For decades, the option has been on the table as an alternative energy source, but officials are now taking a hard look at whether it's worth the risk
When the magnitude-9.0 offshore earthquake and subsequent tsunami rocked Japan on March 11, it also shook plans around the globe to move forward with ambitious nuclear power development schemes, including those of the Thai government.
With each passing day, the risk assessment from the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant seems to grow, challenging nuclear plans in Thailand, which would likely have entered the implementation phase of the Energy Ministry's four-part plan this year had it not been for the nuclear power plant explosions in Japan.
With the latest developments in Japan, the ministry has not ruled out the possibility of going nuclear, although it has broken its silence and said the incidents should be taken as a case study regarding nuclear safety measures.
Quoted in Friday's Bangkok Post, Energy Minister Wannarat Channukul said the panel in charge of Thailand's 20-year power development plan from 2010-2030 must look more closely at safety measures and new technology to handle serious accidents.
"We are still in the feasibility study stage and have yet to make a definite decision on whether to build nuclear power plants. What has happened in Japan should be taken as a case study in safety measures,"he said
In 1954, the Thai Atomic Energy Commission was launched, with a focus on developing nuclear power for research purposes. The first research reactor was supported by the US with a minimal 2MW capacity in Bangkok's Bang Khen district, and it is still in operation today. A second reactor with a capacity of 10MW was planned in Nakhon Nayok, but eventually dropped, partly because its environmental impact assessment failed to get approval.
Thailand's ambitions to generate power from nuclear sources dates back to 1966. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) noted in a report last year titled "Preventing Nuclear Dangers in Southeast Asia and Australasia" that at that time Egat proposed building a nuclear power plant and identified a potential site in Chon Buri province, but later suspended the plan due to a fall in the price of natural gas. The plan was revived several times but eventually dropped after the 1997 crisis, as funds dried up and public concerns over safety rose.
But nuclear schemes resurfaced in the 2007 power development plan, which called for the development of two 2,000MW nuclear plants. This was later changed to five 1,000MW plants in the 2010 power development plan. The plan was devised by the Energy Ministry's Nuclear Power Programme Development Office.
The IISS analysed the planned schedule for nuclear power development outlined in the latest power development plan and concluded it is "probably not unrealistic". However, operations were at a very early stage and would depend on extensive foreign assistance.
Unclear legislation covering the nuclear issue and political instability could be problematic, the IISS report said. Growing public concerns over the safety of nuclear energy might also create delays, it said.
Tara Buakamsri, campaign director at Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said the NGO is firm in its contention that nuclear power is dirty, expensive, and potentially disastrous.
Mr Tara said energy planning in Thailand lacks public input and transparency. He said it is time to reconsider the process that has pushed for unsound energy sources like nuclear.
"We should apply an integrated approach, which will lead to a decentralised energy system, where alternative and truly diversified energy sources are given a chance for development," said Mr Tara.
Witoon Permpongsacharoen, director of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network, said the nuclear disaster in Japan has clearly demonstrated that the complicated technology is beyond mankind's control, and also called for a review of the country's power development plan.
"What happened in Japan has shown there are unpredictable factors hiding behind the technology. They say the systems can be designed to control unexpected factors, but this dialogue doesn't reassure us," said Mr Witoon.
He said that unrealistically high energy demand forecasts have led to unnecessary investment in the energy sector and unwarranted financial burdens on the public, which show up on electricity bills.
He said that currently the country has about 30,000MW of energy capacity, nearly 29% of which is reserve capacity. He said better management would negate the need to invest in a risky energy source like nuclear.
Mr Witoon said that energy efficiency measures alone could reduce present energy demands by as much as 30%. Unfortunately, he said, such measures have never been been seriously promoted among consumers. He also said that the push for new energy sources is not a response to energy demands, but is driven by investors' greed.
Speaking in favour of continuing Thailand's nuclear programme, Pricha Karasuddhi of the Nuclear Power Programme Development Office said that confusing reports over the crisis in Japan have caused misunderstandings about nuclear safety.
"The crisis in the nuclear power plant in Japan is quite far from the nuclear tragedy in Chernobyl," said Mr Pricha. "The crisis is controllable."
He said that that nuclear power was needed to replace fossil fuels. "We do need to look at the long run. In the past, [nuclear] technology has not been good enough, but now we have more advanced technology. The troubled nuclear power plant in Japan has been in use for over 40 years. It might have some problems, but the newer plant located near the old one has no problems. It is still working properly," said Mr Pricha.
He said that the Thai government should tell the public what the alternatives are if no nuclear power plants are built. While he understands why Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva delayed the nuclear power plant project for further study, he feels that since Thailand does not face the same risks from earthquakes as Japan, nuclear power plants "should have been constructed over 30 years ago".
Burin Asavapibhop, a physics lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, also voiced concerns over the country's energy security if nuclear power plant construction does not proceed as scheduled.
He said that it is very important to educate the public about nuclear power and possible impacts on the environment and health.
"Thai people have fears about radioactivity from the nuclear power plant in Japan. They are afraid that it will be dangerous to their health. But in fact, people are exposed to radioactivity from nature every day at a very low level," said Mr Burin.
"We should not agree to things that we don't truly understand. I can't say whether a nuclear power plant should be constructed in Thailand. The decision should come from the people. But before answering the question, we should be certain the answer comes from a true understanding of the issues."
NUCLEAR PHASES The Energy Ministry is the main player in the push to develop nuclear power in Thailand, and it coordinates with other agencies to prepare the plan for the initiative. Under a proposal approved by the cabinet in late 2007, the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Preparation Committee (NPIPC) was appointed to work on the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Plan (NPIEP), which was endorsed at the end of the year. The NPIPC was replaced by the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Coordination Committee (NPIECC) and the Nuclear Power Program Development Office (NPPDO) was established under the Energy Ministry to coordinate the NPIEP implementation.
An internal report from the ministry's Energy Policy and Planning office divides the programme into four main phases, with milestones set for each. The first phase, which ran from 2008 to 2010, dealt mainly with the approval of the plan, feasibility studies, potential site studies, and public relations.
The second phase, set to start this year, was expected, before the crisis in Japan, to begin with official government approval.
In this phase, the programme implementation phase, site and and technology selection is to be settled, along with the drafting of legislation to regulate implementation and development of the programme.
The third phase, scheduled to start in 2014, would concern bidding and the actual construction of at least the first plant. The final phase begins in 2020, when it is expected that the first nuclear power plant will be operational. This phase also would see expansion of the programme.
The internal report notes that the total budget for the first phase amounted to about 1.35 billion baht, received from the state-funded Energy Conservation Fund (750 million baht) and Egat (595 million baht). About 625 million baht was spent for public relations.
Some reasons given in the internal report for the development of nuclear power are that the country relies too heavily on natural gas from the Gulf of Thailand and Burma. This accounts for around 70% of the country's electricity production. In order to strengthen the country's energy security, new energy sources are needed.
The report also cites increasing energy demand in the future, as much as 20,000MW in the next 20 years. The report adds that nuclear power has low production costs and is reliable, and by using it, the country would not face hardships from making mandatory carbon emissions cuts to comply with climate change strategies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment