Support Nuclear on Facebook!

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY ON FACEBOOK NOW.

JOIN IT HERE: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Say-YES-to-Nuclear-Energy/130703406966436?sk=wall

The concept behind the nuclear power plant

The diagram below shows the concept used in a nuclear power plant,based on gasification:

and the containment building plan to handle the disposable materials are shown as below:

Handling nuclear power plant safety in the event of an earthquake

• Japanese, and most other, nuclear plants are designed to withstand earthquakes, and in the event of major earth movement, to shut down safely. 
• In 1995, the closest nuclear power plants, some 110 km north of Kobe, were unaffected by the severe Kobe-Osaka earthquake, but in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 Japanese reactors shut down automatically due to ground acceleration exceeding their trip settings. 
• In 1999, three nuclear reactors shut down automatically during the devastating Taiwan earthquake, and were restarted two days later. 
• In March 2011 eleven operating nuclear power plants shut down automatically during the major earthquake.  Three of these subsequently caused an INES Level 7 Accident due to loss of power leading to loss of cooling and subsequent radioactive releases. 

Design criteria 

Nuclear facilities are designed so that earthquakes and other external events will not jeopardise the safety of the plant. In France for instance, nuclear plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as the 1000-year event calculated for each site. It is estimated that, worldwide, 20% of nuclear reactors are operating in areas of significant seismic activity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a Safety Guide on Seismic Risks for Nuclear Power Plants. Various systems are used in planning, including Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA), which is recommended by IAEA and widely accepted.
Because of the frequency and magnitude of earthquakes in Japan, particular attention is paid to seismic issues in the siting, design and construction of nuclear power plants. The seismic design of such plants is based on criteria far more stringent than those applying to non-nuclear facilities. Power reactors are also built on hard rock foundations (not sediments) to minimise seismic shaking.

Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion.  These used to be specified as S1 and S2, but now simply Ss, in Gal units.  The plants are fitted with seismic detectors.  If these register ground motions of a set level (formerly 90% of S1, but at Fukushima only 135 Gal), systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown.  The logarithmic Richter magnitude scale (or more precisely the Moment Magnitude Scale more generally used today) measures the overall energy released in an earthquake, and there is not always a good correlation between that and intensity (ground motion) in a particular place.  Japan has a seismic intensity scale in shindo units 0 to 7, with weak/strong divisions at levels 5 & 6, hence ten levels. This describes the surface intensity at particular places, rather than the magnitude of the earthquake itself.

The former design basis earthquake ground motion or peak ground acceleration (PGA) level S1 was defined as the largest earthquake which can reasonably be expected to occur at the site of a nuclear power plant, based on the known seismicity of the area and local active faults. A power reactor could continue to operate safely during an S1 level earthquake, though in practice they are set to trip at lower levels. If it did shut down, a reactor would be expected to restart soon after an S1 event.

Larger earthquake ground motions in the region, considering the tectonic structures and other factors, must also be taken into account, although their probability is very low. The largest conceivable such ground motion was the upper limit design basis extreme earthquake ground motion (PGA) S2, generally assuming a magnitude 6.5 earhtquake directly under the reactor. The plant's safety systems would be effective during an S2 level earthquake to ensure safe shutdown without release of radioactivity, though extensive inspection would be required before restart.  In particular, reactor pressure vessel, control rods and drive system and reactor containment should suffer no damage at all.

Safety aspect of a Nuclear Power Plant's Operation

• From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials. 
• There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing significant release of radioactivity. 
• These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. 
• The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust. 
• Safety is achieved through "defence in depth". 

Achieving optimum nuclear safety

To achieve optimum safety, nuclear plants in the western world operate using a 'defence-in-depth' approach, with multiple safety systems supplementing the natural features of the reactor core. Key aspects of the approach are:

• high-quality design & construction,
• equipment which prevents operational disturbances or human failures and errors developing into problems,
• comprehensive monitoring and regular testing to detect equipment or operator failures,
• redundant and diverse systems to control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive releases,
• provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage (or any other problem) to the plant itself.

