nuclear has a prestigious aura about it. It’s not necessarily joining ‘The Nuclear Club’ in terms of the mightiest weapons, but it’s a ‘Nuclear Club‘ nevertheless – and gives the appearance of modernity and of being technically adept .
>>> With a few exceptions (Japan, Singapore come to mind), Asian safety standards are not as strict as Europe or the U.S – thereby making big construction jobs easier – by having comparatively lax standards.
>>> Organized protest movements are more difficult to get going – and are often brutally squashed at their inception. Besides some smaller countries, where protests are nearly impossible (Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma, Laos), even a large country like China suppresses protests with an iron fist. Partly for that reason, China has more nuclear plants on order than any other country – 30 at last count.
>>> Most Asians have grown up accustomed to having directives given from a patriarchal top echelon. Non-conformity is frowned-upon. In other words; the government decides the flavor of the month, and its citizens better accept it, or suffer consequences.
* * * * * * *
8. Yellowcake is not a Kid’s Treat
Yellowcake is refined uranium (U3O8) that is the fuel for a nuclear reactor. Most of the world’s uranium is mined in one of five countries: Australia, Canada, Namibia, South Africa, and Kazakhstan. Which ones will Thailand purchase from?
Mined uranium comes in several forms, or isotopes. For starting a nuclear chain reaction in a reactor, the only useful isotope is uranium-235, which accounts for just 7 out of 1000 atoms in the mined product. The other isotopes are useless except to tip armor piercing bullets and missiles. In other words, once the uranium is freed from the sand and rock, it will initially need to be refined to get the 0.07% that’s useful.
Several further steps of processing are still needed – to get the ratio up to 0.5%. This is done by separating isotopes in an enrichment process that achieves the higher concentration. That’s when you get Yellowcake. If there’s a glitch in any of the many steps of that process – no yellowcake comes out the other end of the conveyor belt. Compare that, to what’s needed to process the fuel for solar generated power. No contest. Just low-cloud daytime skies, and you’re generating power.
In early 2003, the commodity price for a pound of Yellowcake was $7. Four years later its price ballooned to $130 per pound without declining once. That's a 1,700% increase in a four-year span.
At the turn of this century, there was investment neither in new uranium mines nor in the facilities needed to process the raw material in to yellowcake. During that time, demand was partially met (in the U.S. and Russia) by breaking down nuclear weapons and draining inventories, which are now nearly gone. Worldwide, uranium production meets about 60 percent of current reactor requirements – and dozens of new reactors are planned – mostly in Asia.
According to Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies, “The shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it.” ….and that gap will widen as more reactors get built.
When EGAT funded its initial study on nuclear power feasibility for Thailand, they were basing their findings on a very low price for fuel, and had no way of knowing that Yellowcake would skyrocket in value.
They also could not have foreseen that there would be less uranium mines in the near future – even though uranium is in ever-increasing demand. One of the most basic tenets of the ‘Law of Supply and Demand’ is if there’s increased demand and less supply for a commodity, that commodity goes up in value accordingly.
There are no uranium mines in or near Thailand. The mining process is complex, many-tiered, and requires permits at every step – particularly as regards transporting across international boundaries.
Two of the very few Uranium mines worldwide are in Australia – namely; Energy Resources of Australia's Ranger mine, and Cameco's Cigar Lake operation, and both are having production problems. Each suffered serious flooding, though the causes were not the same. It underlines the fact that; a glitch in any step in the mining, processing or transport of Yellowcake can render a nuclear plant literally powerless without its fuel. Some of potential pitfalls of bringing uranium out of the ground and to the processors, and then transporting yellowcake to the end user:
1. Exploration. Are permits issued and valid? Will the survey yield a ‘false positive’ thereby stretching investment funds?
2. If ore is found, will permission and permits be forthcoming?
3. Property will have to be purchased or leased. In most countries, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will have to be developed, and in western countries that requires input from regional residents. [Note: some of these issues apply as well to establishing a site for a nuclear power plant. In Thailand, there supposedly are some laws that address ‘EIP’ issues, but they’re easily circumvented by the powers that be – sometimes via devious means. Case in Point: Bangkok Post, April 6, 2008 edition, page 2, there was a half page report which mentions a large natural gas depot which sprang up near a dense residential neighborhood. Only as the construction neared completion did some of the locals raise concerns. That’s because the supposedly required EIR was skirted around via a devious series of shell games and ruses by the corporation which put in the depot.]
4. Equipment and facilities will need to be purchased or leased.
5. More investment. Maintenance will be needed on all equipment.
6. Will employees be unionized? That one issue alone can close a plant.
7. Processing: how efficient and safe will it be?
8. Natural ‘acts of God’ occurrences, such as the different types of flooding that closed down the two Australian mines mentioned above. There are a host of other potential natural phenomena which could cause glitches – or worse.
9. Sabotage: Wherever there’s uranium-related activity, there will be people and/or organizations which may want to sabotage it, for one reason or another. This holds true not only for mining, but also for transport, and for the nuclear reactors themselves – and possibly also the controversial process of trying to deal with nuclear waste – a subject we’ll discuss in detail, later in this text.
