Green Line30

VA.
indd 1
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554
September - December 2011
30 2554
No. 30 September - December 2011
49 6 30 6 10400
02-298-5628 02-298-5629
www.deqp.go.th, www.environnet.in.th
, ,
, ,
,

:
:

.
63/123 5

10240
02-517-2319
02-517-2319
E-mail: milkywaypress@gmail.com
Editorial Advisers:

Pornthip Puncharoen,
Ratchanee Emaruchi
Editorial Director:
Sakol Thinagul
Executive Editor:
Savitree Srisuk
Editorial Staff:

Pavinee Na Saiburi,
Chongrak Thinagul,
Jariya Chuenjaichon,
Nantawan Lourith,
Pagaporn Yodplob,
Nuchanard Kraisuwansan
English Edition Editor:
Wasant Techawongtham
Text copyright by the Department of Environmental

Quality Promotion, Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment.
Assistant Editor:
Maenwad Kunjara Na Ayuttaya
Editorial Secretary:
Sirirat Siwilai
Photographs copyright by photographers or right owners.
Producer:
Milky Way Press Limited
Publisher
Department of Environmental Quality Promotion
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
49 Rama VI Soi 30, Rama VI Rd., Bangkok 10400
Tel. 02-298-5628 Fax. 02-298-5629
www.deqp.go.th, www.environnet.in.th
Aricles may be reproduced or disseminated for noncommercial purposes with cited credit to the Department
of Environmental Quality Promotion.
Reproduction of photographs must be by permission of
right owners only.
Opinions expressed in the articles in this journal are the
authors to promote the exchange of diverse points of view.
VA.indd 2
Partnership

63/123 Soi Rat Pattana 5,

Saphan Sung, Bangkok 10240

Tel: 02-517-2319

Fax: 02-517-2319

e-mail: milkywaypress@gmail.com
1/27/12 11:31 AM
henever electricity goes out, a roar

often follows, the sound coming from
us our self and other people around.
Its a sound of surprise mixed with
concern. When power eventually
returns, a cheer inevitably rises up in response. What this
means is that our modern life is inextricably tied to having electricity at our command at all times. When we
taps the switch on and the light bulb or whatever electric
appliance hooked up to the switch fails to turn on, we
often feel a pang of disappointment and are secretly worried when the power would return again.
And this is a common concern of people the world
over, arising from the fact that energy sources that drive
the modern way of life and economy, be it oil or natural
gas, will soon run out. Even coal which is plentiful cannot
last forever. Thats why the inevitable question: Where
VA.indd 3
Editorial

?
can we find an alternative energy source to replace these

fast-depleting conventional sources?
Nuclear power was once hoped to be the worlds
savior to produce plentiful power from small quantities
of uranium that would drive the worlds never-ending
economic growth. However, a truth cannot be ignored:
Whatever offers great benefits also comes with grave
dangers. For nuclear power plants, one of the most
severe dangers is an uncontrollable accident such as the
one at Japans Fukushima Daiichi power plant in March
this year and at former Soviet Unions Chernobyl many
years ago.
But is nuclear power such a sinister threat to the
human society and the environment as many have feared
and warned about? This issue of Green Line presents facts
about the nuclear technology and conflicting opinions
about this great energy potential.
1/27/12 11:31 AM
CONTENTS
- 2554
:
...
ACROSS THE SKY:
Out with Nuclear Renaissance...

In with the Era of New Energy
6
18
:
:

On AN unbeaten PATH:
Nuclear Waste: An Unsolvable

Problem Even in Nuclear Power
Pioneer Germany

What is Radioactive Waste?
10
14
: ?
Energy Crisis: Is Nuclear the Solution?

A Different Perspective

Justice and Sustainability
What Communities Ask for

The Anatomy of a Nuclear
Power Plant
:
?
42
VA.indd 4
Electricity Demand Forecast:

On-target or Over-exaggerated
18
30
37
42
45
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554
:
.
SPECIAL INTERVIEW:
Assoc Prof Motoki Akitsu
51
56
:
GUEST WRITER:
Lessons from Fukushima
56
63
:
Little Mahingsa...Young
Researchers: Award of Pride
63
: vs
65
VOICES OF COMMUNITY: Nuclear

Power vs Community: The Two
Irreconcilable Paths
65
GREEN INTERSECTION:
75
The Invisible Costs and Risks

of Nuclear Power
69
75
DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES
:
VIEWFINDERS: Taan Fai Gao
VA.indd 5
78
1/27/12 11:31 AM
across the sky
- 2554
...

.. 1979
The China Syndrome
( )
( )

12

(Nuclear Renaissance)

4

China Syndrome
30% 54

50% 2030

11 2554
A woman holds up a candle and an anti-nuclear sign during a vigil in
Bangalore, India, on 11 April 2011 to pay homage to the victims of the
earthquake that hit Japan and say no to nuclear energy. Greenpeace
VA.indd 6
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554
Out with Nuclear

Renaissance...In with
the Era of New Energy
Wasant Techawongtham
Limerick Nuclear Power Plant, on the Schuylkill River near Limerick,

northwest of Philadelphia, PA. Wikipedia
n March 1979 Hollywood released The China Syndrome, a movie about a television journalist (Jane
Fonda) and a freelance cameraman (Michael
Douglas) who happened upon an irregular incident while filming what was to be a light documentary about a nuclear power plant.
The movie title is a term that describes a series of
events that could happen when the loss of coolant in a
nuclear reactor leads to the severe meltdown of the core
components of the reactor, which then burn through
the containment vessel and the housing building, then
notionally through the crust and body of the Earth until
reaching China.
Only 12 days after the movie opened in theatre, the
Three Mile Island power plant in Pennsylvania in the
US experienced a partial meltdown, instantly turning
the movie into a global box office hit. While no casualties
resulted from that accident, it had caused serious concerns for people all over the world.
A mere seven years after Three Mile Island, another
nuclear accident shocked the world when the Chernobyl
nuclear plant suffered a serious meltdown and spread
radiation over wide areas of Europe. More than a hun-
dred people were said to have died shortly after the accident which continued to cause severe health effects to an
innumerable number of people.
The two incidents inflicted serious damage on the
nuclear power industry, causing nuclear power plant
projects all over the world to screech to a halt.
However, when the proverbial radioactive dust settled and peoples memory faded several years later, the
nuclear industry devised a public relations strategy to
convince the public that nuclear power was an energy
source that would drive the worlds economy. The industry expected a new era of nuclear power resurgence calling it the Nuclear Renaissance.
Interestingly, the industrys campaign has been
boosted by increased public awareness about global
warming, which made it possible for its proponents
to claim that nuclear power is clean energy because it
releases no carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas.
However, when a 9-magnitude earthquake and an
ensuing tsunami hit Japan, they also knocked out the
cooling system at the Fukushima Daichi power plants
which led to hydrogen explosion that disabled four of its
reactors, causing partial fuel meltdown and massive radiation leak symptoms similar to the China Syndrome.
The dream of a nuclear renaissance virtually evaporated
overnight.
After that devastating incident, all countries that had
nuclear power plants or planned to build one immediately stepped on the brake. They either ordered safety
assessment be done on the existing plants or reviews of
construction plans.
In Japan which got 30% of its power supply from 54
nuclear plants, then prime minister Naoto Kan told the
press one month after the disaster that Japans nuclear
policy, which envisages more than 50% of its total electricity supply coming from nuclear power by 2030, must
be reviewed from scratch and that renewable energy
would be a key pillar of the countrys energy policy.
Thailands plan to build five nuclear plants in the next
20 years was put on hold for three years by the government under the Democrat Party-led coalition at the time.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel
stated that the country was now unlikely to pursue civil
nuclear energy. However, Russia, Britain, France and
Poland have said they will leave their nuclear energy policies largely unchanged.
across the sky
VA.indd 7
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554
1
2522 28
President Jimmy Carter visits Three Mile Island on April 1, 1979,
following the accident on March 28, 1979. Wikipedia
5
3

440 31 15%
60 15

60%
94%

40% 20,000

23

22.6%
7
8 17

.. 2022

4
1969
250,000

VA.indd 8

10%
20% 35% 2020 50%
2030
80% 2050

28

()

1/27/12 11:31 AM

--
2554
2554
2
2531 1

3 5-10
The Enrico Fermi II nuclear plant near Detroit, Michigan, was opened in
January 1988. Fermi I melted down back in the 60s, and almost took
out southern Michigan and northern Ohio. Fermi III is planned to be
built in about 5-10 years. Wikipedia
Trying to put on a brave face in light of what happened, the World Nuclear Association, an industry
group, said 440 nuclear reactors operate in 31 countries,
producing about 15 percent of the worlds electricity and
that more than 60 plants were being built in 15 countries, notably Russia, China and South Korea.
In the meantime, more fascinating events took
place across Europe that could give any nuclear industry executive a nightmare. Large numbers of citizens in
Germany, Italy and Switzerland made it clear that they
did not want nuclear power as part of their future. The
development has the potential to become a global trend.
In Italy, a referendum was held to allow voters to
decide whether they wanted the government to pursue
nuclear power. More than 60% of voters turned out at
the polls and 94% of them said no, which by law meant
that the nuclear era in Italy has come to an end.
Meanwhile, in Switzerland which has depended on
nuclear power for 40% of its electricity supply, more
than 20,000 people demonstrated in May to oppose
nuclear power. It was one of the largest demonstrations the country has ever seen. Shortly afterward the
Swiss government made a commitment to close down all
nuclear power plants within the next 23 years and not to
build any new one.
But what caused a buzz throughout the world happened in Germany which depends on nuclear for 22.6%
of its power supply. Immediately after the Fukushima
disaster, the government ordered seven old reactors to
close. With one other plant which was down for maintenance and ordered not to start operation again, Germany effectively closed down eight of its 17 plants.
Then in May, the German government put a final
nail on the coffin for nuclear power in the country when it
announced that Germany would be nuclear-free by 2022.
The announcement sent a shock wave across the globe.
Not only is it the fourth largest industrialized economy,
it was where nuclear power was invented and one of the
earliest countries to use nuclear power since 1969.
This development came right after more than
September
September -- December
December 2011
2011
250,000 Germans across the country put on massive

demonstrations to reiterate their expressed aversion for
nuclear power since the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
The question that naturally follows is: How does
Germany expect to get new power sources to compensate for the loss of nuclear power supply? Energy corporations both inside and outside the country were quick
to warn that to quit nuclear power in such haste would
bring certain economic disasters to the country, lead to
severe power shortages and turn Germany into a net
power importer.
In response, the government said it has planned to
boost power efficiency by 10% and increase the share of
renewable energy from 20% at the present to 35% by
2020 and to 50% by 2030. Its final goal, it said, was to
derive power from renewable sources by 80% by 2050.
Prior to announcing her governments nuclear-free
policy, Prime Minister Angela Merkel appointed a panel
of energy experts called the Ethics Commission on a
Safe Energy Supply to study the alternatives and advise
the government on the countrys energy policy.
In its 28-page draft to Merkel, the commission
argues that the Fukushima disaster demonstrates the
limitations of human disaster-preparedness and emergency measures, even in a highly organized, high-tech
country like Japan. Merkel later told a Berlin news conference that: The events in Japan have shown us that
even things that seem all but impossible scientifically can
in fact happen.
What the Germans have decided obviously poses a
tremendous risk and challenge. It is something no country dares to think, let alone make such a firm commitment. It is a gamble with a huge stake.
But the ethics commission refuses to see it as a risk
but rather as an opportunity for Germany to lead the
world into a new era of energy development and to reap
great benefits from it.
A withdrawal from nuclear power will spur growth,
offer enormous technical, economic and social opportunities to position Germany even further as an exporter of
sustainable products and services, said the panels report.
Germany could show that a withdrawal from nuclear
energy is the chance to create a high-powered economy.
The result of such a clear and firm commitment is
that Germany would be able to devote full concentration,
resources and energy on building a new energy system.
And when the government and society send out such a
clear signal, it is almost certain that the business sector
will soon fall in line. Indeed, this has already happened
when, in September, German industrial and engineering
conglomerate Siemens announced it was to withdraw
entirely from the nuclear industry.
Before long, Germany will show the world whether
it could successfully venture into the Era of New Energy.
If it succeeds, it will not only earn itself greater global
admiration and respect. It will, without doubt, also reap
enormous economic benefits. n
across the sky
VA.indd 9
1/27/12 11:31 AM
10
- 2554
on an unbeaten path
:

3

5

Nuclear Waste:
An Unsolvable
Problem Even in
Nuclear Power
Pioneer Germany
Vorawan Wannalak
ven though the nuclear crisis in Japan which

rang alarm bells around the world about the
impact of radioactive decay leaking may
have led Thailand to review a plan to build a
nuclear power plant, and to postpone the decision for
another three years, the question of a nuclear power
plant does not stop at only the issue of safety. For Thailand, the questions to consider are the costs which are
high and whether investing in such technology is worthwhile, given our economic variables. Moreover, the calculation of the costs and expenses has to embrace the
whole system.
Over the past few months or so, we have found no
clear answer as to the enormity of material damage as
VA.indd 10
Inside the ASSE II salt mine part of which has collapsed.
a consequence of the leakage of radioactive decay from

the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. This is because both
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and the Japanese Government have not yet completed their process
of problem solving. The extent of damages from these
nuclear leakages might be one possibility that might
recur at nuclear power plants all over the world.
The problem that will surely follow after any decision to build a nuclear power plant is the elimination of
the eventual nuclear waste. To this day, no country in the
world has been able to eliminate permanently the waste
from used nuclear rods and other radioactive decay. The
Thai agencies responsible for this still have yet to find a
clear answer, triggering a current of speculation that one
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554
11

(Geologic Disposal)

ASSE II

ASSE II
ASSE II .. 2449
750
.. 2503

.. 2510
ASSE II .. 2521
125,000
1,300
10 .. 2531

Radon

Helmholtz
ASSE II
..2551
ASSE II
40
ASSE II

possible option should be the use of a potash mine in the

Northeast for keeping these nuclear residues.
Current practice among countries with nuclear
power plants mostly calls for geologic disposal. In other
words, nuclear residues are kept in hollows several hundred metres under ground to prevent leakage in future.
But this method is causing rows in some countries, for
instance in Germany, which is facing a dilemma from
keeping nuclear waste in a salt mine due to the seeping
of non-saline water into the mine, which may lead to the
leakage of radioactive decay into the surrounding environment and community.
This article recounts the lessons learned from a visit
to the salt mine ASSE II last year.
This mine, first built in 1906 at 750 meters below
the earth surface but now abandoned, was chosen by the
German Government in 1960 as a permanent storage
for nuclear waste. This stemmed from the belief that salt
or glutinous earth possesses properties that can prevent
the spread of radioactivity. At that time, Germans had
not yet seriously studied the risks and dangers of the disposal of nuclear waste.
From 1967 to 1978 residues from nuclear facilities
from all over Germany were transported to the ASSE
II mine. It now holds 125,000 barrels of low-level and
1,300 barrels of medium-level nuclear radioactive waste.
Ten years later, water was found to have seeped into
the mine chambers. Some layers of salt were eroded,

causing cracks in the salt rock which partially collapsed.
The nuclear waste containers were covered by the crumbled salt rock and saline water. This was considered a
very hazardous situation because the metal barrels would
soon be corroded, leading to radioactive material being
leaked and contaminating the earth and underground
water. Left unattended the mine could collapse and
release the radioactive radon gas into the atmosphere.
The Helmholtz Association, a state-sponsored scientific research organization tasked with managing the
nuclear waste depository, failed to make the development
public until 2008. This led to renewed discontent among
residents in nearby communities who have protested
against the depository since it was first proposed. As a
result, the management of ASSE II was re-assigned to
another state organization.
Fixing the problem proved to be a headache. The
first thing the German experts had to do to prevent the
mine from collapsing was to inject concrete into the
cracks in the salt rock and pump out the water as well as
install a ventilation system to protect operators against
exposure to radon. The next step was to remove the buried waste containers, some of which were already damaged and leaking radioactive material, and contaminated
salt and soil from the mine. The operation was extremely
complex having to deal with radioactive material in the
ASSE II
The building housing the entrance to the ASSE II salt mine.
on an unbeaten path
VA.indd 11
1/27/12 11:31 AM
12
- 2554

Radon

750
(Reinhard Gerndt)
ASSE II

ASSE II

2
30

ASSE II Landesamt
fr Bergbau, Energie und Geologie (LBEG) State Office
for Mining, Energy and Geology

ASSE II
(Annette Parlitz)
()
ASSE II .. 2552

ASSE II

80
VA.indd 12
ASSE II
, , ,
,

30
40

ASSE II

11 (..2565)

3
! n
ASSE II :
www.endlager-asse.de/EN/1_Home/home_node.html
ASSE II: www.asse2.de/index.html
1/27/12 11:31 AM

--
2554
2554
form of solid, liquid and gas at the depth of 750 m and
required a huge amount of expense.
Reinhard Gerndt, for 40 years the core leader of
opponents to the disposal of nuclear waste at ASSE II,
recalled that the authorities originally issued a technical
report proposing the closure of the salt mine and turned
it into a permanent nuclear waste storage. But the discovery of water seeping into the mine indicated that the
data in the report was inaccurate, sparking currents of
opposition among the residents.
The protest made the news headlines, drawing the
attention of the general public to this problem. Pressure
movements grew to such an extent that the German
government had to assign a new agency to take charge
of the matter to placate the opposition. But villagers in
nearby communities had been affected by the depreciation of their properties and the risk of radioactive decay
contaminating water sources, especially if the authorities tried to extract nuclear substances by diluting the salt
in the mine with water. In a worst case scenario, there
might be contamination within two years. But the residents expect contamination to occur certainly within the
next 30 years.
Currently the management and care of the ASSE II
comes under an agency called Landesamt fur Bergbau
und Geologie (LBEG) or State Office for Mining, Energy
and Geology, which has been mandated by the German
government to solve the problem of water seeping into
the salt mine.
The short-term solution to the problem is to pour
concrete into the cracks in the salt rock in order to stop
top layers of salt from sinking further. However, nobody
knows for how long this short-term solution will be able
to keep the problem at bay. The agency is studying the
possibility of transporting nuclear waste out of ASSE II
before they are confronted with the problem of the salt
mine sinking.
Annette Paritz, an official from the radioactivity protection department under the Environment Ministry who
has been working on the problem of ASSE II since 2009,
said once the decision is made to move nuclear waste
somewhere else, the agency will have to face the big problem of how to manage safely the existing nuclear waste.
A more acute question is to where would the waste
moved because there exists not a single disposal site that
can store nuclear waste safely and permanently. Even
now, there is no way of speculating for how many years it
will take to solve the problems of water seeping into the
mine, and the removal of nuclear waste from ASSE II.
At present an estimated 80 million euros a year is
needed to implement the immediate solution. However,
to solve the problems in the long term by removing the
entire lot of nuclear waste from ASSE II safety would
require a huge budget, in terms of research, equipment,
manpower, and the transportation of waste. The burden
of these expenses inevitably lies on the shoulders of the
German government and people.
13
September
September -- December
December 2011
2011
An important lesson to learn from Germany is not

only a technicalone, that is how to prevent the spread of
radiation in nuclear waste disposal but how to deal with
organizational problems as well.
Annette Paritz further explained that all these problems stemmed from a lack of comprehensive knowledge
and understanding of the risks that might imperil the
country in the future. This mine had kept the nuclear
waste containers under ground for more than 30 years.
The crumbled salt covering the barrels had hardened
over time, making it hard to get to the barrels. This problem was compounded by the lack of knowledge on the
part of the responsible authorities at the time resulting in
the lack of care in stacking up the barrels so that some
of them were damaged and leaked. In addition, there
had been no planning for the removal of waste when
problems arose. Therefore to remove the waste, all the
barrels together with the contaminated salt will have to
be removed.
As of now, Germany still has no clear answer on
the matter of permanent storage for nuclear waste. The
complicated problem at the ASSE II mine involves only
low- and medium-level radioactive waste. The problem
is definitely more complex for the highly radioactive
spent fuels that it has accumulated generated over four
decades of nuclear plant operation. Although the country has decided to abandon nuclear power completely in
11 years, the accumulating nuclear waste would remain
hazardous for an indefinite period.
Some German activist groups have proposed the
storing of nuclear waste above ground for the sake of
transparency and to allow monitoring. But this method
also carries risks and it looks as if the problem will remain
a problem for the Germans to spend some time yet putting heads together to solve.
For Thailand, if a decision is made to build nuclear
power plants, we may have to ask ourselves whether we
already have in hand clear exits on the matter of storing
nuclear waste which our children and grandchildren will
have to deal with in future for hundreds or even tens of
thousands of years.
More than that, are Thai people ready to bear the
burden of hidden costs arising from the risks of having
nuclear power plants and radioactive wastes that will follow?
If the answers to these questions are simply an
attempt to pass on the problem to the countries selling uranium to Thailand, or equivocal as usual, then
the postponement of a decision on the installation of
nuclear power plants for three years may not be enough
a time span for the future of the next generations which
will have to bear the burdens. n
For more information on the ASSE II mine, go to:
www.endlager-asse.de/EN/1 Home/home node.html or the
website of local residents at www.asse2.de/index.html.
on an unbeaten path
VA.indd 13
1/27/12 11:31 AM
14
- 2554
1.

2.

What is
Radioactive
Waste?
adioactive wastes are wastes in solid,

liquid, or gas forms, which contain
or are contaminated with radioactive material at a level considered
hazardous, and such materials are
no longer useful. The wastes must
be treated and managed systematically and strictly
monitored.
VA.indd 14
750
The salt mine at the depth of 750 meters.
3.

Classification of radioactive waste
1. High-level waste includes fission products
generated in the reactor core, radioactive waste in the
solid and liquid forms derived from the conditioning
of nuclear fuel, and other waste of equally high level
of radioactivity.
2. Intermediate-level waste is generated by
activities involving radioactive materials which sometimes require shielding, such as scrap metal and sediment resulted from treatment of liquid radioactive
waste, ion exchangers, and spent radiation sources.
3. Low-level waste is generated by activities
relating to radioactive materials in hospital or industry,
such as gloves, garments, and equipment made from
paper which are slightly radioactive.
All types of radioactive materials have different
half-lives, ranging from a split second to millions of
years.
Radioactive waste from nuclear
reactors
A nuclear reactor initiates a sustained nuclear
chain reaction. Nuclear reaction, known as fission reaction, is caused by neutron striking the nucleus of ura-
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554

-235 -235

()
-235
(Critical Mass)
15
nium-235, which splits and creates heat and expels

free neutrons. These neutrons collide with other
U-235 atoms, causing more fission and maintaining
a nuclear chain reaction. Nuclear fuel diminishes as
it releases energy and nuclear particles.
Fission reaction emits various particles, particularly neutron as a direct product. Alpha, beta,
and gamma radioactivity in a reactor are emitted
from radioisotope (or radioactive isotope) which is
the result of the decaying of U-235. Fission reaction is possible only when the fuel has enough concentration of fissionable isotope to reach a critical
mass. For a nuclear reactor, U-235 must be enriched
to approximately 3-5%. But for a nuclear bomb,
U-235 enriched to 90% is required. To sustain a
fission reaction, control rods which are capable of
absorbing many neutrons are employed to speed up,
slow down or stop a nuclear reaction.
Salt deposit showing cracks and subsidence.
A graphic poster shows the topography of the mine.
-235
3-5% -235 90%

(Control Rod)

-235

There are two types of radioactive waste from the operation

of nuclear reactors:
The first type is spent fuel. In fission
reaction, a large part of U-235 decays and turns into
many elements, which are highly radioactive, left in
alloy tubes made from zirconium. Spent nuclear
fuel still contains irradiated uranium fuel and neutron activation products.
One third of nuclear fuel becomes spent fuel.
A 1,000-MW nuclear power plant, for instance,
uses 30 tons of fuel and produces about 10 tons
of spent nuclear fuel (waste) every year. The spent
fuel, regarded as high-level waste, must be stored
in a cooling pond for 5-7 years before being tightly
sealed in radioactive-protection storage tanks. This
is only a temporary storage measure before tanks are
buried deep underground in storage tanks.
The second type is intermediate- and
low-level waste, such as water heated into steam
on an unbeaten path
VA.indd 15
1/27/12 11:31 AM
16
- 2554

(Spent Fuel)

(Neutron
Activation)

1 3
1,000 30
10

5-7

(High-level Waste)

1,000 100-600
3
1. (Dilute and Disperse)

2. (Concentrate and
Contain)

3.
(Delay and Decay)

VA.indd 16
that drives turbines to generate electricity. The water

contains contaminants from nuclear reaction and
must be treated.
Other types of radioactive waste include defective reactor parts, used resin from water treatment,
sediments from boiling and filtering wastes to isolate
radioactive wastes, garbage, air filters, and protective clothing. These are intermediate- and low-level
wastes of which a 1,000-MW,nuclear power plant
produces about 100-600 cubic meters a year.
In addition, nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium ore extraction, and production of fuel rods, also produces a small quantity of
radioactive waste.
Waste Treatment/Storage Methods
There are three schools of thought on nuclear
waste management:
1. Dilute and Disperse Waste is diluted to an
acceptable level before being discharged to the environment
2. Concentrate and Contain An example of
this method is to boil or filter contaminated water
to isolate radioactive waste. The small amount of
remaining waste will ease storage.
3. Delay and Decay This is simply to keep
waste in storage for a long enough period of time to
allow the radioisotope to decay naturally. This is most
common method as there is no technology to totally
treat or dispose of radioactive waste at present.
Volume of nuclear
waste from a
1,000-MW nuclear
power plant in one year
HLW
ILW
ILW
Volume
10 cubic
Radiation
95%
70 cubic
metres
200 cubic
metres
4%
1%
Storage
Time required
for complete
radioactivity
decay
With shielding
and cooling
system
With shielding
>10,000 years
With or without
shielding
300 years
300 years
Key radioactive materials which

are hazardous to human health
include:
Radioactive Iodine (I) in the form of I-131
with a radioactive half-life of 8 days is often detected
in nuclear accidents. The material is similar to common iodine, except that it releases beta and gamma
rays which cause genetic mutation and destroy cells.
This hazardous radioactive material requires
strict preventive measure as it can accumulate in
certain parts of the body, particularly in the thyroid. There, it destroys the thyroid tissue and poses
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554
1,000 MW 1

HLW 10 ..
95%
>10,000
ILW 70 ..
4%
300
LLW 200 ..
1%
300
(Radioactive Iodine)
I-131 8
8

(Radioactive Caesium: Cs)
Cs-137
30
200 1%
a risk of mutation into thyroid cancer. Children are at
greater risk because they are in a developmental stage
and any harm to their thyroid affects their growth.
Radioactive Caesium (Cs) in the form of
Cs-137 has proved to be a headache for Japan at the
moment. Given its long half-life of 30 years, Cs-137
needs 200 years to diminish to 1% of the original volume. Twenty-five years after the Chernobyl nuclear
accident in 1986, Cs-137 contamination is still evident
in the environment not just in the surrounding areas
but also in many parts of Europe thousands of miles
away. In Germany, for example, hunted wild boars
were found with higher than legally acceptable level of
Cs-137 contamination and must be disposed of, and
the German government was forced to compensate the
hunters. In England, some sheep farms still have to be
inspected for Cs-137 to prevent contaminated meat
from being sold.
Cs-137 is a threat to the food chain. Because it possesses similar chemical property as common potassium,
17
..2529 25 -137

-137

-137
-137
-137

(Radioactive Cobalt)
Co-60
5
-60
. .. 2543
-60
18

-60
18 3
1 2 5 n
once consumed, the human body would mistake it as
potassium and absorb and store it in bodily tissues and
bone marrow, causing cell abnormality or cancer. A
high dose or long exposure could cause genetic mutation and lead to deformities in newborns.
Radioactive Cobalt (Co) is another by-product
of nuclear reaction. Taking the form of Co-60 it has
a half-life of 5 years and can release beta and gamma
rays, similar to radioactive iodine.
Co-60 made headlines worldwide in 2000 when
a radiation leak was reported in Samut Prakan province. A decommissioned medical radiotherapy source
was sold to a junkyard and dismantled for scrap metal.
A Co-60 source of the size of a flashlight battery was
inadvertently left in the junkyard for 18 days before
being retrieved by the Office of Atoms for Peace. No
radiation contamination was detected in the environment, but the incident led to three deaths, one abortion
as advised by doctor, two disabilities and five radiationexposed patients. n
on an unbeaten path
VA.indd 17
1/27/12 11:31 AM
- 2554

9.0
17
5
(.) 5
10

(IAEA)
3
8 (
IAEA )

IAEA
2551
39% 10% 11% 8% () 35%
VA.indd 18
1/27/12 11:31 AM
Energy Crisis: Is
Nuclear
the Solution?
From Chernobyl to Fukushima
he explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi

nuclear power plant in Japan, aftermath
of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the
Richter scale and ensuing tsunamis that
struck the countrys east coast, forced
countries world-wide to rethink the future
of nuclear energy, with many Europeans making clear
their opposition to this option.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster sent a clear warning to the global community that nuclear power is neither safe nor contributes to energy security. Rather, it
poses risks to economies and lives. Hence, developed
countries have sharpened their awareness of nuclear
dangers, experience having shown them that reliance on
fossil fuels and nuclear energy is tantamount to putting
the worlds future at stake.
In Thailand, Japans crisis recalled the severe damages from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine
which at the time drew little attention from the Thai
public. The more recent crisis has sparked widespread
concern and discussion, particularly in 17 targeted areas

across the country under study for the feasibility of building nuclear power plants. Among these areas, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) plans
to build five nuclear plants in the next decade.
At about the same time, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) assessed Thailands first threeyear study of the project to build nuclear power plants,
and put forward eight suggestions (see box on IAEAs
observations and suggestions on the nuclear power plant
construction project in Thailand) concerning laws and
regulations for regulating and managing nuclear plants.
The IAEA has emphasized the importance of safety
measures and personnel to be in compliance with IAEA
standards and relevant international conventions.
After the terrible accident at the nuclear power plant
in Japan, the Ministry of Energy confirmed there would
be no change in its policy to build nuclear power plants
as stated in the 2010-2030 Power Development Plan of
Thailand (PDP 2010).
The Thai capital Bangkok, a city that never sleeps, not only consumes more electricity than any other province in the country but more than that
consumed by the north, northeastern and southern regions combined. The 2008 statistics show that 39% of the total power supply goes to Bangkok
while 10% to the North, 11% to the Northeast and 8% to the South. The Central Plains (not including Bangkok), meanwhile, consumes 35%.
Picture from Wikipedia
VA.indd 19
1/27/12 11:32 AM
20
- 2554
. 2553-2573
(PDP 2010)
2573
11

24
39 20
6
1,000 (MW)
1 .. 2563 2
.. 2564

3 ..
2563 .. 2566
20
?

(.)
15-20

70%

.
2563-2564
2,000 MW 2563
1 316 MW, 325 MW,
730 MW, (Small Power
Producer: SPP) 168 MW 2564

2,000 MW

25%

2553
3.34 7.67
VA.indd 20
72.45

. 2554

(/) ()

117.4
2.46

26.9
2.88

55.2
2.56

122.5
0.67

50.5
6.16

15.5
11.62

70
2-10

60-85
5-6

80-125
10-13

40-70
3-3.5

100

.
(.)

1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
21
() 25
The area around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (in the background) in Ukraine remains deserted, 25 years after the worlds worst nuclear accident.
Under the PDP 2010, nuclear power will account

for 11% of the countrys electricity generation capacity, lignite and other coal-based electricity 24%, natural
gas 39%, electricity purchased from neighboring countries 20%, and alternative energy 6%. The first nuclear
power plant will generate 1,000 MW of electricity in
2020 and the second in January 2021.
However, citing the Japanese disaster as cause for
additional study, the government decided to postpone
the plan for three years from 2020 to 2023 in order to
conduct a review.
The Thai society has been made to believe that
Thailand is ready in all respects to build nuclear plants
according to the PDP.
With Natural Gas Depleting and
Energy Crisis Looming in Two
Decades, Is Nuclear the Solution?
In the past several years, the Ministry of Energy
and EGAT have stepped up warnings that natural gas
fields in the Gulf of Thailand would be depleted in only
15-20 years, and that natural gas had been fuelling 70%
of electricity generation.
The question is after natural gas is depleted, to
which sources of energy Thailand should turn in order
to prevent a crisis in energy shortage and ensure that
Thai people continue to consume electricity at an affordable price.
EGAT maintains that without nuclear power plants
in operation by 2020-2021, Thailand will lose the electricity generating capacity of 2,000 MW. Due to be decommissioned in 2020 are the 316-MW South Phra Nakhon
power plant, 325-MW Nam Phong plant, 730-MW Tri

Energy plant, and 168-MW Small Power Producer (SPP)
plants. In 2021, more SPP facilities will be shut down as
they reach their lifespan. Upgrading ageing facilities for
re-commissioning will raise the cost of power production
to a level that will make it not worthwhile.
Without nuclear power plants, from where can Thailand bring the missing 2,000-MW capacity? The purchase of electricity from neighboring countries is fixed
at no more than 25% of the countrys overall capacity,
while the cost per unit of power generated from alternative energy remains high compared to other sources.
As of 2010, the main sources of power generation of
Thailand are large-scale hydropower 3.34%, coal power
7.67%, and natural gas 72.45%. Each energy choice differs in production cost, power efficiency and limitations.
EGAT estimated in 2011 the capital costs of building power plants and producing electricity classified by
energy sources as follows:
Energy Source
Construction
Electricity
Cost
Production Cost
(million baht/MW)
(baht/unit)
Nuclear
117.4
2.46
Natural gas
26.9
2.88
Imported coal
55.2
2.56
Large-scale hydropower
122.5
0.67
Fuel oil
50.5
6.16
Diesel
15.5
11.62
Small-scale hydropower
70
2-10
Wind power
60-85
5-6
Solar power
80-125
10-13
Biomass
40-70
3-3.5
: ?
VA.indd 21
1/27/12 11:32 AM
22
- 2554

A hydrogen explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

.
.

17
20-22 2549
2
. .
.
4
1 2551 - 2553

2 2554 - 2557
(Go Nuclear)

3 2557 - 2563
4 2563
1 -
(Potential Sites) 17
5 1. .
. 2. . . 3.
. . 4. . . 5.
. .
2550
(.)

VA.indd 22
1.
(Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Plan:
NPIEP)
2.
(.) (Nuclear Program Development Office)
3.
(Nuclear Power Infrastructure Preparation Committee)
4. (Roadmap)
3 (2551 2553) 1,345
. 5

(Site
Selection)

(Thermal Power Plant)

19

.

(capital cost)

1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
The main argument against renewable energy is
that solar energy is unavailable all day long while strong
wind is only seasonal. In addition, the cost of technologies for other energy sources, including coal, is high and,
because Thailand cannot produce the technologies on
its own, the cost is likely to be even higher. Even coal
which is competitive to nuclear in terms of cost emits
greenhouse gases and other pollutants, causing severe
environmental problems.
Such disadvantages cannot be said about nuclear
power, so the argument goes. Despite its high construction costs, output is consistent and stable because the
plants can be operated around the clock, and the energy
is clean. No other renewable power sources can totally
replace conventional fuels or nuclear energy. This is
because the output of alternative energy is not as stable
or consistent as oil and nuclear power which are base
power sources.
Without stability and consistency of production that
nuclear power provides, an energy crisis is a possibility,
and electricity prices will rise considerably.
Chanatip Tippayakul, nuclear engineer at the Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology, a public organization, said Thailand has been conducting a feasibility
study of nuclear power plants, including the technical
and safety aspects, and in the process of selecting the
appropriate technology and construction contractor for
such power plants.
The choice of reactor will be determined by technical consideration, such as the size and capacity of power
plants, and operation capacity. The cost of power generation will also be taken into consideration. The final
decision will be based on the publics acceptance and the
plans consistency with the countrys energy policy.
Although nuclear power plants entails high construction costs due to the need to include more safety
equipment and stricter waste controls, the costs of fuel,
and reactor operation and maintenance are lower. This
makes the average generation cost over the life-time of
a nuclear power plant lower than that of other types of
power plants, Chanatip said.
During a seminar on
Nuclear Power Generation
attended by industrialists
from 17 countries during
20-22 July 2006, an EGAT
representative revealed
that feasibility studies
have been completed on
two targeted sites.
They are the cape
of Laem Thaen in
Pathieu District of
Chumphon Prov.
Dr Chanatip Tippayakul
ince and Bang Boet on the border of Chumphon with

Prachuap Khiri Khan province.
The nuclear power plant project has already been
included in the governments operation plan, which is
organized into four phases:
Phase 1 (2008-2010): Prepare for the project start
and conduct a feasibility study in terms of the economy,
safety, environment, legal compliance and international
conventions, technology, location, human resource development, and promotion of public information.
Phase 2 (2011-2014): Decide whether or not to go
nuclear, seek approval from the government for design,
law promulgation, establishment of a regulatory agency,
and location of plants.
Phase 3 (2014-2020): Build nuclear power plants.
Phase 4 (2020): Start operating nuclear power
plants.
During Phase 1, a public information campaign
on nuclear energy was launched and a survey study
conducted on 17 potential sites. Five of the sites received
the highest rating for suitability in descending order:
Sirindhorn in Sirindhorn District, Ubon Ratchathani;
Phanom Rok, Tha Tako District, Nakhon Sawan; Mai
Root, Khlong Yai District, Trat; Khanthuli, Tha Chana
District, Surat Thani; and, Lamae estuary, Lamae
District, Chumphon.
In December 2007, the National Energy Policy
Council and the cabinet granted approval to the following actions:
1. The drawing up of the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Plan (NPIEP);
2. The setting up of the Nuclear Program Development Office under the Office of the Permanent Secretary of Energy;
3. The formation of the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Preparation Committee;
4. The drawing up of a roadmap and a three-year
budget (2008-2010) amounting to 1,345 million baht.

7
.. 2521
Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania in the US
suffered a partial core meltdown less than seven months after it began
operation in September 1978.
: ?
VA.indd 23
23
1/27/12 11:32 AM
24
- 2554
2553

/
Greenpeace volunteers participate in an anti-nuclear activity in Thong Ching Beach of Nakhon Si Thammarat province, 610 km south of Bangkok.
Thong Ching is one of the proposed sites for the construction of nuclear power plants. The sea here is known for its vast population of pink dolphins
(Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphins or Sousa chinensis). Athit Perawongmetha/Greenpeace
..
(.)

70% 1
3

IAEA 19
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
VA.indd 24
..
30
2509
. . 600 MW

30%
LNG (Liquid Natural
Gas)
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
In Chanatips view, all five sites fit the key selection
criteria in the initial study. They meet benchmarks on
safety, environmental impacts, and economic suitability, that is, the sites do not sit on fault lines and are geographically appropriate without any risk of earthquakes,
volcanoes, or floods from rivers or the sea. Moreover, the
sites have no record of severe weather conditions, nor
are they densely populated. They are easily accessible
and located near large water sources for cooling purposes
similar to thermal power plants in general.
Upon government approval for the construction of
nuclear power plants, work can take off. However, there
must be studies and preparation work in compliance
with a list of 19 items specified in the standards of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Chanathip insisted that Thailand stands to gain
from nuclear power plants in several respects , including
energy stability and climate change mitigation, because
the plants will emit no greenhouse gases and produce
high electricity output from small quantity of fuel which
yields a relatively small amount of waste. Notably, the
nuclear energy cycle can be developed further to derive
additional benefits.
However, he admitted that the initial capital cost
for nuclear power plants is higher than for other energy
installations. This is due to the need to take great care
about plant design, materials and equipment, and systems for the management and storage of nuclear waste
to ensure maximum safety both during normal operation
and emergency situation.
Nuclear power is an option. The question is
whether the public can accept that nuclear power is a
good option when the country faces an energy crisis. We
need to consider the different sources of energy, whether
alternative sources are adequate and affordable. The
most challenging issue with regard to nuclear power is
the public acceptance.
It is high time for the Thai people to take part in
making
this decision, said Dr. Chanathip, adding that if Thais
can overcome their fear,
nuclear technology is
very safe compared
with other industries.
..
Assoc Prof
Pricha
Karasuddhi
Preparedness for the project to

build nuclear power plants in
Thailand
A 19-item preparation list under IAEA standard
of nuclear plant construction:
1. National Position
2. Nuclear Safety
3. Management
4. Funding and Financing
5. Legislative Framework
6. Safeguards
7. Regulatory Framework
8. Radiation Protection
9. Electrical Grids
10. Human Resources
11. Stakeholder Involvement
12. Site and Supporting Facilities
13. Environmental Protection
14. Emergency Planning
15. Security
16. Nuclear Fuel Cycle
17. Radioactive Waste
18. Industrial Involvement
19. Procurement
Discussing energy security options for Thailand, Assoc Prof Pricha Karasuddhi, Expert Advisor on Technical and Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Power
Program Development Office, pointed out that natural gas represents 70% of fuel for electricity generation, one third of which is imported from Myanmar.
To enhance energy security and reduce reliance on natural gas, Thailands policy is to diversify energy sources
for new power plants. These plants need be built on a
large scale and able to produce electricity at low cost on
demand at all time.
Thailand should have approved the construction of
nuclear power plants 30 years ago when it first drew up a
plan in 1966, he said. Then, a survey had identified Phai
Bay in Si Racha District of Chonburi Province as the site
for a 600-MW plant. However, when gas fields were discovered in the Gulf of Thailand, the plan was shelved.
At present, the fact that 30% of natural gas must
be imported from Myanmar and liquid natural gas also
acquired from overseas will increase fuel tariff (ft) and
thereby power bills.
The 2,400MW Mae Moh power plant in Lampang
which has been operating since 1978 consumed over 16
million tons of lignite a year. The domestic source of lignite will be depleted in a few decades. The problem with
coal as well as other fossil fuels is that it causes pollution
as well as emits greenhouse gases.
Assoc Prof Pricha said nuclear power plants will
keep electricity cost affordable to the majority of consumers while providing a stable, secure and safe source
of electricity.
: ?
VA.indd 25
25
1/27/12 11:32 AM
26
- 2554

2,400 MW
.. 2521 30
16

..
3

IAEA:
3

19

..
IAEA
IAEA 13-18 .. 2553
3
1.
()
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
1
IAEA 8
1.

2.

3.
/
4.
VA.indd 26
Global Nuclear
Safety Regime

5.

6.

IAEA

7. (Material
Balance Area) (Locations Outside
Facilities)
MBA
IAEA
8. (.)

:
IAEA
8 2554
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
Whether or not Thailand will go forward with
nuclear energy depends on the governments policy. Is
Thailand ready for nuclear power? We have conducted
preliminary studies over the past three years. The power
plants that we will build will have new technology that is
much safer than the older technology which has caused
problems in Japan. We must trust that Thailand can
operate it. After all, all nuclear plants are subject to the
worlds standard set by the IAEA, not to any standard set
by any one country, he said.
The study and preparation for the project has been
ongoing for three years. But now it has been interrupted.
The IAEA has not approved Thailands report of 19 preparatory activities because the government has yet to give
plant construction a go-ahead which is the main problem. The government should put nuclear power plants
on the national agenda, not only as part of the energy
development plan. Without a clear policy, further steps,

such as legislation, technology selection, site selection,
and human resource development cannot proceed.
For industrial and business sectors which together
consume 73% of local energy supply, electricity rates
today and tomorrow are the top priorities.
Kobkarn Wattanavrangkul, deputy secretary-general of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, expressed her
concerns about fuel risk and energy security that come
with over-reliance on fossil fuels.
She said in less than two decades, fossil fuels will
be depleted, while imports such as hydro-electric power
from dams in Laos and natural gas from Myanmar and
Malaysia comprise about 40% of energy demand. Any
interruption will definitely threaten the nations energy
security.
The future of energy requires vision and long-
IAEAs observations and suggestions

on the nuclear power plant
construction project in Thailand
3. Thailand should ensure a better understanding

among owners/operators that the ultimate responsibility for safety lies with them.
4. With the decision to go nuclear,the Thai government should make a statement on acceptance of the
Global Nuclear Safety Regime and commit itself to
joining relevant international legal instruments, in particular the following:
Convention on Nuclear Safety;
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel
Management and the Radioactive Waste Management;
Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear
Materials and its amendment;
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damage.
5. Thailand should draw up a basic plan for the
Management Systems in the Regulatory Body and
other future key organizations, such as Technical Standard Orders (TSO).
6. Thailand should formalize a plan to enact a
comprehensive nuclear law and other companion laws,
consistent with the relevant IAEA standards and international legal instruments. These laws should establish
an institutional framework, including an effectively
independent regulatory body with clear functions and
responsibilities, and missions to address other areas
such as nuclear safety, nuclear security, safeguards and
civil liabilities for nuclear damage.
7. A Material Balance Area (MBA) for Locations
Outside Facilities (LOFs) should be created in Thailand
with all relevant nuclear material subject to safeguards
and properly accounted for at this MBA and reported
to the IAEA.
8. The Office of Atoms for Peace should urgently
develop a comprehensive, phased HRD Plan that is
compatible with the national nuclear power project.
Source: Presentation on Thailands self-assessment process
to IAEA by Chavalit Pichalai, deputy director of the Nuclear
Power Program Development Office, on 8 February 2011.
During a visit to Thailand from 13-18 December

2010, a team of experts from IAEA conducted initial
assessment of the 3-year study under the nuclear plant
construction project and made the following remarks:
1. No official statement demonstrating the governments commitment to the safe, secure and peaceful
(nonproliferation) implementation of nuclear power
for the long term.
2. There is no official plan for the completion of
the national nuclear legislation
3. Necessary elements for joining the relevant
international legal instruments are not included in
national legislation, and the government has not yet
formalized the plan to address this issue. Thailand has
not made a commitment to join the Convention on
Nuclear Safety
4. No evidence of commitment to ensure appointment of leaders with appropriate training and experience for leadership and the management of safety
5. No evidence showing understanding of the ultimate responsibility for safety lies with the operator
6. Office of Atoms for Peaces Human Resource
Development Plan is not sufficiently detailed for Milestone 1
Recommendations of IAEAs experts
are summarized below:
1. Basic principles regarding the safe, secure and
peaceful uses of nuclear power for the long term should
be demonstrated either specifically by the revision of
the Act or other appropriate official government statement.
2. Thailand should commit to ensuring the appointment of leaders with appropriate training and experience for the leadership and management of safety.
: ?
VA.indd 27
27
1/27/12 11:32 AM
28
- 2554
73%

20
40%

.. 2010 (PDP 2010)

30

2563 2,000 MW

30%
100%

100%

VA.indd 28
term energy development plans. Importantly, it must be

admitted that there is no perfect energy source. Energy
security does not mean reliance on nuclear power alone,
but ensuring a diverse range of options and spreading
risks over a long-term period in order to strike a balance
and create self-reliance when any one alternative runs
into trouble.
On this matter, the PDP 2010 covers quite extensively energy sources and renewable energy, such as thermal, wind and sun. Nevertheless, such an approach is
not enough because alternative energy sources are beset
by many limitations. As power consumption is likely to
rise in step with economic growth, diversification of
energy sources and energy self-reliance emerge as the
best approach, Kobkarn said.
She suggested that the government commit to developing nuclear energy, which is todays best technology
with zero carbon dioxide emission which is in tune with
the world-wide demand for environmentally-friendly
power production.
Kobkarn said energy is a main capital cost of business and competitiveness. Many countries, including
China and India, have developed their energy sources in
order to raise their competitive edge. Thirty years ago,
Thailand shared the same vision with South Korea and
Taiwan. Today, these economies have outpaced Thailands considerably. Now, Thailand is on the same track
as Vietnam. But Vietnam has already taken a nuclear
path with its first 2,000-MW nuclear power plant slated
Thailand still has to rely on imported energy, which raises
its capital cost. Nuclear power is low cost and high in
efficiency. Having nuclear power plants will bring about
scientific and technological progress, Kobkarn said, and
this will help develop related industries thereby boosting
the competitive edge of Thai businesses.
The government must be decisive and know how
to handle the public. The Japanese knows that not every
citizen embraces nuclear plants but it also realizes that
when you reach a point where
you need to build one, then
you simply go ahead even
if 30% of the population
may be against it. Nothing in this world will win
100% support. Democracy doesnt mean 100%
of the people need to
agree. Each person can
have his own view, said
Kobkarn.
Going nuclear
means some people
will have to make
sacrifices. But decisions must be rational not based on

fear. People should Kobkarn Wattanavrangkul
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
29
look at nuclear power constructively as opportunities to

create jobs and develop communities around the power
plants.
She urged the public to be broad-minded and the
government to be courageous in developing nuclear
technology without spending any more time commissioning additional studies.
She attributed the governments reluctance to make
a decision to the fact that the nuclear power plant project
cannot curry votes. As it takes substantial time to bear
fruit, the ruling politicians are afraid that they may not
survive to see it through. She believes the public will
come to appreciate it once the project is a success.
Kobkarn called on the public and the government
to make sacrifices by putting in place a firm foundation.
Rather than depressing oil prices thereby distorting the
market, the government should promote energy efficiency and secure better energy sources.
The solution to the energy crisis requires decisive
action by reducing energy consumption, then diversifying
risks and tighten controls, and seeking out new technologies. The world is moving in this direction. This does not
mean that we will love nuclear power eternally. But for
now it is one of the best options, said Kobkarn. n
PROPORTION OF POWER PRODUCTION BY FUEL:

According to Power Development Plan 2010 (PDP 2010)
:
2010 (PDP 2010)
360,000
Million kWh
320,000
280,000
240,000
200,000
160,000
7%
5%
7%
5%
6%
5%
7%
6%
8%
6%
13%
6%
13%
6%
14%
6%
3%
6%
6%
6%
14%
15%
16%
6%
6%
17%
6%
6%
8%
11%
6%
6%
17%
17%
18%
10%
6%
10%
6%
80,000
40,000
0
66%
64% 64%
64%
62% 59%
8%
11%
9%
11%
10%
10%
11%
12%
11%
10%
10%
9%
9%
9%
58%
54%
11%
10%
11%
12%
8%
8%
8%
7%
Renewable Energy
18%
19%
19%
39%
39%
30%
20% 21%
47%
46%
45%
43%
44%
13% 13%
15% 14%
13%
17%
16%
19%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
7%
6%
Heavy Oil
Power Import
Natural Gas
3%
2%
Imported Coal
Lignite
Hydro
Source: Ministry of Energy
: ?
VA.indd 29
6%
49% 48%
7%
6%
2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Nuclear
59% 59%
6%
11%
18% 18%
120,000
68%
12%
11%
1/27/12 11:32 AM
30
- 2554
A Different Perspective
... Security, Clean, Cheap

70

3
(baseload plants)
,
,

2.5
2550
VA.indd 30
A Shaky Line
of Reasoning?
he dwindling reserves of natural

gas, which fuel 70% of the production of Thailands electricity, and
the campaigns against carbon dioxide emissions are being used by state
policy makers to back their search
for an alternative, inexpensive energy to reinforce
the national grid. Nuclear power is the choice they
advance for three reasons. The country must secure
more electricity supplies to feed its base-load plants,
or power plants that need to produce electricity constantly based on the minimum demands of customers. Next, energy must be clean and friendly to the
environment. Finally, costs must be low and stable.
But these reasons raise doubts among scholars,
non-governmental organizations, and people living
Members of Solar Generation, a youth wing of
Greenpeace, and the local community of Pathieu district
in Chumphon province install a 2.5kw wind turbine at
Pathiu primary school. Greenpeace demands that the
Power Development Plan promote and explore the
potential of renewable energy combined with energy
efficiency, instead of dirty fossil fuels and dangerous
nuclear technologies. Vinai Dithajohn/Greenpeace
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554

2010
2010

(MEE Net) 10

.. 2541 2542
2551 2554
(Installed Capacity)
.. 2554 15% 3,738
(MW) 28
20
830 MW/
2010
15 20
5
[](
)

31

. ()

.
.. 2006

Decharut Sukkumnoed
in areas targeted for the construction of nuclear power
plants.
The opponents question the forecast of future
demands for electricity cited in the the governments
Power Development Plan 2010 (PDP) which they see
as a questionable attempt to justify the need for nuclear
power plants in Thailand.
For the past 10 years, Thailand has faced problems
in predicting electricity demands because the forecast has
not corresponded with real circumstances in society, says
Witoon Permpongsachaoren, director of the Mekong
Energy and Ecology Network (MEE Net). Among factors
in the discrepancy is the decrease of maximum usage of
electricity during the countrys financial crash in 1998
and 1999 and the falling demands in 2008 and 2011.
For the past 20 years, he says, the maximum usage
of electricity in Thailand has not been greater than 830
megawatts (MW) a year on average. The excessive power
reserves subsequently have caused people to bear huge
financial burdens worth several billions of baht.
Even this year, he adds, electricity generating capacity, known as installed capacity, is more than the requirement of 15% in reserve by 3,738 MW), or the equivalent
of electricity produced by 28 Pak Moon dams.
Witoon also has his doubts about the the states
move to adjust the PDP 2010 by extending the time span

of the forecast of future electricity demands from 15 to
20 years. The change, he says, probably is part of the
attempt to push ahead the plan to build five new power
plants using nuclear technology.
Experts are keen to talk about the technology [of
nuclear energy], but fail to look at nuclear issues in the
context of the current electricity system, says Witoon.
Thailands electricity system has been handicapped
by a structural problem. Electricity management and
technologies are entirely in the hands of the Electricity
Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat). Egat believes
it needs to monopolize the national electricity system to
ensure the security of power supply. But letting the stateowned agency to control the whole electricity system
does not always mean that renewable energy and energy
conservation will be promoted extensively. Instead, it
turns out that consumers have to bear the excessive costs
of electricity production. Failure to pay the bills means
electricity to their houses will be suddenly cut. Egats virtual monopoly leaves people with no choice of alternative means to electricity supply.
Our electricity system is crippled as a result,
Witoon says. Reform of the structure of the electricity
system is badly needed.
... ? Security, Clean, Cheap A Shaky Line of Reasoning?
VA.indd 31
1/27/12 11:32 AM
32
VA.indd 32
- 2554
. US Congressional Budget
Office
.. 2551 75
3
0.94 /MW (
33 /MW) 3.0 /MW (105
/MW)
Keystone Center
.. 2007
8.311.1 / ( 2.93.9 /)
12-17 / (4.2-6.0 /
)

96.2 (3.4
) 38

Besides the monopoly of the electricity system and

the inaccurate forecast of electricity demands in Thailand, the high costs of building nuclear power plants also
lend credit to opponents. Construction of such plants
comes with economic risks, warns Kasetsart Universitys economist Decharut Sukkumnoed.
The risk can be seen in the uncertainty of the cost
estimate of a nuclear power plant. A study by the US
Congressional Budget Office in May, 2008 notes that the
real construction costs of 75 nuclear power plants in the
United States were three times higher than the estimates
put forward by the industry sector. Their average cost
was also found to jump from US$0.94 million a MW
(about 33 million baht a MW) to US$3 million a MW
(105 million baht a MW). These figures came to light
only after construction work started.
On-site, the construction of a nuclear power plant
requires the design of buildings and facilities to be
unique to each location. This lack of a standard design
inflates costs and slows the inspection of the plant and
equipment safety, Decharut explains.
The higher construction costs also stem from the
usually long construction period of about 10 years, the
need to keep the power plant projects in line with laws to
obtain construction and operation permits, and expenses
in linking the plant with the state infrastructure. These
factors complicate the investment plan and often cause

nuclear power plant operators worldwide to pay more
than they expected to do.
The uncertainties in cost estimates, which often
bring heavy financial burdens, lead operators to do
everything possible to secure certain returns. They call
on the government to guarantee constant revenues, and
have to manage insurance plans for risks and accidents
that can happen at the plants. Eventually, Decharut says,
these expenses will be pushed to both the government
and consumers.
These problems are seen in the construction of the
75 nuclear power plants. According to the US Congressional Budget Office, the plants, erected from 1966 to
1986, had to go through complicated processes, which
led to the higher costs, during the average construction
period of 12 years of each plant. The operators were
first required to find locations, choose types of technology, study laws, think of how to decrease environmental impacts, recruit specialists to oversee the plants, and
plan ways to prevent and respond to unwanted incidents
including terrorist attacks.
Other costs needed to operate the plant and deal
with its waste also make this alternative energy a very
expensive option. A study by non-partisan think-tank
Keystone Center in 2007 found the cost of electricity