These can be summed up as: Prevention, Monitoring, and Action (to mitigate consequences of failures).
The safety provisions include a series of physical barriers between the radioactive reactor core and the environment, the provision of multiple safety systems, each with backup and designed to accommodate human error. Safety systems account for about one quarter of the capital cost of such reactors.  As well as the physical aspects of safety, there are institutional aspects which are no less important - see following section on International Collaboration.
The barriers in a typical plant are: the fuel is in the form of solid ceramic (UO2) pellets, and radioactive fission products remain largely bound inside these pellets as the fuel is burned. The pellets are packed inside sealed zirconium alloy tubes to form fuel rods. These are confined inside a large steel pressure vessel with walls up to 30 cm thick - the associated primary water cooling pipework is also substantial. All this, in turn, is enclosed inside a robust reinforced concrete containment structure with walls at least one metre thick.  This amounts to three significant barriers around the fuel, which itself is stable up to very high temperatures.
These barriers are monitored continually. The fuel cladding is monitored by measuring the amount of radioactivity in the cooling water. The high pressure cooling system is monitored by the leak rate of water, and the containment structure by periodically measuring the leak rate of air at about five times atmospheric pressure.

Looked at functionally, the three basic safety functions in a nuclear reactor are: to control reactivity, to cool the fuel and to contain radioactive substances.

The main safety features of most reactors are inherent - negative temperature coefficient and negative void coefficient. The first means that beyond an optimal level, as the temperature increases the efficiency of the reaction decreases (this in fact is used to control power levels in some new designs). The second means that if any steam has formed in the cooling water there is a decrease in moderating effect so that fewer neutrons are able to cause fission and the reaction slows down automatically.

In the 1950s and '60s some experimental reactors in the Idaho desert were deliberately tested to destruction to verify that large reactivity excursions were self-limiting and would automatically shut down the fission reaction. These tests verified that this was the case.

Beyond the control rods which are inserted to absorb neutrons and regulate the fission process, the main engineered safety provisions are the back-up emergency core cooling system (ECCS) to remove excess heat (though it is more to prevent damage to the plant than for public safety) and the containment.
Traditional reactor safety systems are 'active' in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, eg pressure relief valves. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety design depends only on physical phenomena such as convection, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components. All reactors have some elements of inherent safety as mentioned above, but in some recent designs the passive or inherent features substitute for active systems in cooling etc.  Such a design would have averted the Fukushima accident, where loss of electrical power resulted is loss of cooling function.
The basis of design assumes a threat where due to accident or malign intent (eg terrorism) there is core melting and a breach of containment. This double possibility has been well studied and provides the basis of exclusion zones and contingency plans. Apparently during the Cold War neither Russia nor the USA targeted the other's nuclear power plants because the likely damage would be modest.
Nuclear power plants are designed with sensors to shut them down automatically in an earthquake, and this is a vital consideration in many parts of the world. (see paper on Earthquakes)

The Three Mile Island accident in 1979 demonstrated the importance of the inherent safety features. Despite the fact that about half of the reactor core melted, radionuclides released from the melted fuel mostly plated out on the inside of the plant or dissolved in condensing steam. The containment building which housed the reactor further prevented any significant release of radioactivity. The accident was attributed to mechanical failure and operator confusion. The reactor's other protection systems also functioned as designed. The emergency core cooling system would have prevented any damage to the reactor but for the intervention of the operators.

Investigations following the accident led to a new focus on the human factors in nuclear safety. No major design changes were called for in western reactors, but controls and instrumentation were improved and operator training was overhauled.

By way of contrast, the Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment structure like those used in the West or in post-1980 Soviet designs.

At Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 the three operating reactors shut down automatically, and were being cooled as designed by the normal residual heat removal system using power from the back-up generators, until the tsunami swamped them an hour later. The emergency core cooling systems then failed. Days later, a separate problem emerged as spent fuel ponds lost water. Full analysis of the accident is pending.

The effect nuclear fuel has on power generation prices

Here is a comparison of how much cheaper overall energy would be for the people of Malaysia if the nuclear power was used.

