So as not to appear all ‘gloom and doom,’ we’ll also clearly show alternatives. Top of those options is ‘concentrated solar.’ Near the end of this text are thumbnail descriptions and contact info for a couple dozen companies which are at the leading edge of solar technology. Some of those companies have already been engineering and building municipal-scale power generation plants. Prices for solar generated Kilowatt/Hours (Kw/Hr) are coming down dramatically, as efficiency rates are going up to unprecedented levels (up to 79%). In contrast, nuclear power generation is nowhere near such numbers for cost or efficiency.
How Thailand meets its future energy needs is an important issue, and the consequences of decisions made today will have repercussion for decades in the future. Indeed, with the prickly issues of nuclear waste, and plants that will eventually have to be decommissioned, dire repercussion could go on for thousands of years.
Some reading this may wonder, or may even take offense - that a foreigner has the audacity to stick his big nose in to Thailand’s business. I feel compelled to speak out, not as a citizen of a country, but as a person in the world. I’ve resided in over a dozen countries, and have been residing in Thailand for an eighth of a century - as long as a quarter of its citizens. I care for the Thai people no more or no less than I care about people from other countries I’m familiar with. I felt compelled to compile this text out of concern, mainly for future generations of Thais, but also for the effects nuclear power plants could have on Thais living today, and the possible adverse affects upon their neighbors.
Thailand has a small land mass, with no part more than a couple hundred Km from a neighboring country. If a worst case scenario befalls one or more Thai nuclear plants, the radiation will not discern between Thais and non-Thais, and radiation certainly gives no heed to national boundaries.
CHAPTERS:
* * * * * * *
1. Being an Activist can be Hazardous
The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) is the state enterprise under the Thai Prime Minister’s Office that is responsible for electric power production and transmission. EGAT's activities encompass the development, construction, operation of dams, reservoirs, power plants of various types, transmission system and substations; the production of lignite and its by- products; formulating policies concerning the production and sales of lignite. It’s primary function is to provide and sell electricity to people and entities in Thailand.
Being a government owned and state-run enterprise, EGAT is not beholden to shareholders and answers primarily to the ruling elite based in Bangkok. It pays lip service to the general public only to further its agenda. The Thai general public is rather malleable. With a land mass and population similar to France, Thailand is nevertheless a patriarchal society, and their school system is based on learning by rote. In essence, every Thai is indoctrinated to do as they’re told - by elders and authorities, and they learn early on - to never complain about inconveniences.
Just one true example which took place on a long-haul passenger train. All its windows were tightly shut. As the hours passed by, the air within got increasingly dank and unbreathable. The Thai passengers may have been aware of this, but they didn’t mention it to authorities. The lone farang (foreigner) in the coach asked around, “can we open a window and get some air in here?” Her queries to fellow passengers and train hostesses alike - garnered variations of; ‘mai pen rai’ (what does it matter) to “mai dai pleean” (cannot do anything to change the situation). Finally, in desperation, the farang woman opened a window. It’s not known whether she was scolded by the train staff, but at least she and her fellow passengers breathed easier.
In my own little way, I’d like to carry the spirit of that outspoken woman to the nuclear debate in Thailand. Many Thai citizens will believe whatever EGAT tells them with barely a second thought. A relatively small portion of Thais may become aware of the serious drawbacks to building nuclear reactors in Thailand – but all but a few of those more aware citizens will likely opt to sit on their hands with the realization that it’s futile to try to counter ‘the powers that be.’ Plus, Thais know that environmentalists get murdered in Thailand.
More than once activist has been snuffed out for daring to speak out against the establishment. Just as often, Thai law enforcement and their legal system is ineffectual in catching and prosecuting perpetrators.
Case in point: There was a young activist in the south who was generating awareness about the mangrove forests being cut down to make way for shrimp farms. He was telling residents there that when the farms got too polluted and no longer yielded shrimp, the farmers would leave the scarred area behind with no rehabilitation or replanting – and go on to the next mangrove area. He was murdered. Another young activist was murdered in a different part of the south due to his efforts to draw attention to the drawbacks of building an oil pipeline. When people started listening, the oil corporation bosses knocked him off.
In sum; if a citizen challenges ‘big money’ power brokers in Thailand, he/she can be killed and there will be scant follow up by law enforcement. Indeed, there are hitmen for hire throughout Thailand, and the going rates (and the hitmen themselves) are known to villagers – who accept it as another fact of life (and death).
Below is a list of 20 environmental activists who were murdered during the five years of Thaksin’s reign as PM. It’s doubtful that any of the assassins or the people who hired them have ever been formally identified or charged with murder, or as accomplices to murder. Influential and wealthy people are often behind murders-for-hire, and such people are untouchable in Thailand.
Here is the list, culled from the Nation newspaper;
1. Jurin Ratchapol: Killed January 30, 2001 because he took action against encroachments into a mangrove forest by influential people in Phuket.
2. Suwat Wongpiyasathit, leader of Rajathewa community: March 28, 2001: Was murdered after campaigning against a garbage disposal project that produced foul smells and water pollution. She was shot dead a day before she was due to speak to a Senate committee on the environment.
3. Narin Bhothidaeng, former chairman of Khao Cha Ang Klang Tung conservation group in Rayong. Killed on May 1, 2001 because he led villagers to protest a rock grinding plant run by a national politician.
4. Pitak Tonewut, former president of the Nature and Environment Conservation Student Club at Ramkhamhaeng University: Killed on May 17, 2001 because he led villagers to oppose the building of a stone mill that encroached on a forest conservation area in Nakhon Sawan province.
5. Chaweewan Peeksungneon, Nakhon Ratchsima’s Naklang Tambon Administrative Organisation (TAO): Killed June 21, 2001 for obstructed the bidding for construction projects by the TAO which favored local wealthy and influential people.
6. Somporn Chanapol, leader of Kradae river basin conservation group in Surat Thani: Killed July 2001 for protested a dam construction project that obstructed the Kradae river.
7. Kaew Pinpanma: killed in April 2002 over a land dispute in Lamphun province.
8. Boonsom Nimnoi: killed in September 2, 2002 because he protested the construction of a chemical factory in Petchaburi’s Baan Leam district.
9. Preecha Thongpan: September 27, 2002: Was shot dead after campaigning against a wastewater treatment project in Nakhon Sri Thammarat’s Tung Song district.
10. Boonrit Charnnarong: Killed December 15, 2002 because he protested against illegal logging by forestry officials in Surat Thani’s Tha Chana district.
11. Boonyong Intawong: Killed in December 20, 2002 because he protested against a rock grinding plant run by a local influential figure in Chiang Rai’s Wiengchai district.
12. Khampan Suksai, deputy chairman of the Ping River Basin Conservation Group: February 1, 2003: Killed when he tried to prevent an important person from encroaching into community forests.
13. Chuan Chamnarnkit: Killed February 4, 2003 because he campaigned against drug use in Nakhon Ratchasima.
14. Samnao Srisongkram, chairman of Pong river conservation club:
Killed May 25, 2003 because he protested against a paper mill.
15. Somchai Neelapaijit, human rights lawyer: Last seen on March 12, 2004: Kidnapped and killed by government agents because he was the defense attorney for five Muslim militants suspected of involvement in the January raid on an Army base. He also was defense attorney for three suspected Jemaah Islamiyah terrorists, and was involved in cases against a proposed gas pipeline in the South.
16. Chareon Wataksorn: Killed June 21, 2004: Led successful campaign against building of power plant at Bo Nok. Filed petition with interior minister and National Counter Corruption Commission accusing wealthy people of bribing local administrative organization officials to agree to sale of a 53rai plot of land. In 2001, he had received an honorary doctorate degree.
17. Luechai Yarangsi, president of an environmental group in Lampang, was shot but survived.
18. Boonsom Nimnoi, a community leader opposing a Phetchaburi plantation, was killed in September 2002.
It’s a sobering list, not least because most of the murdered activists were bright young university graduates – and also because they were all protesting peacefully. A decent thing to do would be to erect a memorial to acknowledge their sacrifices. Have each murdered person’s name shown, along with their hometown’s name and a brief mention of their cause. In Thailand, if a woman wears a spaghetti strap blouse, or if a farang is caught tossing a cigarette butt on a trash-strewn Bangkok sidewalk, she can be fined. In contrast, a wealthy contractor who hires a hitman to knock off a young person – is left untouched. At worst, the hired thug may get a reprimand, but the big boss ordering the hit is essentially untouchable – even if the whole community knows his identity.
* * * * * * *
2. Feasibility Study with Foregone Conclusion
EGAT announced near the end of 2007 that they are allocating 138,000,000,000 baht (over 43 million dollars) to conduct a feasibility study to see whether nuclear power plants are the best option for generating Thailand’s future electricity needs. To add legitimacy to the study, they got the Thai government to form a proxy entity called Nuclear Power Development office (NPDO) to stand alongside. Since EGAT is a government enterprise, it’s run differently than a corporation. One of those differing ways is to allocate vast amounts of money for a campaign to produce a foregone conclusion. Actually, it’s similar to what a private corporation would do, though a corporation would call it ‘marketing,’ whereas EGAT calls it a ‘feasibility study.’
"Building a nuclear power plant is unavoidable for Thailand."
EGAT governor Kraisi Kanasuta.
Tara Buakamsri, a Greenpeace campaigner, says, “Amongst many fast-tracked decisions taken by the erstwhile military-government, the approval of 1.38 billion baht to study nuclear power generation by Mr. Piyasvasti Amranand (former energy minister), on his last day in the office, is a huge waste of money and will not adequately address the real issue of energy security.”
Those in the highest echelons of Thai government want nuclear power. They’ve already expressed that desire unequivocally. The reasons are manifold and will be discussed later. The point here is that the allocation of 1.38 billion baht is a complete waste of taxpayer/ratepayer’s money, because it’s earmarked for a result that’s pre-ordained. Actually, much of the money will get spent on high quality printed brochures which will likely be distributed nationwide. Another sizable portion will get spent on TV and radio ad spots.
Why all the expensive brochures and TV
spots? The answer: To convince the Thai
public that nuclear is the best option to meet Thailand’s future electricity
needs. To get an idea of how easily the general Thai populace is swayed by
publicity:
Just after the turn of the century, there was a nationwide election. One party
spent gargantuan amounts on printing slick campaign posters which they hung
everywhere. Nearly every one of the
millions of concrete power poles throughout Thailand had a poster hanging from
it (which is technically illegal, but who cares when the hanger is rich and
powerful?). The other party had a much
smaller number of posters hung. Guess
who won the election? It’s a no-brainer,
the party with the steamroller campaign won handsomely.
One party made all sorts of promises, having to do with forgiving debts, and offering nearly free health care. No matter that when that party won, the debt forgiveness plan went awry and hospitals closed for lack of funds. All that mattered was saying what need to be said to get elected.
One party had a giant campaign that paid village headmen to pass payments down to voters. Some observers say that the vote-buying was the most effective policy of all – and it certainly cemented the well-funded party’s avalanche of votes. The nuclear ‘debate’ within Thailand will involve money also – lots of it - and there’s no mystery who will have the most baht to spend to pursue their agenda.
Where does the money come from? The 1.38 billion baht for the ‘feasibility study’ which EGAT (Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand) is allocating to the newly formed NPDO (Nuclear Power Development Office)? Perhaps that’s a two or three pronged question. For starters, how much is Thai government (taxpayers), and how much from EGAT’s rate-payers. It’s not from corporate coffers because EGAT is not a private corporation, so the ‘feasibility study’ will be paid for by the public, either through taxes and/or through higher electricity bills.
EGAT won’t ask corporate bidders to contribute to their campaign to market nuclear, at least not openly. Since the money EGAT will be spending is government money, then there’s scant incentive to get creative with the financing of their ‘feasibility study’ or any other expenses. Plus it takes more effort to solicit cooperation from outside corporations, and EGAT would likely rather take the course of least effort.
If EGAT’s proposed ‘feasibility study’ were really looking at the feasibility of nuclear, it would, by definition, look at other electricity generating options. There has been, and will continue to be some lip service paid to some alternatives, yet the conclusion is foregone – the boys at the top all want nuclear, so any mention of alternative options will be like window dressing – in order to make it appear they’re being objective.
Update on this topic, winter 2011
The data below was garnered from the web site:
http://rbdweb.nstda.or.th/rbdweb/download/1-Nuclear.pdf
and is the conclusion of EGAT’s feasibility study:
Thailand’s Nuclear Power Plants Feasibility Study
Thai Professionals Conference (TPC 2010) / Monday, June 5, 2010
Apisit Patchimpattapong, Ph.D. - Nuclear Engineering Division
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT)
The study concludes that Nuclear Energy Production for Thailand will be;
>>> reliable
>>> low and stable cost
>>> no greenhouse gases emissions
Results of a survey taken among Thai citizens, gauges what % of those questioned would approve of nuclear power development:
- in Thailand 64 / 32
- in their province - 32 / 59
- In their community - 24 / 66
Feasibility Study by Burns and Roe Asia, Ltd. (Oct 2008 - May 2010)
Dr. Kurujit Nakornthap, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Thailand
Here is one succinct quote which was included in the study:
"Nuclear power has an excellent safety record"
Source: H-Holger Rogner, Head of Planning & Economic Studies Section, Department of Nuclear Energy, IAEA, 2010
The report goes on to mention: "At present, Public information program to promote nuclear energy is being developed by Subcommittee on Public Information and Public Participation and EGAT’s working group on Public Communications. TV/Radio ad campaigns (including use of recognized Thai personalities on talk shows, etc), mailings (e.g., with electric bills), websites, newspaper and etc are considered as the effective media tools to communicate with the public. The program contents include the benefits of providing future electrical generation i.e. economic benefits (competitive cost of electricity), reduced green house gas emissions, and greater security of supply."
Ken’s note: in other words, a greater publicity campaign needs to be waged by boosters of nuclear power in Thailand, including using celebrities to appear on mass media campaigns.
* * * * * * *
Eight months before Japan’s Fukushima was breached, Thailand's EGAT published a summary of their 175 million baht 'Feasibility Report' for whether Thailand should go nuclear. The whole thing, of course, was a farce, as the recipient (Burns and Roe Asia, Ltd.) of that money knew beforehand what Apisit Patchimpattapong PhD and other heads of EGAT wanted to see. The actual money agreed upon could have been 200 million, with EGAT heads possibly pocketing the difference. The public won't know unless there's an inquiry.
The overall summary of that report states: "Nuclear power is reliable, low and stable cost, and emits no greenhouse gases."
I wouldn't be surprised if Thai ratepayers/taxpayers, who are partial owners of EGAT, bonded together to slap a class action lawsuit against EGAT and Burns and Roe - claiming malfeasance in their collusion on that expensive bogus report. That 175 million baht was a clear waste of money by a public owned Thai company - on a ruse that fooled nobody. 'Malfeasance' is a strong word, but applicable in this case, as it means, "an act by a public official that is legally unjustified or harmful to his constituents." If EGAT goes ahead and builds the five nuclear power plants it wants, then 'harmful' will be too soft a word for what might happen if one or more of those plants were commandeered and/or breached.
Source: Bangkok Post’s Postbag, April 17, 2011
* * * * * * *
175 million baht is an interesting number. When Thai government authorities dole out large government contracts, there are rarely finalized numbers like 175. It’s more likely the amount offered was 200, but somehow 25 million baht ‘got lost in the shuffle’. Was there 25 million Baht paid ‘under the table’ to the prestigious US nuclear engineering firm which was chosen (via a no-bid process) to write the report? Us little people will never know, because if there was a bribe, it would have been covered up and denied as much as possible, by ‘the powers that be.’ And don’t expect any investigation on the matter.
When the head of Thai Tourism (TAT) got in trouble for accepting bribes (for allegedly enabling a US couple to arrange a Cinema Festival in Bangkok), it was US authorities who broke the story. Thai authorities didn’t even know there were improprieties involved, and wouldn’t have pursued an investigation or compelled any Thai VIP wrongdoer to face justice for something like that. Similarly, the Thai representative to FIFA was accused of cruising for a bribe for his vote on which country would host the World Cup. Would Thai authorities have unearthed that transgression? No. After it was alleged, would Thai authorities be expected to investigate and/or pursue disciplinary action against the alleged perpetrator? No.
This is Thailand, where ‘face’ rules, and ‘mai pen rai’ is the watchword.
* * * * * * *
3. Which Sites?
Part of the 1.38 billion baht will supposedly get spent on deciding where the four best sites are for building nuclear reactors. This is obviously a sensitive issue, because even out-of-the-loop Thais acknowledge that there are safety concerns with nuclear. However, if jobs are on offer, then safety concerns will likely take a back seat. In other words, if a site were picked that was near X village, and the residents of X were convincingly told there would be lots of jobs on offer, then it’s quite likely that most residents would look upon the new plant favorably. Thailand is a country in flux. It’s easy to move from