2553
/
More than a hundred people representing communities opposed
to nuclear power together with crew from the Greenpeace flagship
Rainbow Warrior place windsocks to form the shape of a pink dolphin,
next to a banner reading Unplug a nuclear future, in Thong Ching
Beach, Nakhon Si Thammarat province in September 2010.
Athit Perawongmetha/Greenpeace
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
33
.. 2008
75 .. 1966-1986 12

1980

2006
2 .. 2007 3 .. 2008
.
2010
IPP (Independent Power Producers) .
2010

15
20

1.2

20%
50% 25% 25%
10%

production, fuelled by nuclear energy, stood between

8.3 and 11.1 cents a kilowatt-hour (kWh), or about 2.9
and 3.9 baht a kWh. However, a researcher of the centre
later adjusted the numbers to between 12 and 17 cents a
kWh (4.2 and 6 baht a kWh). This excluded the expenses
of nuclear waste management.
When nuclear waste is included, cost has to be
adjusted. According to the centre, if the waste is taken
for storage at the Yucca Mountain in Nevada, it will cost
US$96.2 billion (3.4 trillion baht), a 38% increase from
the initial estimate. However, the nuclear waste repository project at Yucca site has been stalled due to the
strong opposition from experts and local people.
Since 2006, the high construction costs of nuclear
power plants are a major reason for the declining trend of
their numbers, Decharut says. That year, there were only
two plants; the numbers were put at three in the following
year, but in 2008 there were none. Meanwhile, there has
been an increase in the use of renewable energy sources
such as sun and wind. Even the solar cell technology
looked set to have a brighter future despite its high cost.
The advertisements that the world is moving towards
nuclear technology are thus exaggerated, Decharut says.
However, in Thailand, the problems inherent in the construction of nuclear power plants have been rarely communicated to the public.
Decharut is not convinced by the Energy Ministrys

claim that the cost of electricity produced by a nuclear
power plant is cheaper than other types of power plants.
The ministry estimates that a 1,000-MW nuclear power
plant incurs an electricity cost of only 150 billion baht.
However, he says, this is not a precise figure because even
the United States is not confident in estimating the costs
of nuclear power plants. The US nuclear power plants
so far have chalked up more electricity production costs
than initially estimated. On top of that there are the
expenses of public information campaigns. With such
unpredictable expenses, some nuclear plants even had to
cut short construction.
Another cost that may surface when considering
the building of a nuclear power plant in Thailand lies in
the non-transparency of projects, Decharut says. Mega
projects in Thailand are renowned for being steeped in
corruption.
Moreover, in the international context, Thailand
is far from meeting requirements for building nuclear
power plants. The governments decision to delay its
nuclear power plant plan for another three years seems
to be a response to the International Atomic Energy
Agency which says Thailand is not ready in many
areas, notes Decharut.
Reflecting on the PDP 2010, Decharut suggests the
VA.indd 33
1/27/12 11:32 AM
34
- 2554
3

.

1,000
150,000

.. 1990

30

government remove plans to have more Independent
Power Producers, or to build more coal-fired power
plants and nuclear power plants. He reasons that the
country does not need such a large amount of electricity. The maximum demands for electricity have so far
decreased while the national electricity reserves are still
above the 15% requirement.
In 20 years, he adds, renewable energy is expected
to be cheaper than nuclear energy. Therefore the government should support more uses of renewable energy,
especially wind and sun. With these energy sources,
Thailand has a potential to produce up to 12,000 MW
of electricity without any need to rely on nuclear power
plants.
Thailand can also secure its power supply by promoting electricity conservation among people more seriously, he says. Currently the industry sector is the largest
consumption group accounting for half of the national
electricity usage while commercial buildings and households consume 25% each. If all sectors can reduce consumption by 10%, which is still less than the 20% target
set by the government, there will be no need to build
nuclear power plants.
Besides, there are many small private electricity producers wanting to sell several thousand megawatts of
electricity to Egat, making it hard to imagine Thailand
will face electricity shortage.
Dont worry that we will not have enough electric-
VA.indd 34

(enrichment)

ity for our future growth, Decharut says. What we
should do is to conserve electricity and use more renewable energy.
Santi Chokechaichamnankij, of the Alternative
Energy for Sustainability, echoes Decharuts comment
on the dim future of nuclear power plants. He says since
western countries allowed for free competition of electricity production in 1990, nuclear power plants operating under such market conditions have struggled unsuccessfully. Consequently, there have been no new plants
in western Europe, says Santi. In the US, he has not
heard news of nuclear power plant construction for the
past 30 years.
Many European countries look at social and economic dimensions when they are considering the merits of nuclear power plants. In Denmark, Santi says, a
nuclear power plant is viewed as an option that causes
social injustice between people who take benefits from its
electricity and those who have to bear risks due to living
near the plant. The Austrian government decided not to
build one after a public referendum rejected this technology. In other countries such as Germany, plans to close
and remove nuclear power plants have been included in
election campaigns and legislation processes.
In Santis view, the nuclear power plant industry is
on the downhill. New orders for nuclear reactors have
greatly decreased; nuclear technology firms are struggling for survival and their production lines are approach-
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
35
. . -

Small squid fishing boats at rest in an inlet of Ban Bang Chak in Pathiu
district of Chumphon province are equipped with energy-saving light
bulbs which are essential for drawing squids. Local fisher folks are
years ahead of their city counterparts in their awareness of energy
efficiency which leads directly to revenue saving.
40 50
16%

39%

279
16
278
80%

ing the end. Nuclear technology producers need to look

for new markets in Asia and are trying to enter into construction contracts, no matter whether a nuclear power
plant will be built, simply to raise the price of their shares
in the stock market.
A claim that nuclear power plants produce clean
energy that does not cause global warming is not entirely
true. From mining and processing uranium to transporting
it to a plant, a large amount of fossil fuel is needed, Santi
notes. So the use of nuclear technology to produce electricity inevitably will cause more carbon dioxide emissions.
Another problem is the scarcity of uranium. If the
demands for electricity stay unchanged, it is expected
that the reserves of good quality uranium would be able
to feed nuclear power plants for only another 40 and 50
years.
At present, 16% of global electricity supply is produced by nuclear energy. If nuclear power plants are chosen to replace other types of energy, the world will face
a big environmental problem, Santi says. The amount
of good uranium will run out in a decade, causing plant
operators to rely on lower grade uranium. More fossilbased energy will then be used to process the mineral,
causing even more carbon dioxide emissions as a result.
Economically, Santi adds, the dwindling amount of
uranium will also increase costs of electricity because the
mineral will carry heftier price tags.
In Thailand, people living in areas eyed for nuclear
power plant construction are often misled that they will

benefit from the construction. Operators often give residents predictable promises ranging from new jobs, better
roads and free electricity for those living near the plant in
order to get permission to build a plant in that particular
area. However, the large portion of benefits will go to
Bangkokians who live far away from their neighborhood.
Bangkok demands 39% of electricity produced in the
country, which is more than the combination of electricity demands in the North, the Northeast and the South.
Just the electricity usages of 279 million units in
Paragon, MBK and Central World shopping malls in
the capital amount to more than the total electricity
demands of people in 16 provinces across the country
which stand at 278 million units, Santi says.
Villagers living in an area where a nuclear power
plant is built in fact will suffer risks from the plant. They
will not enjoy its benefits like businesses and factories in
industrial estates which demand 80% of the national
electricity supply.
The government often advertises that nuclear
power plants are safe. Thats not true, Santi says.
There are risks. The question is whether we should take
such risks.
He doubts how the PDP 2010 will deal with risks in
its plans to build power plants. Currently, certain communities are at risk of encountering impacts of new
power plants in their neighborhood. These people are
VA.indd 35
1/27/12 11:32 AM
36
- 2554

2010

70 1,000

25
4,000
9

VA.indd 36
being told to sacrifice their ways of living, environment and local resources, he says. But for whose
interests?
Santi does not believe nuclear power plants will
be the answer to Thailands national electricity security. The Energy Ministrys and Egats claim that this
country needs nuclear power plants because of the
decreasing reserves of natural gas is made without
well-rounded assessment. He wonders what the government will do if a 1,000-MW nuclear power plant
stops working one day. How many other power plants
will be needed to replace the troubled one?
In terms of safety, Santi reminds the government of the tragedy of the Chernobyl plant accident
in Ukraine 25 years ago. The number of deaths and
injuries are reported at 4,000 people, but an unofficial
survey indicates there may be up to 900,000 people
facing long-term impacts of nuclear pollution from
the plant. These people have been forgotten and no
one has taken responsibility to help them, Santi says.
The meltdown of nuclear reactors after the tsunami attacked Fukushima Prefecture in Japan early
this year may be even worse than the Chernobyl accident, Santi adds.
Nuclear accidents have continued to happen,
but the news about them has been rarely reported
in Thailand, he says. If such accidents occur here,
who can bear the responsibility? n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
37

2
5

?
625 -2,500

5
1,000
140-150

IAEA

Justice and
Sustainability
What Communities
Ask for
s many countries around the world

review safety measures at their nuclear
power plants after explosions at Japans
Fukushima Daiichi, Thai communities
living in places eyed as sites for a nuclear
power plant focus keenly on the risks.
Having followed the news with grave concern, the
biggest question for people living in Khanthuli and Paknam Lamae is: what will happen to their homes if a
nuclear power plant is built in their communities?
The coastal area of 625-2,500 rai will be used for
the construction of the plant as well as companion facilities, among them breakwaters and docks. How many
families will have to move? What will happen after they
move?
How will their lives change if a community development fund is set up for the area within a five-kilometer
radius around the plant supposing the cash injection is
similar to the 140-150 million baht per year proposed for
communities near a 1,000 megawatt coal power plant.
What will be the social, environmental, and health
impacts on the communities as a result of higher seawater temperatures and changes in climatic conditions?
The proposed nuclear plant and related activities may
threaten seriously their communities in terms of the
environment, natural resources and health. For instance,
will the tremendous demand for water to supply the
plant affect natural seawater circulation and creatures
living in the ocean?
. .

The estuary of Lamae in Lamae district of Chumphon province feed

many fisher communities along its coast with abundant marine
resources to help sustain a way of life that is dependent on them.
VA.indd 37
1/27/12 11:32 AM
38
- 2554
()
Samnao Kotchadej (left) gestures during an interview as a fellow

fisherman looks on.
. .
. .
10

1 .
11 .

4-5 1,000
240 6

Besides, can they believe in the authorities suggestion that under normal circumstances, the operation of
a nuclear power plant will not release into the environment radioactive materials that exceed the amount permitted by the IAEA, and hence will pose no danger to
the community, the environment, fishery, or agriculture?
These communities seem to have been given only positive information about the proposed nuclear power plant
but provided no data on other effects that such an installation may bring.
And there are many more questions.
But topmost in everyones minds are these: in the
event of an accident similar to that in Japan, how will the
authorities in Thailand manage, and what will happen to
local communities?
Individuals representing communities living less than
10 kilometers apart Paknam Lamae, Lamae District,
Chumporn Province, and Khanthuli, Tha Chana District,
Surat Thani Province voiced concern for the changes
they expect the proposed plant to bring to agriculture,
fishery, and a potentially strong coastal tourism business.
Samnao Kotchadej, a fisherman from Mu 1, Tam-
bon Lamae, and Sa-Ard Dullang, villager from Mu 11,

Khanthuli, discussed their common plight. Over ten villages are located in the coastal area surveyed and identified as potential sites for plant construction. Fishermen
live in these villages without land title deeds. They have
lived by fishing and raised their families for generations
and have no land they can call their own to make a new
start. If they have to relocate, they will receive no compensation, and become jobless. If a plant is built, these
coastal fishermen will be most affected environmentally.
In a day, a fisherman with a small boat can earn
400-500 baht while others operating larger boats make
over 1,000 baht. In Lamae, there are 240 boats in six
villages. We have no land title deeds but we make a living because the sea from Lamae to Surat Bay is teeming with marine life. If a power plant is built, everything
will change. You cant move the sea somewhere else so its
abundance is maintained, said Samnao.
Sa-Ards concern is similar. He has seen how the lives
of fishermen around the Khanom estuary in Nakhon Si
Thammarat Province have changed after a natural gas
plant was built there.
3
. . 50

300
Villagers spend free time looking for undulated surf clams (Paphia
undulate) on Khanthuli Beach which connects three tambons or
subdistricts in Thachana district of Surat Thani province and includes
a 50-rai fertile mangrove forest. The sea here is a major fishing area for
hundreds of families with over 300 boats.
VA.indd 38
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
39
()
.
Chamnan Kongsaeng (right) is steering his boat during a routine
inspection of the giant clam conservation area in the sea off Pathiu
district of Chumphon province.
1-2

3-5
10

. . .

(
1,643 )

30

If the temperature of water released from the power

plant raises the seawater temperature by only 1-2 degrees,
coral bleaching will occur and mackerels will die. Thai
people will not have mackerels to eat because this fish central to the Thai diet lays its eggs in this area. With marine
life gone, fishermen will not be able to catch fish at 3-5
kilometers from the shore. They will have to go much
farther out as fishermen in Khanom now do. Small-scale
fishermen will not be able to catch anything close to home.
Travelling farther will raise costs to an extent that may
make their daily catch not worthwhile, Sa-Ard said.
At a community pier in Bangchak, Tambon Chumkho, Pathiu district, Chumphon Province, Chamnan
Kongsaeng is taking out his boat to patrol the giant clam
conservation area local fishermen initiated and now run.
Chamnan said marine resources along the coast of
Thailand (about 1,643 kilometers) have been used in
many different ways for a long time. The ocean has also
been used as a sink for garbage dumped from all sorts of
waterways. It also has weathered natural disasters such
as storms, tsunamis and the effects of global warming,
including rising sea temperatures and coral bleaching.
For Chamnan and other local residents, the ocean

may have undergone overwhelming changes but the scale
of the effects is incomparable to what happened from
radioactive contamination to the food chain as seen after
the explosion of the nuclear power plant in Japan. However, even in the normal operation of the proposed power
plant, there is no guarantee that radioactive materials will
not leak into the ocean and the surrounding environment.
Public anxiety over the possible perils of a nuclear
power plant has taken center stage for the first time in
their lives.
Local people encountered say the authorities have
visited them in the past two years to promote a positive image of the plan with various giveaways to communities, schools and temples. They also have taken village leaders to Mae Moh Power Plant and other power
plants in the country, without adequately revealing the
real effects of such installations. They also spent money
on an advertising campaign to convince the communities that the power plant would bring prosperity to the
area. Notably, these community relations programs have
resulted in conflicts among the villagers.
( )
Sa-Ard Dullang (center in green shirt) and a group of concerned

villagers in Khanthuli sub-district are discussing the future of their
communities in the face of a nuclear power plant construction plan.
VA.indd 39
Justice and Sustainability: What Communities Ask for
1/27/12 11:32 AM
40
VA.indd 40
- 2554

10

Chondarong Thongsong

1- 2

2010 ( .. 25532573)

(GRP: Gross Regional Product) 2552
362,428 8.5
In addition, investors are buying up vast tracts of

land. Encroachment of mangrove forests has been widespread since news was reported of the pending construction of a power plant in the area.
Chondarong Thongsong, deputy director of
research and academic affairs, Maejo University at
Chumphon, which is located near Paknam Lamae,
believes that the government promotes only positive
information about nuclear power plants, so Thai people
lack sufficient information with which to exercise their
constitutional right in the decision-making processes
related to development projects in their localities.
It is wrong, said Chondarong, to build power plants
of any kind near schools and communities. Both nuclear
power plants and industrial activities inevitably destroy
the ecosystem.
The construction of a nuclear power plant will
involve clearing a large plot of land. Top soil as well as
mangrove forests and coral reefs stretching over ten kilometers at the mouth of the river and in the bay will be
eroded, affecting the livelihoods of local fishermen. Seawater pumped into the plant will take with it young marine
organisms, and the chemicals released into the ocean may
squeeze the abundance of marine life, he said.
The effect on the ecosystem is inevitable even with
only 1-2 degree increase in seawater temperature. Installing
nuclear power plants (as called for under the 2010 Power
Development Plan) in the south of Thailand will result in
severe damage to marine resources in the southern region.
Nevertheless, concerns over impacts on marine
ecology, a main component of Thailands food prosperity, are only part of the natural resource and economic
profile of this area. According to the Bank of Thailand,
the southern regions Gross Regional Product (GRP) in
2009 was worth 362,428 million baht or 8.5% of the
Gross Domestic Product. Although the main products in
this region are rubber and oil palm, fishery accounts for
29.9% of its GRP.
Vivek Amatavet, coordinator of the Rak Lamae
Network, says the coastal area linking Chumphon and
Surat Thani is 412 kilometers long with 42 districts situated on the coast.
Southerners are quite alarmed by the possibility of
a power plant being installed in this area. We are content
with the way we live. Chumphons 200,000 rai of coastal
area is priceless with its coral reef, sea grass and many
tourist attractions. We have rubber and palm oil generating 1,700 million baht in annual income. Wouldnt you
want to protect this way of life? he said.
To whom should we make sacrifices? Electricity
generation is a monopoly. The authorities are not telling
the truth about FT (fuel tariff charge). The PDP forecasts (of power use) were never accurate. We dont trust
the monitoring system. Today, Chumphon can produce
surplus electricity for our own consumption. The entire
southern region needs 1,880 megawatts, so for whom is
the nuclear power plant, us or the investors?
Chantachote Pusilp, recognized by Khanthuli villagers as a local scholar, points to the adverse impacts
on agriculture. He said vapor emissions from the power
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
(GDP: Gross Domestic Product)

29.9 GRP

Vivek Amatavet
412 42

2

1,700

1,880 MW

41

Chantachote Pusilp

( )