 

These show that a doubling of fuel prices would result in the electricity cost for nuclear rising about 9%, for coal rising 31% and for gas 66%. Gas prices have since risen significantly.

The impact of varying the uranium price in isolation is shown below in a worked example of a typical US plant, assuming no alteration in the tails assay at the enrichment plant.

The Economics of Nuclear Power

Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.  In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

Assessing the relative costs of new generating plants utilising different technologies is a complex matter and the results depend crucially on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.
Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuels for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding.

The cost of fuel
From the outset the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared with coal, oil and gas-fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about half of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. In the assessment of the economics of nuclear power allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive used fuel and the ultimate disposal of this used fuel or the wastes separated from it. But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.

In March 2011, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel (at current spot uranium price):

Uranium:	8.9 kg U3O8 x $146	US$ 1299
Conversion:	7.5 kg U x $13	US$ 98
Enrichment:	7.3 SWU x $155	US$ 1132
Fuel fabrication:	per kg	US$ 240
Total, approx:		US$ 2769

At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.77 c/kWh. 

Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain the nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.

The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect (see below). Uranium is abundant.There are other possible savings. For example, if used fuel is reprocessed and the recovered plutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The costs of achieving this are large, but are offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by the smaller amount of high-level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.

Nuclear Fussion

 

Nuclear energy can also be released by fusion of two light elements (elements with low atomic numbers). The power that fuels the sun and the stars is nuclear fusion. In a hydrogen bomb, two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium are fused to form a nucleus of helium and a neutron. This fusion releases 17.6 MeV of energy. Unlike nuclear fission, there is no limit on the amount of the fusion that can occur.

A fission bomb, called the primary, produces a flood of radiation including a large number of neutrons. This radiation impinges on the thermonuclear portion of the bomb, known as the secondary. The secondary consists largely of lithium deuteride. The neutrons react with the lithium in this chemical compound, producing tritium and helium.

                                 

This reaction produces the tritium on the spot, so there is no need to include tritium in the bomb itself. In the extreme heat which exists in the bomb, the tritium fuses with the deuterium in the lithium deuteride.

Nuclear is the solution,not the problem

Advantages of Nuclear

Advantages (Pros):

• Nuclear power plants are more efficient than ever before. New technology has made them more reliable (they break down less often) and safer. People for nuclear power argue that this is evidenced by more and more nations (such as China) building nuclear power plants.
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a contentious issue. Proponents of nuclear power argue that, as no coal or fossil fuels are burnt, no carbon dioxide is released into the air. However, uranium has to be mined and transported to the nuclear plant. Both these activities require burning of fuels, so carbon dioxide is released. Also, producing nuclear fuel from the uranium requires a lot of energy, which also contributes to the emission of greenhouse gases.
• Although the initial cost of building nuclear plants is high, the running costs are relatively low.
• One reason the costs are low is that nuclear plants need only a small amount of uranium to produce a lot of energy. In fact, if the cost of uranium doubled, costs would only be increased by 7%. 1 truck of uranium produces as much energy as 1000 trucks of coal!
• Reduces dependence on foreign oils and natural gas (like biofuels). America, for instance, imports a lot of oil and natural gas from other countries. The price of these products is volatile, and change very quickly. If the price increases quickly, consumers have to pay more for their electricity (which they may not be able to afford). Building more nuclear power plants means that Americans will not be susceptible to price rises in oil and gas.
• Nuclear wastes can be safely stored underground (another debated issue).