10. Protests and popular uprisings. Perhaps not as real a threat for mining and shipping as it is for the power plants, but a potential glitch factor nevertheless. Actually, protests along shipping routes are becoming popular and effective methods of getting strong messages across.
10. Lax Work Standards: - can happen in any industry. The operating nuclear power plant near Sacramento, called Rancho Seco (‘Dry Ranch’ in Spanish) wound up getting shut down. One of the initial complaints lodged by locals, in that case, was; security employees were shown to be using drugs while on duty. The idea of a team of people operating a nuclear power plant drunk or stoned was not very comforting to nearby residents. Thai authorities can brush all such concerns aside. They’ll start by saying, ‘it can’t and it won’t happen.’ Then go on to give a plethora of reasons for its impossibility, and mentioning harsh penalties for anyone caught drunk or stoned on the job.
Fact is, Thais are forgiving of such improprieties. Example: if a government employee is found guilty of wrongdoing (in spite of initial denials from his superiors), the worst that can ever happen is a ‘transferal to an inactive post.’ In other words, there is no offense which can cause a Thai government official to get fired.
Another case in point: at Bangkok’s new airport, there had been nagging complaints of luggage being broken in to and valuables being stolen. Apparently there were no security cameras in the cavernous baggage handling area, or the cameras didn’t work, or no one was watching the displays, or higher ups knew the culprits, but didn’t want to blow the whistle ….the list could go on and on as to why the pilfering continued. The sobering truth is; if the top echelon of security took his job seriously and really wanted to bust the culprits, they could. Instead, a ‘mai pen rai’ attitude prevailed, along with denials, excuses, along with possible cover-ups and pay-offs.
11. Transport – is another area where glitches could logjam the supply of Yellowcake. Transport would be over land and sea. The sea lanes around Singapore (which is between Australia and Thailand) are notorious for pirate activity. A Yellowcake-laden ship would be a juicy prize.
Anything that can be shipped by sea is subject to permits and tariffs. Yellowcake especially so – because of its importance to national security. Permits and tariffs aren’t static, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone if such regulations get stiffened, and customs’ duties increase over time. Political implications are never far from something like shipping important fuel. Look at all the controversy that has been stirred up over the years regarding the shipping of oil – and oil is not nearly as difficult to mine, nor as limited in its supply, nor as valuable on a per pound basis - as yellowcake.
Wars have been fought over the availability of oil and its shipping lanes. Why would we expect anything less in regard to Yellowcake? To take just one example: China will soon have dozens of nuclear power plants. All its fuel will have to imported, most likely from Russia and Australia. Electricity from nuclear will be an essential commodity, and any threat to its yellowcake fuel supply could possibly see China threaten to use its powerful military. During the 2008 Chinese New Year, millions of Chinese got stranded because of snow storms and lack of electricity. It was a national disaster. In that case, it was the blizzards that caused the blackouts. However, you can imagine; if the blackouts were man-made (piracy, terrorists, enemies, blockade, protests, etc) – Chinese top brass would stop at nothing to fix the problem.
With China, North America, Europe, Japan and others competing mightily for a finite amount of yellowcake, the price of the commodity will doubtless rise – probably astronomically. Has Thailand’s EGAT taken that into account in its ‘feasibility studies?’ More important, how is little Thailand going to feasibly compete with the world’s economic and military heavyweights for limited supplies of yellowcake?
It wasn’t many years ago that Thailand’s navy talked the government in to buying itself an aircraft carrier. Fighter planes were then needed. Then it was discovered that the planes had to be maintained, and there were copious amounts of fuel needed to get the big boat moving. Needless to say, the ship has been sitting in dock, and one of its three fighter aircraft may be operational. Overreaching and bad planning is no stranger to Thai top brass.
Another well-documented case in point: the new airport for Bangkok – with the long name whose transliteration doesn’t fit with how the name is actually pronounced. We’ll call it SUV. In planning stages for decades, there was never a real EIR filed, certainly never one that encouraged input from affected residents. Lo and behold, when the reality of jets flying in and out at low altitude dawned on the residents, it was too late to do much about it. Not surprisingly, the near-constant noise and shaking is having an adverse affect on residents and their dwellings. Were they forewarned of drawbacks by authorities? Of course not. As for compensation for suffering and damage after the fact – that’s being dealt with in typical Thai fashion: A few thousand baht dispensed here and there – just enough to try and keep the seething masses from protesting too much.
As for the site: Anyone who follows Thai news clippings will know that the airport was put in a swampy site. Drainage infrastructure was installed, but some cracking due to settling has plagued the airport since its opening weeks. If global warming has any credence, then the runways should be under a meter of water in thirty years or less. Leading up to that, will probably be plans to build a big levee around it – which is also what’s been seriously suggested as a future mega project for Bangkok itself.
Any kid who has built a sandcastle knows that when you wall out water, you also wall it in. To be even remotely feasible, there would have to be gargantuan pumps going 24/7 - pumping water