3,000
2

14 5
Oil palm, rubber, crabs, squids, undulated surf clams, fish all these have given the people of Khanthuli a consistent and stable income.
plant would raise temperatures and change the level of

air humidity, and possibly render infertile fruit trees,
such as rambutan, durian and palm, which are sensitive
to temperature changes, during regular seasons. Rubber trees, which are deciduous, will be weakened. These
effects do not include radioactive contamination in agricultural produce, which could hurt domestic and international consumer confidence in Thai produce in general.
Today, those who welcome the nuclear power plant
project have received false information. Project staff
have taken them to the Bang Kruay plant and told them
that it was a nuclear plant right in Bangkok.
I once spoke to a group of surveyors who said the
plant would require an area of 3,000 rai. But the history
of relocation (as a result of mega-project construction)
in Thailand could not instill much confidence. The construction of dams, altogether covering over two million
rai, as the national symbol of development, has rooted
out more than 20,000 families. Even now most of them
still live in hardships. We have seen many clear examples. Thailand needs development in many other aspects
without going so far as to build nuclear power plants,
Chantachote said.
Today, opposition to nuclear power plants has
grown even more intense, especially from people living
in the 14 areas surveyed and the five locations that have
been selected as potential project sites.
These people have raised questions about injustices
in the distribution of resources. They pointed in particular to the differences in electricity demands. While
VA.indd 41
Justice and Sustainability: What Communities Ask for
1/27/12 11:32 AM
42
- 2554

20%
63% 17%

households across the country consume only 20%,

industries guzzle 63% and small businesses 17%. If the
State wants to secure energy sustainability, there are
many other options. For example, the State could promote alternative energy by allowing communities and
small businesses to generate electricity for their own use
and for sale to the State.
They say the risks from nuclear power plants are
unacceptable and contrary to the way of life in an
agricultural society like Thailand. They believe that it
is a form of development that will lead to a chain of
adverse effects that would grow ever more severe and
sustained.
It is for these reasons that the local villagers have
refused to risk their future by rejecting and opposing
not only nuclear power plants but all development plans
they believe present a threat to their simple, secure and
sustainable way of life, their community rights and
abundant natural resources. These resources should
stand as a food store for the country and, together
with the way of life, should be handed down to future
generations, not to be served to only a select few. n

(Fission Reaction)

(Chain Reaction)
The Anatomy of a
Nuclear Power Plant
The basic principle behind a nuclear reactor is simple: the heat
produced by a controlled nuclear fission chain reaction is used
to create steam pressure that drives a power-generating turbine.
But the technology required to implement this principle efficiently and safely is enormously complex. The chain reaction, once
achieved, will be sustained until the fuel is exhausted, and the fission
reaction must be maintained at the correct rate and quickly adjusted
or stopped when necessary. Water temperature and pressure must be
carefully controlled. Elaborate, redundant cooling systems are needed
to guard against the possibility that the nuclear fuel will overheat and
start to melt.
Different reactor designs approach these requirements in different ways, each with its advantages and disadvantages.
VA.indd 42
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554

(light water)
(heavy water)

1. (Pressurized Water
Reactors)

2. (Boiling Water Reactors)

Most of the plants in operation are light water reactors, meaning
they use normal water in the core of the reactor. Another technology in
use is heavy water and some other reactors, much less common, use
gas.
The Different Types of Nuclear Reactors
There are three most common types of nuclear reactors currently
in operation throughout the world.
1. Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) are by far the most common type of nuclear reactors deployed to date. Ordinary water is used
as both neutron moderators and coolant. The water used as moderator
and primary coolant is separate to the water used to generate steam
and to drive a turbine.
In order to efficiently convert the heat produced by the nuclear
reaction into electricity, the water that moderates the neutron and cools
the fuel elements is contained at pressures many times greater than
atmospheric pressure to keep it from turning into steam. This heat is
later transferred to the water in another system, generating steam to
drive the turbine.
2. Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) are second most commonly
deployed reactors. Ordinary light water is used as both a moderator and
coolant, like the PWR. However unlike the PWR, in a BWR there is no separate secondary steam cycle. The water from the reactor is converted
into steam and used to directly drive the generator turbine.
3. Heavy Water Reactors use water enriched with the deuterium
isotope of hydrogen as the moderator and coolant. This type of water is
called heavy water and is an excellent moderator, which helps in the
reaction to break up nucleus and enables the use of natural, unenriched
uranium as fuel.
The design of this type of reactors was developed in Canada and
is known by its name the CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) reactor.
Water
Nuclear power plants are usually built next to lakes, rivers, and
oceans, not for the scenic views that such locales provide, but because
nuclear power plants consume vast amounts of water during normal
operation to absorb the waste heat left over after making electricity
and also to cool the equipment and buildings used in generating that
VA.indd 43
43
3. (Heavy Water Reactors)

CANDU
(Canada Deuterium Uranium Reactor)

electricity. In event of an accident, nuclear power plants need water to
remove the decay heat produced by the reactor core and also to cool the
equipment and buildings used to provide the cores heat removal.
Two modes of cooling are used to remove the waste heat from
electrical generation: once-through cooling and closed-cycle cooling.
In the once-through cooling system, water from the nearby lake,
river or ocean flows through thousands of metal tubes inside the condenser. Steam flowing through the condenser outside the tubes gets
cooled down and converted back into water. The condensed water is
re-used by the plant to make more steam. The water exits the condenser
tubes warmed up to 16.7C (30F) higher than the temperature of that
water body from where it came.
In the closed-cycle cooling system, cooling works in the same
fashion as the once-through cooling system, except instead of water
exiting the condenser tubes flowing to the original water body, it flows to
a cooling tower. Air moving upward past the water spraying downward
inside the cooling tower cools the water. The water collected in the cooling tower basin is pumped back to the condenser for re-use.
An open cone-shaped cooling tower often indicates a nuclear
power plant employing this type of cooling system. While it is a closed
system, a certain volume of water is lost as water vapor that is carried
away by the air leaving the cooling tower. Water from the nearby lake,
river, or ocean is needed to make-up for the loss.
As mentioned, nuclear power plants need huge volumes of water
for cooling. It has been estimated that for a typical 1,000 megawatt (MW)
nuclear power reactor, if the differential temperature passing through
the condenser is 16.7 C, it will need approximately 1,803,750 liters
(476,500 gallons) of water per minute. If the temperature rise is limited
to 11C (20F), the cooling water need rises to 2,705,600 liters (714,750
gallons) per minute.
The differential temperature of water discharged into natural water
sources is specified in the rules and laws governing the operation of
nuclear power plants, which may be different according to the condition
of individual water body. This is to prevent excessive damage to the
ecosystem and fauna and flora of the water source.
Nuclear power plants need more water than other types of power
plants. Without good management, the abundance of water source could
be put in danger as large numbers of young aquatic beings are pumped
into the condenser together with the cooling water.
1/27/12 11:32 AM
44
- 2554
(once-through cooling)

30 ( 16.7 )
(closed-cycle cooling)

1,000
16.7C 1,803,750
11C
2,705,600

If cost were the only factor in the decision, nearly all nuclear power
plants would feature once-through cooling systems because pumping
vast amounts of water through the condenser is usually the cheapest
option. Closed-cycle cooling systems are used when the nearby water
source lacks sufficient water volume to allow the large flow rate needed
for once-through cooling or when environmental limits on thermal pollution dictate that waste heat be rejected to the air and not just to the
body of water.
While the closed-cycle system uses less make-up water than the
once-through system, the volume of water used is not negligible. Thats
because water is needed to compensate for the water vapor leaving the
cooling towers with the cooling air flow. Water must also be discharged
from closed-cycle cooling systems in order to control the chemistry of
the recycled water and to limit the build-up of sediment and other debris
in the cooling tower basins. At the Susquehanna nuclear plant in the
USs State of Pennsylvania, its two reactors need about 155 million liters
of water to make up for the vapor loss and the discharge to the river to
reduce chemicals and sediments accumulating in the cooling system.
In addition to using water as coolant, nuclear power plants also
take water from the nearby lakes, rivers, and oceans to cool other
equipment, such as the chillers for air conditioning units, lubricating
oil coolers for the main turbine, after-coolers for air compressors, and
heat exchangers for closed-loop cooling systems. This so-called service water system never stops operating even when the reactor is shut
down for refueling or maintenance. After cooling these components, the
heated water is returned to the nearby source.
VA.indd 44

(Susquehanna)
155

(American Nuclear Society)

1,000 1-4
20-50 ..
50-150 .. 4,000-6,000 ..

.. 2554 20 .

30 .

10 (16 .)

50 (80 .)
n
Site Requirement for Nuclear Power
The American Nuclear Society states in one of its brochures that
compared to other energy options, nuclear power plants require far less
land area. For a 1000-MW plant, a nuclear power plant requires only 1-4
sq km while a solar park requires 20-50 sq km, a wind farm 50-150 sq
km, and biomass 4,000-6,000 sq km.
However, the siting of a nuclear power plant normally take into
consideration a wide area that is sparsely populated to prevent massive impact from radiation exposure in case of accident. This necessity is clearly demonstrated when the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant
suffered debilitating damage in March 2011. The Japanese government
was forced to declare an area within the 20km radius of the plant an
emergency zone and order all inhabitants evacuated. Later there were
calls for the government to expand the zone to 30km radius as radiation
was discovered in area far away from the damaged plant.
The US Department of Homeland Security says in a report that
local and state governments, federal agencies, and the electric utilities
have emergency response plans in the event of a nuclear power plant
incident. The plans define two emergency planning zones. One zone
covers an area within a 10-mile radius of the plant, where it is possible
that people could be harmed by direct radiation exposure. The second
zone covers a broader area, usually up to a 50-mile radius from the
plant, where radioactive materials could contaminate water supplies,
food crops, and livestock. n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
45
: ?
Electricity Demand Forecast:

On-target or Over-exaggerated
(PDP: Power
Development Plan) 15
(.)
The Power Development Plan (PDP),

the countrys 15-year master plan
for electricity,was drawn up by the
Electricity Generating Authority of
Thailand (EGAT) to ensure sufficient
electricity to match the nations
growing demand.

49% 21%
25%
5% 2550
Industry is the largest user of

electricity, consuming 49%
of power supply compared to
21% by households, 25% by
commerce and 5% by other
activities according to the 2007
statistics.
VA.indd 45
1/27/12 11:32 AM
46
- 2554
2

, ,

2007 2 (.. 2551-2564)
24 2552
..2554 14
. . .
41

A network of civic groups from 14 southern provinces rally on Phet

Kasem Highway in Tha Sae district of Chumphon province in September
2011 to demand that the government review mega-projects planned for
southern Thailand, including coal-fired and nuclear power plants.
.. 2559-2564
2,000 (MW)
1 12 .. 2553
(.)
.. 2553-2573 ( 2010)
. 23 2553

VA.indd 46
he PDP has two principal tasks. It

forecasts the growth in electricity demand and the timing of peaks
during the plan in order to increase
production capacity as needed. The
PDP also considers options for securing electricity generating sources that will ensure the
system is strong enough to meet the figures forecast.
The options include the construction of new power
plants, inviting the private sector to bid for concessions to generate electricity or procuring electricity
from neighboring countries.
The second revision of PDP 2007 (for 20082021), approved by the cabinet on March 24, 2009,
calls for new power plants to be built some time during the years 2016-2021, including nuclear power
plants to generate 2,000 MW of electricity.
However, a year later, on March 12, 2010, the
National Energy Policy Committee approved yet
another plan to secure electricity for 2010-2030
(called PDP 2010). This plan was submitted to the
cabinet for approval on March 23, 2010. The difference between this and its predecessor lies in the extension of the time span from 15 to 20 years. In addition,
the committee suggested a review of the risks from
exploration for natural gas along the western shoreline that might require an increase in the contingency
power reserve from 15% to 20%.
In short, the PDP 2010 (for 2010-2030) requires
the following:
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
15 20
15%

20
2010 (.. 2553-2573)
1. (Combined Cycle) 20
15,870 MW
2. 13 10,000 MW
3. (Small Power Producer: SPP)
(Co-Generation)
6,844 MW
4. (Very Small
Power Producer: VSPP)
5,242 MW
5. 11,669 MW
6. 5 5,000
MW .. 2563
2007 2010

20
20

5
( 2007) 2
.. 2573
52,890 MW
30,845 MW 20 ( 22,045 MW ..
2552)

.. 2535-2549
568 MW/ .
.. 2550-2564
1,942 MW (Gross
Domestic Product: GDP)
2007 . 2550
.. 2551 23,957 MW
1,371 MW
() 4,400 MW
.. 2551
22,568 MW 18 MW
24
47
1. Twenty combined-cycle power plants to produce 15,870 MW of electricity;

2. Thirteen coal-fired power plants to produce
10,000 MW;
3. Small power producers (SPP) of the co-generation type to produce 6,844 MW;
4. Very small power producers (VSPP) operated
by private investors and EGAT to produce 5,242
MW;
5. Purchase of up to 11,669 MW of electricity
from overseas;
6. Five nuclear power plants with a combined
production capacity of 5,000 MW, the first plant of
which to start operating in 2020.
The revision of PDP 2007 to PDP 2010 raises
a few questions. Most in doubt is the accuracy of
the electricity forecast that forms the basis for forging
the countrys energy policy and setting production
capacity. Many observers see the current forecasting
method as exaggerated, causing too much electricity
to be produced. The method assumes that electricity
demand grows with the economy and uses economic
indicators to project electricity consumption over the
next 20 years.
The extension of the PDP from 15 to 20 years
calls for the construction of a large number of coalfired and nuclear power plants. PDP 2010 specifies
five nuclear power plants compared with just two
under PDP 2007.
The peak demand for electricity in 2030, which
is the last year of the PDP, is forecast to be 52,890
MW. The figure represents an increase of 30,845
MW in a period of 20 years (from 22,045 MW in
2009). However, a comparison of this forecast with
figures of electricity usage in the past shows a tendency by forecasters to grossly overestimate peak
demands.
For example, from 1982-2006, the peak electricity demand rose steadily at an average rate of 568
MW per year. But EGAT forecasted that demand
would rise at 1,942 MW per year on average from
2007-2021, citing the likely annual increase in Gross
Domestic Product (GDP).
The PDP 2007 that was approved by the cabinet
in 2007 forecasted peak electricity demand for 2008
at 23,957 NW, an increase of 1,371 MW from the
previous year. This increase was used to justify bidding for a large private-owned power plant (IPP) with
a generating capacity of 4,400 MW. But the peak
usage in April 2008 turned out to be only 22,568
MW or 18 MW lower than the previous year.
On May 24, 2011, electricity usage peaked at
23,900.21 MW or 668 MW less than the 24,568
MW forecasted under PDP 2010. The difference
almost equals the output of a standard coal-fired
power plant of 700 MW.
: ? Electricity Demand Forecast: On-target or Over-exaggerated
VA.indd 47
1/27/12 11:32 AM
48
- 2554

2553
Greenpeace activists rally in

front of the Energy Ministry in
June 2010 to call for diversion
of all energy related investments
toward clean renewable energy.
Roengchai Kongmuang /
Greenpeace
23,900.21 MW 2010 .
24,568 MW 668 MW
1 (700 MW)
(Installed Capacity)
31,516.61 MW 32%

15% (
-)

(MEE Net)

2007
.. 2551 23,957 MW
22,568 MW 1,389 MW

..
2564 46,125
M W
2,833
MW

15%
At that time, the installed capacity of the system

was calculated to be 31,516.61 MW or 32% higher
than the actual usage. The universally accepted
amount of power reserve is set at 15% of the peak
usage of the year (during April-May which are the
hottest months).
Vitoon Permpongsacharoen, director of the
Mekong Energy and Ecology Network (MEE Net),
pointed out that the demand forecasts have grown
remarkably every year. If realities prove the forecasts
to be wrong, the basic figures should be adjusted
immediately. Otherwise, the discrepancies will lead
to an unreal widening or narrowing of the figures,
particularly towards the last years of the plan.
He cited PDP 2007 which forecasted peak
demand for electricity in 2008 to be 23,957 MW
when actual electricity usage was only 22,568 MW
or 1,389 MW lower. In such a case, if an adjustment is made to the PDP based on the actual usage
figure, the forecast of power demand in 2021 would
come down to 46,125 MW or 2,833 MW lower
than previously stated. Even if a 15% contingency
is added, the forecast will exceed the reality by 3,257
MW. With this scenario, there is no need at all to
build two nuclear power plants to produce the extra
2,000 MW the plan requires.
Vitoon believes that consumers have shouldered
the burden of paying excessive electricity rates over
the past 10 years. Most of this has gone to funding
the building of power plants to produce an electricity
reserve that is greater than needed, causing Thailand
to hold excess electricity in the system. The average
cost of building a new power plant is estimated at
Vitoon Perpongsacharoen
VA.indd 48
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
31 2545 - 1,000

About 1,000 villagers from Ban Krut and Bo Nok of Prachuap Khiri
Khan province march from the Royal Plaza to the Government House
to protest against the coal-fired power plant construction project during
the administration of Thaksin Shinawatra in July 2002.
3,257 MW

2 2,000 MW
10

35-40
(Fuel
adjustment tariff: Ft)
(Incentive)

(Overcapitalization/Overinvestment)
.

49
35-40 million baht per MW. This enormous cost

would be passed on to consumers through the Fuel
Adjustment Tariff (FT) or the automatic variable
cost that fluctuates according to the fuel cost and the
expenditures that are beyond EGATs control, such
as inflation rate, foreign exchange rates or compensation to accommodate sales that fail to meet targets
or unwise investments.
Another reason for the escalating electricity
price is the change in criteria for determining electricity rates, from those based on income to those
based on investment. Generally, the overseeing organization sets the rate of returns based on the capital invested in order to guarantee revenues for the
entrepreneurs regardless of whether or not they are
efficient managers.
This method of calculating the rate of return
removes the incentive for operators to optimize efficiency in order to save costs. In fact, it encourages
operators to over-invest, inevitably leading to an
increase in electricity rates. This is tantamount to
accepting that the more EGAT invests, the more it
will gain in return.
Vitoon noted that the change in calculating the
electricity rates based on Return on Invested Capital (or ROIC) took place in 2003 when the Thaksin
Shinawatra administration considered privatizing
EGAT. A consulting firm was hired to conduct due
diligence to prepare EGAT for listing in the stock
exchange. It proposed this payment method which
is widely used by overseas privatized organizations
to attract investors.
Although the Supreme Administrative Court
issued the order of March 24, 2006, to cancel
EGAT privatization plan, the ROIC payment has
continued to the present day.
The ambiguous FT and the ROIC are seen by
many as an avenue for passing EGATs operating
problems to consumers.
They also raise the question of whether the
exaggerated forecast of electricity usage is in fact
a transfer of the burden of funding power plant
construction (including nuclear power plants) to the
public.
Vitoon called for a restructuring of the electricity system citing EGATs monopoly of both electricity production and power development planning.
The projection of electricity demand that was set
to increase at the rate of 4-10% every year since
1992 is questionable. In reality, there have been
three incidents of negative growth, i.e. actual usage
is lower than that forecasted. The first incident
occurred right after the economic crisis known as
the Tom Yum Kung Crisis in Thailand, followed
by the Hamburger Crisis in the US and the most
recent crisis this year (2011).
: ? Electricity Demand Forecast: On-target or Over-exaggerated
VA.indd 49
1/27/12 11:32 AM
50
- 2554

(Return on
Invested Capital: ROIC) .. 2546
... .
.
24 2549
.