The truth about nuclear

There are many misconceptions as to what nuclear energy actually is. Nuclear energy is the usable energy retrieved from the atomic nuclei through controlled nuclear reactions. This is generally done through the use of particular types of nuclear technology. From there, the nuclear energy is used as one of the primary points of nuclear power.
Among the most recognized advantages of nuclear power are the cleanliness of energy retrieval, a lesser amount of nuclear waste, safety, reliability and availability.
One of the primary reasons so many people are fans of nuclear energy is because it is such a clean way of creating energy. Unlike other methods, it does not feature the emission of poisonous gasses such as sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide or nitrogen dioxide. Thus, its lack of damage to the environment is one of the big benefits of nuclear energy.
Further, nuclear energy is often preferred because it produces less waste. Nuclear waste is always small in quantity, and is usually isolated so that it does not harm anything in the general proximity. Numerous reports have noted that the amount of nuclear waste that would come from a typical family of four over the course of an entire lifetime would be the size of a golf ball.
Also, generally speaking, usage of nuclear power is safer than the alternatives. Obviously, when things go bad with nuclear power, they go really bad as shown in the Pennsylvania and Chernobyl incidents. However, by and large, this method is safer than many people may originally be led to believe.
Finally, the reliability and availability of nuclear power cannot be overstated. As a result of the long life cycle of nuclear reactors, nuclear power is a very reliable form of power. And, given the lower costs of using this type of energy, it would likely be available to all necessary buyers on demand.

Nuclear Fun Facts

FUN NUCLEAR FACTS:

• Nuclear power produces no carbon dioxide - it's zero carbon.
• Nuclear fuel is 10 million times more powerful than coal.
• A nuclear power station would fit on a football pitch - to grow crops to produce the same amount of energy would take up the whole of the highlands of Scotland - to build wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy would line the coastline from Lands End to Dover.
• An air hostess receives more radiation than a nuclear power worker.
• Every new nuclear power station is strong enough to withhold a 9/11 type terrorist attack.
• Ninety per cent of the world's radiation is in the atmosphere - 9.9% comes from medical activities - 0.003% comes from nuclear power stations.
• If everyone in the world was given a share of the planet's nuclear waste for their lifetime it would be the size of a golf ball.
• Virtually the whole of France's electricity is powered by 60 nuclear power stations.
• There are 20 nuclear power stations on the French coast south of Calais.
• 30 new nuclear power stations in the UK would provide nearly all of our electricity.
• 30 new nuclear power stations in the UK would reduce our CO2 emissions by 40%

Even a genius like Albert Einstein recognized nulcear as a +

If you succeed in using the nuclear-physical findings for peaceful purposes, it will open the way to a new paradise.

-Einstein

Cool Nuclear Facts

August 2002 -- The American public has been led to believe that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and that nuclear waste disposal is an unsolved problem. Those beliefs are based on preposterous distortions perpetrated by irrational environmentalists and an irresponsible mass media. In reality, a reactor meltdown would have to occur every two weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as the routine emissions from coal-fired power, from which we get about half of our electric power in the United States. (Note: some newer nuclear power plant designs cannot possibly meltdown.) And if the United States went completely nuclear for all its electric power for 10,000 years, the amount of land needed for waste disposal would be about what is needed for the coal ash that is currently generated every two weeks.
Anti-nuclear activists like to scare us with horror stories about the "thousands of tons of nuclear waste" that have been produced since nuclear power began some four decades ago. That sounds like a lot -- until you put it into perspective, which anti-nuclear activists and the mass media never do. Consider that one pound of plutonium can produce as much energy as the Yankee Stadium full of coal. And coal-fired power generates something like 100 million tons of waste annually in the United States, or about three tons of ash per second. Every few hours, more coal ash is generated than high-level nuclear waste has been generated in four decades!

Oh, but nuclear waste is far more dangerous than coal waste, isn't it? Actually, it isn't. For a given amount of energy produced, coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste. How can that be? Simple. The quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste, so even though the radioactive intensity of the coal ash is much less, the overall amount of radiation and radioactive matter is greater.

But nobody worries much about the radioactivity of coal ash because the chemicals in it are far more dangerous. They include several thousand tons per year of mercury and other heavy metals, along with huge amounts of lead, arsenic, and asbestos, for example. Yet even the huge quantities of chemical waste in coal ash are of little concern compared to the gaseous emissions from burning coal, which kill an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Americans every year, depending on which study you believe. As a point of reference, even the lower estimate approaches the rate at which Americans died in the Viet Nam war, and the higher estimate greatly exceeds it, yet the media rarely report on those deaths.