.
4-10%
.. 2535 .. 2540

3

(.. 2554)
2010 20
66,167 MW
31,349 MW
He pointed out that according to the PDP 2010,
Thailand must develop the capacity to generate
66,167 MW in the next 20 years. That figure is more
than double the current production capacity of 31,349
MW, requiring the country to mobilize resources to
generate another 34,818 MW or an average increase
of 1,740 MW per year.
Based on the actual power usage during the past
20 years, the forecasts have been grossly exaggerated,
Vitoon said. The demand for electricity during the
period had grown at an average rate of only 830 MW
per year, or about half of the forecasted figure.
Vitoon called for a new forecasting method. A
linear calculation, he said, would forecast a demand
increase of 16,600 MW over the next 20 years, with
the peak to be reached in 2030 at 39,092 MW. After
adding the 15% contingency to the total capacity, the
final figure would be 44,955 MW an increase of
13,606 MW or a mere 40% of the PDP 2010 forecasted increase.
If electricity demand in the next 20 years is calculated in this manner, he said, there is absolutely no
VA.indd 50
34,818 MW
1,740 MW

20
830 MW

20 16,600
MW 2573
39,092 MW 15%
44,955 MW 13,606 MW
40% 2010

20

20
12,000 MW
1,600 MW
( 5) 83
1
70%

15-30%
100 //
n
need to build more coal-fired or nuclear power plants
or new dams.
The Thai government currently has plans to
improve the efficiency of energy usage in the country
over the next 20 years with a target of saving at least
12,000 MW. If it is successful, then only an additional
1,600 MW needs to be found, and this can easily be
done by securing renewable energy and renovating old
power plants, Vitoon noted.
The government must implement measures to
increase the efficiency of electricity usage. For example, if the whole country switches to using T5 energysaving light bulbs, the economies gained from over 83
million bulbs would be equivalent to the capacity of
a whole nuclear power plant. More efficient usage
should be encouraged in particular in the commercial
and industrial sectors that consume almost 70% of the
electricity energy and have the capacity to save 15-30%
of energy.. And if new high-rise buildings observe the
standard energy usage threshold of under 100 units of
electricity per square meter per year, the entire nuclear
power plant plan can be scrapped, Vitoon said. n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
Special Interview
- 2554
51
n ?

?
( )

Assoc Prof
Motoki Akitsu
Motoki Akitsu is an associate professor at the Graduate School
of Agriculture of Kyoto University in Japan. His main interest is the
relations between place and livelihood in rural communities which
has taken him not only to rural areas in Japan but also in Korea,
Tanzania, Hungary and Thailand.
He has been concerned about the deteriorating agricultural and
fishing communities in mountainous areas, isolated islands and
peninsulas, whose traditional way of life has been
sustained by personal and communal bonds
in family and local community but which
is declining as a result of aging and
depopulation.
VA.indd 51
1/27/12 11:32 AM
52
- 2554

17,000 50
?
?
n

?
? ?

( )

( )

Soramame

24 7
/Panos/
Children and a teacher play card game inside the building of day nursing
school Soramame in Fukushima city. Since the nuclear accident, the
children can only play inside the school building to avoid radiation
exposure. The number of students has decreased from 24 to 7 as most
of them have since evacuated to other prefectures.
Noriko Hayashi/Panos/Greenpeace

30

n

?

n ?
VA.indd 52
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
53
nuclear power to develop the economy and industry and

they expected to raise their living standard by using scientific techniques and other modern knowledge.
At the time people trusted the government and
the academics. They couldnt imagine the risks. In fact,
many prefectural governors welcomed nuclear power
plants because they brought huge amount of money
from the government to their areas. The financial incentives that the government granted to local governments
that accepted nuclear power plants amounted to US$1.7
billion over 50 years.
Kuji Ibaraki
11

/
Vendors sell locally caught fish at a market near Kuji port, Ibaraki
prefecture. Fishing communities along Japans east coast, already
struggling to recover from the tragic March 11 earthquake and
Tsunami, are now faced with further potential risks to their health
and livelihoods from marine contamination from the crisis-stricken
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Greenpeace is working with local
fishing communities, to collect samples of marine life along the coast
to record possible contamination. Noriko Hayashi/Greenpeace
His other interest the human relations created

from food supplied by agriculture is becoming a concern as food safety has gained global attention, especially
after the nuclear disaster in Fukushima prefecture which
devastated large areas of farmland. Among the casualties of the radioactivity mishap, in Akitsus word, is the
trust between consumers and farmers supported by an
intimate relation.
Assoc Prof Akitsu talked to Greenline during a recent
visit to Thailand to lecture on the effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on Japans rural areas.
n Why are you interested in nuclear power?
In Japan most nuclear power plants are situated
in rural areas. I have been studying rural societies in
Japan. Im interested in the reasons why the rural societies accepted nuclear power stations and also the impact
on agriculture from radioactive contamination after the
accident.
n Fifty years ago, Japan was the only country suffering from nuclear bombs. After the war, there
was a strong public sentiment against nuclear
power and Japan drafted a law against nuclear
weapons. What happened since that motivated
Japan to develop nuclear power?
(The reason often cited was that) nuclear power was
not used for weapons; it was used for peaceful activities.
Even though we didnt allow nuclear weapons, we had
the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. It
was a reason why we accepted nuclear power stations.
When nuclear power development started, it was
during our national rehabilitation. People expected economic and scientific development. So the people accepted
n Do you think nuclear power development

helped contribute to Japans economic growth?
I think yes. Construction of nuclear power plants
provided many jobs, not just in the construction industry
but also in research and other related industries as well.
Of course, big companies promoted nuclear power to get
money from the government to build nuclear plants. But
it did create jobs, and people were happy because young
people stayed in their hometowns working for the industry
and not migrated to cities like Tokyo to find employment.
n Has the Fukushima accident changed the peoples perception of nuclear power? Are they still
supportive of the industry?
The people who have been immediately affected by
the accident dont have any concrete idea against nuclear
power. They just think about when they can go back to
their homeland. This is their main concern.
But for many other people, they dont want to continue the policy promoting nuclear power. Many people
have doubt about the policy. But they are mostly city people and thats why the movement against nuclear power
is not strong. When I was a student 30 years ago, the antinuclear movement was stronger than the one now. But
the past movement lost its strength because of the emergence of global warming as the government launched a
campaign promoting nuclear power by saying it did not
cause climate change.
n Isnt it because of the changing public perception in Japan of nuclear power that former
Prime Minister Naoto Kan came out and said
Japan should stay away from nuclear power?
Yes, but his view has not been supported by the
majority of people.
n But why?
He wished to quit nuclear power. Most people dont
like to continue with the nuclear power program either
but they dont want to stop right away. They want it to
gradually stop.
We agree with the direction that Prime Minister
Kan proposed but we couldnt agree with the speed and
duration of the direction. I think thats the reason why
people dont support his proposal. He moved too fast.
People want to stop but slowly, not quickly.
: .
VA.indd 53
Special Interview: Assoc Prof Motoki Akitsu
1/27/12 11:32 AM
54
- 2554

...

Rianne Teule

60 . 50-60
/
Greenpeace radiation expert Rianne Teule checks crops for
contamination in a garden at Fukushima City, 60 km from the
stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The vegetables showed
radiation levels 50-60 times more then the limits of food.
Christian Aslund/Greenpeace
n ?
n ?
?
VA.indd 54
2,000
31 2554
60 .

More than 2,000 Japanese and anti-nuclear activists from around
the world march on July 31 through the city of Fukushima, 60 km
from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to demand safety
review of remaining nuclear plants and an end to new builds.
Amarit Suwannagate
40-50

n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
And there are pressures from bureaucrats and business communities. Governmental bureaucrats dont
want to accept rapid change and the economic power,
the big companies, they dont want to end nuclear power
development.
n What is the relationship between businesses
and the government on nuclear power? How do
they support each other? Does the government
regulate businesses effectively?
If the government doesnt have support from the
economic sector, it cant survive. So this new prime minister (Yoshihiko Noda) tries to take care of the economic
sector because the relationship between the former
prime minister (Naoto Kan) and business communities
had been sour.
About nuclear power, the cozy relations between the
economic power and the bureaucracy are remarkable, so
that the government cant regulate the electric companies in a resolute manner.
Anyway, the three-way relationship between the political and economic sectors and the bureaucracy was one
of the reasons why Prime Minister Kan fell out of power.
n Whats the greatest impact of the Fukushima
nuclear accident on the Japanese society?
I mentioned that Japanese dont like rapid change.
We think we have to change slowly, learning from the
disaster. People who live near the accident site including Tokyo are affected deeply. Most of those people get
along, being anxious about food and impact on young
children who are expected to suffer the most damage
from radioactive contamination. But people who live far
away like me could not imagine the reality of what happened. They cannot realize how much destruction the
area has suffered. Only those people who have friends or
relatives in the disaster area are relatively well informed
of the extent of the disaster.
So the impact on the people depends on how far or
how close they live from the accident area and what connection they have with it. Theres a big gap.
People are generally against nuclear power plants
but those who live far away from them do not have strong
feeling against them.
n The accident, the worst since Chernobyl, must
have huge impact psychologically and socially
on Japanese people.
I think both. When we cant trust nuclear power to
be safe, even if the technology is used for peaceful purposes, why not stop nuclear power? I think most people
think we should stop.
We have lost our trust of the government and scientists because right after the accident they failed to fully
inform the public of the real situation. They had the
information but they kept it from us. We severely criticize
such kind of paternalism prevailing in the bureaucracy
and the scientific community.
n What about the academics? Do they still have

the publics trust?
Academics in the nuclear science have lost some public trust. It is notorious that if any scholar in the field would
express doubt against nuclear power, he or she would not
get promoted. is rather cynical when we watched scholars
beholden to the government have got higher statuses in
the academic world, who then trumpeted safety of radioactivity just after the accident. The academic system is
controlled by the government or the combination of government and business communities. So after the accident,
we lost some trust of the scientists who legitimized what
the government wanted to disseminate.
n What lessons have been learned from the accident?
The people who live in areas where nuclear power
stations are located accepted construction of nuclear
power stations because they had a realistic but risky
image of their future. They had received many benefits
from the construction and operation and lived well so
they could not imagine it any other way. Now we have
many alternatives for our own future so we have different
ways to live our future in happiness.
n But now theres a bad accident. Has that
changed the Japanese peoples perception of
nuclear power?
We have started to think about another image of our
future. We think we have to find another way as an alternative to attain happiness. This accident has torn a hole
in our thinking about another way to live, another future.
We have to think, we have to pursue, not a one way, one
direction, but many directions. Which direction should
we choose? Thats an important thing.
n What kind of change do you see? What direction would the society go?
Many rural societies had pursued economic growth
in the past but now they have to pursue appropriate
economy based on nature-based resources. This includes
inviting new recyclable energy plants to realize their
image that people can live on their natural resources. So
the products from the primary industries must be valued more than today. If the price of their products from
the primary industries increases, they can live in their
rural areas without accepting big projects. Not only the
effort of the people who live there is needed but also the
national policy must support their effort in support of
agriculture by raising the price of their crops because the
people in rural areas want to live there in the long term.
Its the prime wish for them to survive in their homeland
eternally.
Forty to fifty years ago they could not find other way
than accepting big national projects. But if they can live
a life by producing agricultural or fishery products, they
dont have to accept the big projects from outside. n
: .
VA.indd 55
55
Special Interview: Assoc Prof Motoki Akitsu
1/27/12 11:32 AM
GUEST WRITER
from
Lessons
Fukushima

25

11 2554 14:46 . 9.0

11 4
1 14

2

4 4

20 ..
Santi Chokechaichamnankij
nly one month before the 25th

anniversary of the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant disaster,
another massive nuclear accident
occurred in Japan. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
became world famous overnight as the worlds second
most catastrophic nuclear disaster after Chernobyl.
On March 11, 2011, at 2.46 pm, a 9-Richter
earthquake shook the eastern coast of Japan, causing 11 nuclear reactors at four nuclear power plants
to automatically shut down. Within less than an hour
later, tsunami waves as high as 14 meters slammed
into the coast and caused the most catastrophic disaster in Japan since World War II. The badly damaged electricity system disrupted the cooling system
at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant which led to a
series of explosions of four reactors over the course
9.0 11 2554
Tsunami waves caused by a magnitude-9 earthquake sweep across the north and east coasts of Japan on March 11, 2011.
VA.indd 56
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
The damaged
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant after a series of explosions.
5

1 /
31 2554 Fukushima City
60
2,000

20 ,
,

20

20 30

1 / 20 /

7 (
1,600 ) 10-100 /

0.6 / (
)
57
of four days, releasing a tremendous amount of

radioactive materials into the atmosphere. The world
was sent into a panic, particularly the US which is
located downwind from Japan. The Japanese government declared a state of radioactive emergency and
ordered an evacuation of residents living within the
20-kilometer radius around the power plant.
That was five months ago. Even though the news
no longer makes headlines, radiation continues to
leak from the power plant. A Japanese civic group
monitoring the disaster indicated that the radiation
leaked at the rate of one billion Bequerels per hour.
On July 31, at the center of Fukushima City, 60
kilometers from the nuclear plant, over 2,000 Japanese residents and activists staged a demonstration
demanding the government to solve the ongoing
problems caused by the explosion. They called for
compensation for disaster victims evacuated from the
area within the 20km-radius area around the power
plant, the closure of all reactors in Fukushima, as
well as other measures including helping the children
being exposed to radioactivity.
According to SeiichiNakate, a Fukushima resident and director of the Fukushima Network for
Saving Children from Radiation, the critical area is
much greater than the 20km-radius area declared
by the Japanese government, which has refused to
evacuate people living in 10km radius outside the
crisis zone. Instead, it has raised the safety level of
radiation exposure from 10 millisieverts a year to 20
millisieverts a year, which is the same level as that
designated for nuclear plant workers. What is alarming is the impact on children, who are in their developmental years and thus more sensitive to radiation
than adults. Schools are open as usual, but pupils are
not allowed to use the schools swimming pools or to
engage in outdoor sports activities as radiation contamination has been detected both in the ground and
in the air.
In April, Nakate measured the level of radioactivity in seven schools in Fukushima among 1,600
schools there and found that the level is between
10-100 microsieverts/hour. This
was an alarming discovery
since it is hundreds of times
higher than 0.6 microsieverts/
hour, the level at which the law
requires that a sign be posted
where it is found, such as in
radiation lab in hospital.
Then in May, many
children were found to
suffer nose bleeding
with no identifiable
cause although it was
not detected again
SeiichiNakate
VA.indd 57
1/27/12 11:32 AM
58
VA.indd 58
- 2554
1.5

3

30

20

20
1 ( 3
)

20
10

23
3 20

shortly after. Dr Katsumi Furitsu of the Department

of Medical Genetics, Hyogo College of Medicine,
described the symptom as similar to a sudden reaction
to radiation penetrating the spinal cord. However, further investigation is necessary to determine the actual
cause. At this point, the impact of radiation on peoples
health remains unclear, though it will become gradually
more apparent in the future.
Nakate said that currently 1.5 million people still
lived in Fukushimas danger zone, including 300,000
children. Nagate and Fukushima parents have
demanded that the government immediately evacuate all children and pregnant women from the 30km
area around the power plant. So far there has been no
response from the government. A number of parents
have decided to take their children to safer places. By
taking matters in their own hands, they will be ineligible
for government assistance.
Tens of thousands of residents outside the 20km
radius of the power plant have moved out of their own
accord. Now they are out of work and are denied government assistance. For those living within the 20km
radius who have been evacuated, each household
received only one million yen (about 300,000 baht)
as compensation from the electric company TEPCO,
a very small amount by Japanese standards. Many of
them have been living in shelters without any income.
They do not know what lies ahead, or when can they

return home. Some experts expected that the contaminated area will remain off limits for at least a decade
more. If this is the case, what will happen to these
evacuees, and who will be responsible for the prolonged
damage? These questions remain unanswered by concerned authorities.
Twenty-three years ago, I was involved with the
anti-nuclear campaign for three years. But in the past
20 years, I had been pre-occupied with my work and
only rejoined the anti-nuclear movement at the end of
last year. And then in March the accident happened,
Nakate said.
I was devastated because we have always known
that (nuclear power) is dangerous. Yet we did not try to
stop it from the beginning, and now the disaster happened. We adults may have benefited from nuclear
power. But when disaster happened, its the children,
the worlds future, who suffer the most. Ive resigned to
my fate that I will suffer the consequence from radiation
exposure in the next few years. But I will keep opposing
nuclear energy even if it means my life is in danger.
Apart from the suffering of the evacuees, the problem of radiation contamination of agricultural and
fishery products have caused immeasurable damage.
Yet it has not been addressed by the Japanese government and TEPCO.
A Japanese anti-nuclear activist takes a rest during an anti-nuclear rally

in Fukushima. Amarit Suwannagate
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554

2-3

2

2

4
According to Kazuoki Ohno, an agricultural news
reporter who has closely monitored the situation, farmers in Fukushima were under tremendous stress, and
there have been reports of two suicides by farmers
affected by this catastrophe. Many villagers claimed
that that there were in fact more suicides, saying these
other suicides did not make the news because they did
not leave any suicide note.
Agricultural products from many areas such as
rice, vegetables and beef have been contaminated,
and their sales were banned. Fishery in Fukushima
and nearby provinces has also been seriously affected.
Radiation leaked from the power plant has ended up in
the ocean more than on land since the seasonal wind
is blowing seaward. In addition, over 11,500 tons of
contaminated coolant from the four damaged reactors
has been released into the ocean to make room to store
water with higher levels of radiation.
The case of contaminated beef reveals a complex
web of problems related to contamination of the food
chain. The kind of beef that is popular in Japan comes
from the native cows fed with hay according to the traditional Japanese way, which has created the business
of supplying hay as cow feed. When paddy fields are
contaminated, the control of hay distribution is difficult, and contaminated hay has been sent to many
places, which has resulted in widespread beef contami-
59
11,500
31 2554
A number of Thai activists participate in a rally against nuclear power

in the city of Fukushima, Japan, about 60 km from the accident site on
July 30, 2011. Amarit Suwannagate
nation. Contaminated cow dung has also been sold as

fertilizers resulting in more contamination in agricultural products.
In June (three months after the disaster), radiation
was detected in tea leaves in Shizuoka, 400 kilometers from the Fukushima power plant. This province
is Japans biggest and most renowned producer of tea
leaves. Most farmers only plant tea, and the contamination has caused all of Shizuokas tea leaves to remain
unsold.
Furthermore, there are many other contaminated
areas such as Chiba, 170 kilometers from Fukushima
and 30 kilometers from Tokyo. Yuka Kikuchi, a Chiba
resident, said that the level of contamination in Chiba
was ten times higher than that in Tokyo because it was
raining in Chiba when the radiation leaked. Radiation
had made its way into the ground. In Fukushima, the
central government has instructed residents to move
back to the zone of 20km-30km around the power
plant, but the local government has resisted this order
as there is still untreated contaminated waste as well as
contaminated water and utilities system that have not
been repaired.
The most serious concern for the Japanese is radioactivity that is still widespread in the country. With the
occasional typhoons blowing past Fukushima, radiation
can travel as far as 300 kilometers.
VA.indd 59
1/27/12 11:32 AM
60
- 2554
(3 )
400