So let's get this straight. For a given amount of energy produced, coal waste has more radioactive matter than nuclear waste, yet the radioactivity of coal waste is nowhere near as dangerous as the solid chemical waste, which in turn is nowhere near as dangerous as the gaseous emissions. Are you starting to get the picture yet?

Lets join the nuclear family today!

Nuclear is the answer for world energy crisis...

The only beaming light in the crisis of world energy in the world is the use of nuclear energy.It is green, its independent, it is cheap and best of all, it is the most reliable source. All the negative mistaken clouds around this energy has been answered by the addition of new technology which now gives us the ability to manage it.Thus, the management of a nuclear power plant accordingly and with tight laws and acts, nuclear power plants will be the answer.

NUCLEAR IS THE ANSWER TO WORLD ENERGY CRISIS.

Its time to embrace NUCLEAR AND MOVE FORWARD...

Nuclear is Green and Nuclear is Hope for Mother Earth!

Nuclear energy or power comes from the fission of Uranium atoms. The fission process takes place at the power plant where it creates heat. With the energy produced, nuclear power plants contribute as much as 6% of the world’s energy which is also equivalent to at least 13% of electricity worldwide. While the tides use force and the wind uses its velocity to produce energy, nuclear power relies on units of mass to be converted into units of energy. A couple of the popular countries generating nuclear power and supplying electricity are the United States and France. However, there is a debate going about the disadvantages that nuclear power is presenting. Either way, let us check on the advantages, disadvantages and the factors that will make it a green energy.



The discovery of the radioactive elements, such as radium which produces energy has gone a long way back in the early twentieth century. This discovery was based on the mass-energy equivalence principle which states that the mass of the body is a measure of its energy content. According to Einstein, the radioactive material such as radium is a test of theory. It also included the fact that a large amount of energy is released due to the half-life or the length of time when a substance undergo decay to decrease by half. As per a radium atom, there is great energy released and because of its half-life only a small fraction decays over the experimentally measurable time. The discovery of the nucleus was made after. This resulted to the discovery that from the mass difference, the binding energy can be calculated. The mass equivalence formula is stated as the total mass of protons and neutron’s separate weights subtracted from the atomic nuclei mass, the value derived is the atomic nucleus’ available binding energy. This is the same formula used to compute the energy released in a nuclear reaction, which is the difference of the total nuclei‘s mass that enter and exit the whole reaction.
Though experimenter were able to come up with the idea of energy harnessed from radioactive elements, the whole concept was deemed to be impractical. This led to the discontinuation of the whole development. There had been many studies after the cessation of the project. There had been many great minds that went into its study and some took advantage of such research and experimentation for the purpose of war. In fact, the idea of the atomic bomb was taken from this whole concept. After World War II, it took a turn where it was discussed that the “atomic energy” can be used to benefit people.


It is worth-noting that it took years before electricity was produced using nuclear power. It was in the late 1940’s and 1950’s when electricity was first produced through a nuclear reactor. It was the work of the cooperation amidst the countries of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and USSR that made this possible. Nuclear power was successfully put into good use and the rich history behind it made it possible for such to be harnessed into electricity. The nuclear power will not produce electricity on its own. There is a need for a systematic processes and a well-built nuclear power plant.

Economic benefit of Nuclear

As nuclear energy is a much more cheap and independent source of energy, the benefit that the energy source will have to a country builiding and using it will boost its economy.Malaysia will have its own boost of economy with the addition of a nuclear power plant in the future.

More Jobs

• For each construction, manufacturing, or operations job created at a nuclear power plant, four new jobs are created in the job market to provide goods and services.
• Each nuclear plant employs an average of approximately 500 employees from the local community and generates an additional 500 jobs in the local area.

More Demand

• Many companies vyiong to build such nuclear power plants will ensure healthy competition and provide us with the best services and indirectly generate healthy competition and will be beneficial to the people of malaysia!

Future is Nuclear!