170 .
30
10

20-30

300
Lessons from Japan

Although Japan is a developed and highly disciplined country, the nuclear disaster in Fukushima has
been handled haphazardly.
Oka Ayako, a Fukushima resident who had to move
out of the 20km zone around the power plant said that
her house was just built when the disaster struck. When
evacuation was ordered, she expected to return home
in a few days, so she did not bring any valuables with
her. The evacuees were not informed by the government about the leaked radiation but learned about it in
the news days later. This meant that the residents had
already been exposed to radiation for at least two days
without their knowledge.
People like to say that Japan has advanced technology, but without effective management, technology
is useless, said Ayako.
Normally, all Fukushima households are equipped
with a nuclear emergency manual, but when it actually happened, the manual was no help. The manual
mentioned mass evacuation only of areas within 7km
radius. As protection against radiation, the central
government told the local government to make iodine
available, but provided no further instruction. The local
government, therefore, decided to distribute the iodine
to the residents without telling them to consume it as
there was no such instruction from the central govern-
VA.indd 60

20 2-3
2-3

2-3

ment, hoping that the residents would make their own
judgment whether to take it to protect their thyroid.
Hideyuki Ban of the Citizens Nuclear Information Center said that information provided by the government was reliable but incomplete and not quite upto-date. This is the same in every country with nuclear
power plants. The people only have access to partial
information about nuclear, so they have to try to monitor the situation by themselves.
The governments information about foods that
were exposed to radiation was reliable, but by the
time the public was informed, the people had already
consumed those foods for some time. As for radiation
contamination,
the
gover nment
only announced the
numbers that
were over safety levels, but it did
not advise the public on how
to avoid the danger
of
exposure, Ban said.
Meanwhile,
evacuation
of people from danger areas
is influenced by
many factors,

Oka Ayako
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554

20
20

(nuclear liability)

such as weather conditions, wind direction, etc. Some
areas outside the 20km radius around the plant may
actually be as dangerous as those closer to the plant.
As it turned out, the evacuation was extremely chaotic;
some unaffected residents were evacuated while others
in less dangerous areas were moved to more dangerous
areas.
What happened in Japan shows that, in a nuclear
power plant accident, even fully-equipped countries
still struggle with mitigation of the impact and it is
impossible to prevent widespread and severe damage
with long-lasting consequences.
The scale of the damage resulting from the Fukushima accident is evidently beyond the capacity of
TEPCO to take responsibility for. In legal terms, every
nuclear power plant project must carry nuclear liability
insurance. However, it is clear that the level of liability
insured is inadequate for a disaster of this scale. As a
consequence, the government must step in to shoulder
the responsibility.
In the Fukushima case, TEPCO is in the grip of
near bankruptcy. In addition, it is responsible for taking care of the six crippled reactors which requires several million yens. Initially, there was a split in opinions
within the government. One side suggested the government allow TEPCO to go bankrupt and subsequently
take over responsibilities. The other side, however, sug-
61

6
2

n
Two Japanese girls hold up a poster during an anti-nuclear rally that

draws activists around the world to the city of Fukushima.
Amarit Suwannagate
gested the government keep the company afloat, fearing that not doing so would create havoc in the Japanese economy. In the end, the government chose the
second option.
Thus far, there have been no estimates of the scale
of damage in monetary terms of agriculture and fishery. Then there is the impact on the peoples health
which will become more apparent in the future. The
question is how will Japan tackle these issues? n
VA.indd 61
1/27/12 11:32 AM
62
- 2554

BWR
(Boiling Water Reactor) 6
11 2554 4-6
1-3
1-3

1

1 2

8 4
1

1 12
3 14
2 15 ( 2

)
1-3
4

1.

2. 2,000
3,000
3.
4.
(suppression pool)
5.

n
VA.indd 62
What happened inside the

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Reactors?
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is equipped with
six boiling water reactors. When the earthquake took place on
March 11, 2011, the fourth, fifth and sixth reactors were under
repair while the remaining ones were operating at full capacity.
The intensity of the earthquake caused these reactors to shut
down automatically, but it was necessary that the cooling system
continued working as the fuel rods were still emitting heat and
radiation from fission reaction which could not be halted instantly.
The first problem occurred when the earthquake cut off
power supplies, so the cooling system was switched to diesel-powered generators. Within less than an hour, the second
problem emerged when giant tsunami waves damaged the
emergency generators, disrupting the cooling system. The last
emergency power system relied on batteries, but it was designed
to last only eight hours. In actual fact, four hours after the earthquake, the batteries for the first reactor ran out, and the cooling
system failed entirely. That was how the catastrophe started.
Without the cooling system, the temperature of the fuel
rods rose dramatically. Under high temperatures, the surface of
the fuel rods made from zirconium alloy came in contact with
water, resulting in hydrogen build-up inside the reactors and
extremely high pressure which could cause the reactors to
explode. Engineers, therefore, decided to release the pressure
to prevent explosion, but what was released was not only steam
and radioactive materials but also a large amount of hydrogen.
When hydrogen gathered at the top of the reactor was released
and came into contact with oxygen in the air, explosions followed.
This type of explosions began in the first reactor on March
12, followed by those inside the third reactor on March 14 and
the second reactor on March 15. (The explosion of hydrogen in
the second reactor occurred near the bottom of the reactor vessel, so damage was not visible from the outside.)
Apart from the first, second and third reactors, a large explosion also occurred in the fourth reactor which was under repair,
and there was no fuel rod in the reactor. But the problem started
in the spent nuclear fuel pool. With the cooling system disabled,
these fuel rods were heated up and a great deal of water in this
well evaporated. Water steam which reacted with a large amount
of hydrogen emitting from zirconium accumulated in the reactor
building leading to the explosions.
How the fuel rods melt:
1. Without the cooling system, the fuel rods heat up quickly,
boiling the water in the reactor and turning it into steam. When
the level of water is reduced, the fuel rods are exposed and, at
a high temperature, its zirconium alloy cladding will react with
steam and is accompanied by the release of hydrogen accumulated inside the reactor.
2. At 2,000 degrees Celsius, zirconium melts, and at 3,000
Celsius, uranium melts.
3. The molten uranium falls to the bottom of the reactor
vessel and melts through it.
4. The molten uranium falls through to the suppression pool
while extreme heat is still being produced by the fission reaction
of uranium.
5. If the heat caused by the uranium cannot be released,
molten uranium will penetrate through the concrete floor towards
the external environment which will result in a major leakage of
radioactive materials. n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
LITTLE Mahingsa
Award
of Pride
- 2554
Nuchanard Kraisuwansan
The journey that the young Mahingsa researchers take is not always a path of roses. It is an
obstacle course packed with unpredictable weather conditions and challenges as well as natural
disasters in some areas, but these young naturalists never give up. They turn crises into opportunities that drive them to overcome those obstacles
to reach their destination: being able to protect
the natural resources and the environment in their
communities.
Their journey that might take three, six or even
12 months has been, all in all, a memorable one in
which the young researchers play and learn together, developing life skills in the outdoor classroom
while searching for their fading historical roots,
local wisdom and culture and exploring the wonders
of their local natural environment. The reward from
these journeys for the little Mahingsa are the pride
of being able to take part in conservation activities and appreciation of the precious environment
which can lead to lifelong conservation efforts.
63
A group of young Mahingsa in Nakhon Sawan are

taking their counselors to visit Tham Phet-Tham
Thong Forest Park which is their study area.
VA.indd 63
1/27/12 11:32 AM
64
- 2554
A group of primary students from Pha Phueng Witthayakhom School in

Tak province are studying water quality based on small aquatic animals
as an indicator.
The young Mahinsa members smile with pride as they pose for a
group photo with their counselors and officials from the Department of
Environmental Quality Promotion after being presented with certificates
for their achievement.
2553
Young Mahingsa researchers pose for a photo at the end of the
ceremony to present them certificates of achievement for 2010.
VA.indd 64
19-20

... n
From one generation to another, this program has welcomed more than 2,000 Mahingsa
researchers and 200 counselors. Together they
take a journey with their eyes sparkling with a
sense of determination and dedication for common
good, without expecting anything in return. This is
the most wonderful aspect of this educational program deserving the support of Thai society.
During September 19-20, the Department
of Environmental Quality Promotion hosted a ceremony to present this award of pride to inspire
young Mahingsa researchers to continue their
work in nature conservation. There were activities
to promote learning and other skills among young
people as well as roundtable discussions for youth
representatives and counselors who shared their
valuable experience which could develop into further implementation and collaboration.
The door to the big wide world is open to all
of us. Dare yourself to step out and experience
the beauty of nature. Come join us the Little
Mahingsa researchers. n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
VOICEs of community
- 2554
65
Two young fishermen take their haul from the sea off Surat Thanis coast for sale at the market, unaware of a plan to build a nuclear power plant in
nearby area which could affect their livelihood.
vs :
14
. . .
5

5
5
VA.indd 65
Nuclear Power
vs Community:
The Two Irreconcilable Paths
outhern Thailand is abundant with

marine resources, forests and farmlands. This is the reason past and
present governments have eyed it for
major industrial development, including nuclear power.
Of the 14 sites considered under a feasibility
study for construction of nuclear power plants, Laem
Thaen Bay in Prathieu District of Chumphon Province is one of the five shortlisted sites. It is situated
not far from the conservation and propagation center of more than 2,000 giant clams (Tridacna gigas)
under the care of Suphanat Duangkamol and local
fisher folks for more than five years. Better known as
Phuyai Daeng, Suphanat was a former village chief.
Phuyai Daeng often spoke for the villagers against
large-scale development projects that were deemed
harmful to the livelihoods of local people, including
planned coal-fired and nuclear power plants. The
local people insist that they cannot accept the types
of development which is agriculture-based includ-
1/27/12 11:32 AM
66
- 2554

1,000
50,000

ing rubber, oil palm and coconut plantations, fruit

orchards, coastal fishing and tourism.
Southern Thailand is a farming region. The
people of Pathieu earn more than 1,000 baht a day
on an average with an average household income of at
least 50,000 baht a year. There is no unemployment.
We even rely on labors from the northeast. A single
farmer can earn enough income to feed his whole
family. We are not rich, but we are not poor either.
We grow enough to feed ourselves for eternity, and we
expect to pass on this kind of life to the future generations, said Phuyai Daeng.
I dont understand why the government insists on
imposing industrial development on us even while our
agricultural base is intact. The
government
should answer this question:
If
the
industry that they bring here
collapses,
what would they do?
We need an energy policy that
corresponds to our
()

Sodsai Sangsok,
left, holds a banner
protesting nuclear
power during a
demonstration
in the city of
Fukushima, Japan,
recently.
VA.indd 66
3
---

Suphanat Duangkamol or Phuyai Daeng
culture and way of life, a policy that does not destroy

our natural resources. It must focus on renewable
energy such as biomass, solar and wind power. This
is the future of energy for Thailand. We do not need
coal-fired or nuclear plants that will only pave way for
deep-sea ports, dams and industrial estates.
Im pretty certain that no more than three years
after the power plant is built, we wont have any mackerel to eat because it causes so much harm to both people and animals alike as well as the earth, water, wind
and fire. Everything will be ruined. The southern
seaboard development project must be cancelled, and
instead our agricultural base must be strengthened.
Agriculture production from the south alone
can easily feed the people in the north
and northeast. Thailand is not a poor
or large country. We can be self-sufficient. Public investment schemes lack
conscience and fail to take into account
impacts to the environment
which is the most important element for our
nations resources.
The main principle
about development is
that the government
must allow the people
to participate in and take
responsibility for any decision they make. Phuyai
Daeng said.
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
.. 2511-2514
36
1,966.5
40

2,299

900

150

1,000

Another location earmarked as a nuclear power
plant site is the northeastern province of Ubon Ratchathani. It was chosen reportedly because of its proximity
to a large water source from the Sirindhorn Dam and
the relative lack of resistance from the locals.
Sodsai Sangsok, the coordinator of the Thai
People against Nuclear Power Network in Ubon Ratchathani, is concerned about the negative impacts of
the nuclear power plant, citing past experience with
the construction of the Sirindhorn Dam during 19681971. The dam has a storage capacity 1,966.5 million
cubic meters of water, capable of producing 36 MW
of electricity.
Forty years after the construction, the problems of
the displaced villagers from their farmlands have not
been entirely resolved. To these days, there are still people demonstrating at the dam site to demand compensations even after the government have compensated
2,299 families under the Assembly of the Poor banner.
A problem currently faced by the Sirindhorn Dam
is that its stored water during the dry season normally
dips to about 900 million cubic meters, less than half
its capacity. The low volume of water is not enough
for the Royal Irrigation Department to irrigate the
second rice crops in the irrigated area that need over
150 million cubic meters. Every year, the RID ends
up having to stop distributing water right after the rice
was planted to prevent the water in the reservoir from
reaching the critically low level.
Sodsai warned that if the nuclear power plant was
built, there would not be enough water from the dam
67

to cool its reactor. That would mean the government
will have to look for other sources of water, inevitably
deciding on building more dams or diverting water
from the Mekong River.
Sodsai believes that the 1,000-MW nuclear power
plant planned for Ubon Ratchathani will lead to problems having to do with compensation and impacts to
the local way of life and the environment. She expects
the nuclear plant will cause even more severe impacts
than the dam as the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster
in Japan has attested.
She was concerned that the water in the dam
would be contaminated with radioactive materials,
which would greatly affect the farmers whose livelihood depends on rice farming, vegetable growing, fishery and livestock farming.
We must understand that radioactive materials
can spread far and wide through the air, soil, forest
and the food chain. Everything can be affected. The
locals livelihood here depends on harvesting natural
resources. If the environment and natural resources
are contaminated, their lives will be affected too.
Sodsai also warned that people living around the
power plant risk getting cancer and other diseases as a
result of prolonged exposure to radiation. In addition,
she was afraid that the power plant construction would
cause conflict among members of the communities,
and that many farmers could lose their paddy fields
and even lose the market because consumers might be
reluctant to buy produces from areas at risk of radioactive contamination.
VOICES OF COMMUNITY
VA.indd 67
1/27/12 11:32 AM
68
- 2554

An demonstration against coal-fired and nuclear power plants by
villagers of Lamae district of Chumphon province.

30 8,600

The villagers living around the Sirindhorn Dam
had already sacrificed their farmland, livelihood and
resources, not to mention their communities and families having fallen apart due to the dam construction.
Why should the nuclear power plant construction be
allowed to add to their suffering when most power users
are in Bangkok or industrial estates.
Sodsai added that a civic group called the Study
Group for Fair and Sustainable Energy had visited Ban
Hua Saphan, the village which has been earmarked
as the construction site for the nuclear power plant, to
disseminate information. Earlier, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) claimed it had
organized 30 forums to hear the villagers views and
that most of the 8,600 participants had agreed with
the power plant construction. However, the villagers
told the civic group that they were never informed of
the construction plan. All the power authority did was
distributing eye-glasses to the villagers and initiating a
number of community development projects. That
was all they did.
Sodsai claimed that the Ministry of Energy and
EGAT provided only one-sided information about
nuclear power, saying there is a need for Thailand to
have nuclear power plant and that it has no impact
whatsoever. Meanwhile, the villagers did not know or
have never been informed about the nuclear power
plant construction or related large-scale development
projects in their area or in the neighboring countries.
VA.indd 68

. n
Dr Chavalit Wittayanond, an aquatic life expert at
Rajabhaj University at Nakhon Ratchasima, pointed
out that while the diversity of aquatic life in the reservoir of the Sirindhorn Dam is not great, the heated
water released from the power plant, if it was built,
would affect the survival and growth rate of the fish
eggs and other aquatic life.
However, his main concern is the impact from
radioactive materials.
How can you guarantee that the coolant from the
power plant will not be contaminated with radioactive
materials, particularly when the quality standard and
workmanship of the Thai contractors are highly questionable? Even in one of the worlds most advanced
nations like Japan, when disaster struck, the leak of
radioactive materials was at a dangerous level. If the
water from the Mekong River is diverted to the Sirindhorn Dam for the power plant, it will greatly upset the
ecosystem in the region. But since I have not seen the
technology or the specifications, it is difficult for me to
say one way or another.
But if the money to be spent on a nuclear power
plant is used instead to support the development of
alternative energy sources, such as solar cell, biomass,
waste or other renewable energy, to produce electricity, we might well achieve better economic justice and
adversely affect the environment to a much less degree,
Dr Chavalit said. n
1/27/12 11:32 AM
GREEN INTERSECTION
- 2554
69
The Invisible
Costs and Risks
of Nuclear
Power
Decharut Sukkumnoed
nature.com Photo from nature.com
VA.indd 69
1/27/12 11:32 AM
70
- 2554
(ABC News, 2011.

Nuclear Dilemma: Adequate Insurance Too Expensive)

.. 2550

(
.. 2550
2.08 /)

? (
)

70-80
VA.indd 70
To many, nuclear
energy looks to be a
relatively clean and
logical choice in an
era of increasing
resource scarcity.
Yet the record
requires us to ask
painful questions:
have we correctly
calculated its risks
and costs?
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (ABC
News, 2011. Nuclear Dilemma: Adequate
Insurance Too Expensive)
hailand has included in its Power

Development Plan (PDP) since 2007
the setting up of nuclear power plants
as an option for energy generation.
The reasons are: it would bring security to the electricity system and the
lower costs incurred compared with other options.
(The 2007 PDP puts the cost of producing electricity
from nuclear power at 2.05 baht per unit.)
However, as Ban Ki-moon cautioned during an
inspection of the power plant at Chernobyl in Ukraine
that painful past experience including the incident
earlier this year at Fukushima in Japan has shown
that humanity may have underestimated the costs and
risks of nuclear power plants.
This article therefore presents the latest data on
four important points on the assessment of nuclear
power plants: construction costs, cost overruns, costs
of plant decommission and insurance costs.
Construction Costs
The structure of costs in building a nuclear power
plant differs from those of building one fuelled by coal
or natural gas in that 70-80% of the costs weigh on
the initial investment. The costs of fuel and operation
are low by comparison. Therefore the construction
costs are the main expenses in the investment cost.
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
investment cost

3,000 - 6,000

.. 2546 MIT
71

2,000
6.7 /
2.00 /
MIT .. 2551

2,000 4,000
()
8.4
2.50 / (Du, Y. and J.E. Parsons.
2009. Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
MIT

Still under construction, the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland was
supposed to have started operation in 2009. The project suffers from cost
overruns, a typical problem of other nuclear power plant projects.
A main problem is the construction of a nuclear

power plant tends to be special to that particular installation. Therefore the costs of building a plant vary from
place to place, from country to country. However, latest
data indicate that the costs of building a nuclear power
plant amounts to US$3,000-6,000 per kilowatt (KW).
The differences will have an impact on the costs of electricity produced by the plant.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) reviewed the construction of nuclear power plants
worldwide, including those in Japan and Korea. It found
that the costs amounted to $2,000 per KW in that year
for construction, with production amounting to 6.7 US
cents (or about 2 baht per electricity unit).
In a later survey in 2008, MIT found that the costs
of minerals and adjusting safety measures at nuclear
plants had led to the doubling of construction costs,
from $2,000 to $4,000 per KW (inflation having been
factored in). This hiked up production costs to 8.4 cents
or about 2.5 baht per electricity unit. (Du, Y. and J.E.
Parsons. 2009. Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
MITs conclusion: Generating electricity by nuclear
power is not the cheapest option as people tend to say.
Cost Overruns
A main problem in terms of economics for the
nuclear industry is the question of design, which must
be particular to each individual plant, rather than a standard plan. This raises the costs of design and construction, and runs into problems of approval and management of the safety of each nuclear power plant, causing
a major delay in the plant construction, and unforeseen
costs that will follow.
The Olikuluoto-3 project in Finland is a case
in point. It was the first nuclear power plant in Western Europe after the disaster at the Chernobyl power
plant. At the time this was considered the flagship in the
nuclear industry, with electricity distribution expected to
kick into the system in May 2009. But the construction
turned out to be the opposite. After four years work,
beginning in 2005, construction was found to proceed
later than planned by 3.5 years, with construction costs
rising from 3 billion euros to 5 billion euros, or by 55%.
This meant that the costs had risen to US$4,000 per
KW. That raised debate in Finland as to who would be
responsible for these cost overruns.
Thats why Professor Stephen Thomas, an energy
policy expert at the University of Greenwich Business
Olkiluoto
.. 2552

Green Intersection
VA.indd 71
1/27/12 11:32 AM
72
- 2554
Olikiluoto-3

.. 2552
4 (
.. 2548)
3
3 5
55 4,400

(Stephen Thomas)

Olikiluoto-3
(John W. Rowe)
(
-)
)

(
-)
(
- ) ( BusinessWeek, Nuclears
Tangled Economics, 26 2551)
School, concluded Olkiluoto has become an example
of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new
reactors.
For this reason John W. Rowe, chairman of the
Nuclear Energy Institute, said the US badly needs new
nuclear plants to deal with the climate issue. But they are
very expensive, very high-risk projects.
Builders of the power plants, utility executives say,
are unwilling to commit to fixed prices set (meaning the
price agreed and advertised writer) and fixed schedules (which
means they dont want to commit to the time frame for finishing
the construction work writer). (Thailand BusinessWeek, 26
June 2008, Nuclears Tangled Economics)
Costs of Decommission
Another issue that is widely debated is the costs of
decommissioning a nuclear power plant. By decommissioning we mean the removal of a plant and the insurance that the grounds on which it stands holds a safe level
of radioactivity after its usefulness has expired. In general, an old nuclear power plant is operative for 30 years.
The newer ones can be at work for 45-60 years.
The problem is the costs are very high for decommissioning a nuclear power plant to a level that is safe.
VA.indd 72

30 45-60

70
480 ( 20,000 )
20
-137
-60

19 70,000

50

325
9,400

200-500

1,000 5
For example, the decommissioning of the Brennilis EL-4
power plant in France, with a capacity of 70 megawatts,
cost as much as 480 million euros (or almost 20 billion
baht). That was 20 times the costs estimated. Even so
decommissioning of this plant was beset with contamination of nearby water sources by plutonium, cesium-137
and cobalt-60.
In England, the authority charged with the decommissioning of nuclear power plants estimated that
removal and withdrawal of 19 plants might cost as much
as 70,000 million pounds. And the authority believed it
would meet with cost overruns. Therefore the authority
decided to stagger the removals, expecting to take more
than 50 years until all the plants are decommissioned.
In the US, electricity authorities estimated that the
costs of decommissioning nuclear plants should amount
to US$325 million, or about 9.4 billion baht, per nuclear
reactor.
Europe also estimates that decommissioning would
cost on average US$200-500 per KW.
All these pointers mean that if Thailand is to build
five nuclear power plants, each with a capacity to produce 1,000 MW, the country will have to prepare decommissioning costs of US$200-500 million or 6-15 billion
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
200-500 / ( 6,000-15,000 /
) 5 30,000-75,000

(
)

.. 2529
baht per plant. In other words, decommissioning of all
five would cost 30 to 75 billion baht.
The truth is the US and Europe have collected fees
from each nuclear power plant to make up a fund for
the decommissioning of the plants. But of late, the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the money
going into the fund is too low, inadequate for paying the
costs of decommissioning in reality. Europe found a similar problem.
Costs of Insurance against Disasters
The fiasco at Fukushima-Daiichi in Japan did not
only show the risk of using nuclear power. It showed
another flaw: the insurance system in place did not cover
the damages in reality. Thats because the plants did not
take out a policy on pubic disaster insurance. This leaves
the burden of compensation and rehabilitation (which
cannot yet be estimated) on the shoulders of Japanese
taxpayers.
In fact, this kind of incident has happened before
and still persists, that is nuclear power plants take out
policies that are far below the costs of damages that
might ensue. This is in order to reduce annual insurance
fees paid by the nuclear power plant.
For example, the accident at the Chernobyl power
plant in Ukraine in 1990 caused damages to peoples
health and the countrys economy to the tune of 7.6
trillion euros. This is a reference case for damages that
may occur due to other nuclear disasters. But at present
73
7.6

2,500 ( 100,000 )
0.03

4,700 ( 190,000
/)

7.6 (
)
35,000 1.5

12 0.008
/ 22 /
100,000 3.2
/ ( 145 )
nuclear power plants in Germany have been required
to take out insurance policies of only 2.5 billion euros
(amounting to 100 trillion baht) or 0.03% of the damages that may be incurred.
According to calculations by Dr Olaf Hohmeyer,
a professor of energy economics at the University of
Flensburg, Germany, for every trillion euros caused in
damage a nuclear power plant has to pay 4.7 billion
euros per year in insurance policy (or close to 50 billion
baht a year).
Therefore, if damages amounting to 7.6 trillion
euros are to be covered (taking the Chernobyl disaster as
a yardstick), each nuclear power plant has to pay insurance premiums amounting to 35 billion euros (or 1.5 trillion baht).
Hence, the saying: nuclear power plants will be feasible economically if they dont have to pay insurance
premium that cover all damages.
In reality, German nuclear power plants pay only
12 million euros or only 0.008 euro cents/electrical unit
compared to the electricity charge of 22 euro cents/electrical unit.
But if you want to insure the power plant up to 100
billion euros you will have to pay a premium of 3.2 euros
per unit of electricity, or 145 times more. Paying insurance commensurately would thus mean nuclear power is
a very expensive option.
Thats why several governments have to subsidise
nuclear power plants by letting these plants pay insur-
Green Intersection
VA.indd 73
1/27/12 11:32 AM
74
- 2554

(
)

375

12,600

3
58
91
228

1,000
1,800
4
ance lower than in reality. The governments or the countries electricity authorities would bear the remainder of
the liabilities.
For example, the US stipulates by law that each
nuclear power plant must pay insurance amounting to
$375 million. In addition, utility authorities have to be
ready to pay damages amounting to $12.6 billion in the
event of an accident. In other words, each nuclear power
plant has to shoulder only one third of damages that
might arise.
France, which has as many as 58 nuclear power
plants, requires each to have insurance coverage amounting to 91 million euros. The government pays an additional 228 million euros in coverage.
Switzerland has raised the insurance coverage for
each nuclear power plant from 1 billion francs to 1.8 billion francs, while state agencies estimate that damages
from the disaster at Chernobyl should be as high as 4
trillion francs.
From the difference between the costs of damages
that may occur in reality and the damages insured by
nuclear power plants, it is clear that nuclear power plants
survive by transferring the risks of public disasters to the
general public.
Not being able to adequately assess the costs of a
nuclear power plant project in the four important areas
is not the only problem. Options and the costs of nuclear
waste management is another major problem. It is clear
then why Ban Ki-moon posed the very important question of whether all the costs and risks have been thor-
VA.indd 74

n
.
tonklagroup@yahoo.com
The comparative cost advantage of nuclear power and renewable

energy such as wind power continues to be a subject of intense debate.
oughly and adequately taken into account. Such failure

means the public will be forced to shoulder the costs and
risks when problems arise, be it delayed construction,
cost overrun, decommissioning, or accidents.
The assessment of costs and risks in a nuclear power
plant is therefore a point that Thai society has to think
through. It is better than to rush into a decision to build
nuclear power plants with unforeseen costs and risks
lying ahead. n
Decharut Sukkumnoed, PhD, is a lecturer at the Economics
Faculty, Kasetsart University. He may be contacted at
tonklagroup@yahoo.com.
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
75
Activities
of the Department
Launch of Handbooks of Biodiversity at Sirindhorn

International Environmental Park
50

2526

ifty years ago, the deciduous forest to the

west of Phetchaburis Cha-am District was
home to streams that flowed all the way
to the eastern coast, giving rise to a dense
mangrove forest. It was a complete ecosystem from the headwater to the sea that
once teemed with forest resources and wildlife.
However, widespread deforestation interfered with
the climate, disrupting the rain pattern and turning the
area into almost a waste land, its top soil depleted and
unsuitable for plant growth.
After witnessing such deterioration, His Majesty the
King lamented that the land would turn into desert if it
was left to its fate. In 1983, the Huai Sai Royal Development Study Center under the royal initiative was established to restore the forest. A reservoir was constructed
and fast-growing trees were planted upstream to trap the
sediment. Other fruit trees and hard-wood trees were
()
Discussing biodiversity at the Sirindhorn International Environmental Park are, from left, Mr Patawi, Mr Smith, Director-General Pornthip, and Ms
Savitree.
Activities of the Department
VA.indd 75
1/27/12 11:32 AM
76
VA.indd 76
- 2554

15,882
70 184 241
2537

2 4,016.57
planted while the remaining natural forest was left to

rejuvenate by itself.
Since then, the mixed deciduous and the dry dipterocarp forest has continued to multiply on the 15,882
rai of the project area. The trees spread from the mountain top to the plain below and account for over 70 families, 184 genus and 241 species of flora.
When the Huai Sai forest complex is restored, HRH
Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn initiated a land management scheme to restore the mangrove forest. In 1994,
the whole ecosystem started to come back to life.
The mangroves along the Bangtra Noi and Bangtra
Yai canals were once completely destroyed to the point
of upsetting the eco-equilibrium. The dredging of both
canals links the fresh water from inlands and the salt
water from the sea. Once the dredging is completed, the
mangrove forest began its march to normalcy.
Presently, samae talay (Avicennia marina), faad khao
(Lumnitzera racemosa Willd), kongkaang bai lek (Rhizophora
apiculata) and kongkaang bai yai (Rhizophora mucronata) and
Portia tree (Thespesia populnea) stand tall as the indisputable indicators of the restored mangrove forest. This par-
Participants of the handbook launch on the nature trail in the restored

mangrove forest
cel of land has since become an important nature study

center of the Sirindhorn International Environmental
Park.
Nowadays, the mixed deciduous, mangrove and the
beach forests that were once depleted have been fully
revived, making up a complete ecosystem of upstream
forest at the head water, dry forest in between and mangrove forest downstream that are inter-connected. The
Huai Sai Royal Development Study Center includes
two types of forests: the dry dipterocarp forest covering
4,016.57 rai and the mixed deciduous forest covering
2,530.88 rai. The Sirindhorn International Environmental Park covers three types of forests: the mangrove forest
covering 189.68 rai, the beach forest covering 136.61 rai
and the rejuvenated forest covering 362.73 rai.
During 2007-2008, the Faculty of Forestry of Kasetsart University in collaboration with the Department
of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP) launched
a survey and found 103 species of birds, 11 species of
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
2,530.88
3 189.68
136.61 362.73
. 2550-2551

103 11
15 11
118

3

7 2554
77
Participants nature games during a break.

mammals, 15 species of reptiles, 11 species of amphibians and 118 species of insects in the park.
Based on the study, the DEQP recently published
a 3-volume set Handbooks of Biodiversity from Huai
Sai to the Coast. The pocket-sized handbooks available
to the public consist of (1) Forest and Plants authored
by Maenwad Kunjara Na Ayuttaya; (2) Birds and Wildlife by Smith Sutibutr, and (3) Fish and Marine Life by
Nonn Panitvong. The handbooks were intended to serve
as guides for biodiversity study in the Huai Sai Royal
Development Study Center and the Sirindhorn International Environemntal Park. The target users of these
handbooks are teachers and field organizers for youth
activities. The handbooks were launched at a ceremony
on September 7, 2011.
During that ceremony, Pornthip Puncharoen, the
DEQP director-general, led a discussion about the pub-
lication of the handbooks. Joining her were Patawi Suksawat, deputy manager of the Dissemination and Training Division from the Sirindhorn International Environmental Park, and Smith Sutibutr, representing the
writers of the handbooks, with Savitree Srisuk, director
of the Environmental Studies Unit, moderating the talk.
The discussion was followed by a field visit along
the nature trail in the mangrove forest in the Sirindhorn
International Environmental Park to allow participants
to try out the handbooks.
It is hoped that the handbook set can be a testimony
to the success of the ecosystem rehabilitation of forest
and mangrove that are closely connected. The body of
knowledge and the invaluable biodiversity in the Huai
Sai Royal Development Study Center and the Sirindhorn International Environmental Park can serve as a
prototype for nature study for future replication. n
Activities of the Department
VA.indd 77
1/27/12 11:32 AM
78
- 2554
VIEWFINDER
t-w-m-c (www.stockarch.com)
A burnt tree in the Yosemite National Park, United States. Photo: t-w-m-c (www.stockarch.com)
VA.indd 78
1/27/12 11:32 AM
- 2554
79
. 2010
Taan Fai Gao

Wood charcoal had been the fuel in the Thai kitchen for millennia.
Gradually, however, the charcoal stove has been replaced by the more
convenient gas or electric one.
Not surprisingly, the fuel of old had over time given many Thai
expressions which remain in use to this day.
In a contemporary Thai song Taan Fai Gao, popular singer
Thongchai McIntyre sings taan fai gao yang ron, raw wan rue fuen,
alluding to an old but still smoldering relationship waiting to be revived.
Taan Fai Gao, meaning burnt but not exhausted charcoal, is an
expression describing a romantic relationship gone sour although there are
still some sparks left. Given some nourishment, such relationship can be
rejuvenated similar to the burnt wood charcoal that can be re-ignited with
just a touch of fire.
The expression can be aptly applied to the push for the plan to build
nuclear power plants which was thought up many years ago but was put on
hold. The plan, however, was recently revived in the Power Development
Plan 2010.
For those people wishing to see speedy construction of nuclear plants,
the long wait can be described by another expression Fai Sum Kawn,
the feeling of anxiety. They probably hope to see the smoldering charcoal
re-ignited into a fire soon.
VA.indd 79
1/27/12 11:32 AM
For all who have been

hit by the flood,
Wish you a speedy
return to life
equilibrium.
From the editorial
team at Green Line
VA.indd 80
Rainfall runoff a natural phenomenon

Soaks the earth wet
Brings vegetation nutrients to help it grow
Fills up ponds, creeks, canals where
fishes, shrimps, crabs and mollusk thrive
Feeding people and animals alike;
But when runoffs become a deluge
Inundating paddy fields and communities
everywhere
Causing hardship for both man and beasts
Even cows and buffaloes must take the
flood in stride.
1/27/12 11:32 AM

Green Line30

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Line30

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VA.

September - December 2011

English Edition Editor:

Text copyright by the Department of Environmental

Maenwad Kunjara Na Ayuttaya

Photographs copyright by photographers or right owners.

Milky Way Press Limited

henever electricity goes out, a roar

can we find an alternative energy source to replace these

September - December 2011

Out with Nuclear Renaissance...

Nuclear Waste: An Unsolvable

Energy Crisis: Is Nuclear the Solution?

What Communities Ask for

Electricity Demand Forecast:

September - December 2011

Assoc Prof Motoki Akitsu

VOICES OF COMMUNITY: Nuclear

The Invisible Costs and Risks

across the sky

September - December 2011

September - December 2011

Out with Nuclear

Limerick Nuclear Power Plant, on the Schuylkill River near Limerick,

across the sky

September - December 2011

250,000 Germans across the country put on massive

across the sky

ven though the nuclear crisis in Japan which

Inside the ASSE II salt mine part of which has collapsed.

a consequence of the leakage of radioactive decay from

September - December 2011

possible option should be the use of a potash mine in the

the mine chambers. Some layers of salt were eroded,

The building housing the entrance to the ASSE II salt mine.

September - December 2011

An important lesson to learn from Germany is not

September - December 2011

adioactive wastes are wastes in solid,

September - December 2011

nium-235, which splits and creates heat and expels

Salt deposit showing cracks and subsidence.

A graphic poster shows the topography of the mine.

There are two types of radioactive waste from the operation

September - December 2011

that drives turbines to generate electricity. The water

Key radioactive materials which

September - December 2011

September - December 2011

he explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi

concern and discussion, particularly in 17 targeted areas

September - December 2011

September - December 2011

Under the PDP 2010, nuclear power will account

power plant, 325-MW Nam Phong plant, 730-MW Tri

Energy Crisis: Is Nuclear the Solution?

September - December 2011

ince and Bang Boet on the border of Chumphon with

September - December 2011

Energy Crisis: Is Nuclear the Solution?

September - December 2011

Preparedness for the project to

September - December 2011

Energy Crisis: Is Nuclear the Solution?