The challenge posed by global warming and concerns about the future availability of oil have recently given a boost to nuclear power, which is finding supporters even among prominent environmentalists. Last year Al Gore declared that nuclear energy could play a “small part” in plans to avert global warming. James Lovelock, best known for his Gaia hypothesis, advocates the building of new nuclear power plants as the solution to impending ecological catastrophe. Jared Diamond, author of Collapse, says that, “to deal with our energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power.” Even the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that nuclear power despite the risks it poses might play a role as a “longer-term option” in combating global warming. At the same time many environmentalists and most environmental organizations remain adamantly opposed to nuclear power. For Barry Commoner, who warned of the dangers of both nuclear energy and global warming more than forty years ago in his Science and Survival, the fact that some individuals who have established reputations as environmentalists see nuclear power as a weapon against global warming is nothing short of “appalling” (New York Times, March 22 and June 19, 2007; Christian Science Monitor , July 19, 2007; http://www.ucsusa.org).

Schematic of Nuclear Power Plant

The schematic arrangement of a nuclear power station is shown below.

The whole arrangement can be divided into following main stages.

(i)Nuclear Reactor

(ii)Heat Exchanger

(iii)Steam Turbine

(iv)Alternator

(i)Nuclear Reactor

It is an apparatus in which nuclear fuel(U235)is subjected to nuclear fission.It controls the chain reaction that starts once the fusion is done.If the chain reaction is not controlled,the result will be an explosion due to the fast increase in the energy released.

A nuclear reactor is a cylindrical stout pressure vessel and houses fuel rods of Uranium moderator and control rods.The fuel rods constitute the fission materials and release huge amount of energy when bombarded with slow moving neutrons.The moderator consists of graphite rods which enclose the fuel rods.The control rods are of Cadmium and and are inserted in the reactor.Cadmium is strong neutron absorber and thus regulates the supply of neutrons for fission.When the control rods are pushed in deep enough,they absorb most of fission neutrons and hence few are available for chain reaction, which therefore stops.However,hence they are being withdrawn,more and more of these fission neutorns cause fission and hence the intensity of chain reaction is increased.Therefore by pulling out the control rods,power of nuclear reactor is increased,whereas by pushing them in,it is reduced.In actual practice,the lowering or raising of control rods is accomplished automatically acoording to the requiremen t of load.The heat produced by the reactor is removed by the coolant, generally a sodium metal.The coolant carries heat to the heat exchanger.

(ii)Heat Exchanger

The coolant gives up the heat to the heat exchanger which is utilised in raising the steam.After giving up heat,the coolant is again fed to the reactor.

(iii)Steam Turbine

The stean produced in the heat exchanger is led to the steam turbine througha valve.after doing a useful work in the turbine,the steam is exhausted to the condenser.The condenser condense the steam which is fed to the heat exchangerthrough feed water pump.

(iv)Alternator

The steam turbine drives the alternator which converts mechanical energy into electrical energy.The output from the alernator is delivered to the bus bars through tansformers,circuit brakers and isolators.

Types of wastes and its management...the right way!

Types of radioactive wastes

Exempt waste & very low level waste

Exempt waste and very low level waste (VLLW) contains radioactive materials at a level which is not considered harmful to people or the surrounding environment. It consists mainly of demolished material (such as concrete, plaster, bricks, metal, valves, piping etc) produced during rehabilitation or dismantling operations on nuclear industrial sites. Other industries, such as food processing, chemical, steel etc also produce VLLW as a result of the concentration of natural radioactivity present in certain minerals used in their manufacturing processes (see also information page on Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Materials). The waste is therefore disposed of with domestic refuse, although countries such as France are currently developing facilities to store VLLW in specifically designed VLLW disposal facilities.

Low-level waste

Low-level waste (LLW) is generated from hospitals and industry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. It comprises paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters etc, which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. It does not require shielding during handling and transport and is suitable for shallow land burial. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted or incinerated before disposal. It comprises some 90% of the volume but only 1% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.

Intermediate-level waste

Intermediate-level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts of radioactivity and some requires shielding. It typically comprises resins, chemical sludges and metal fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. Smaller items and any non-solids may be solidified in concrete or bitumen for disposal. It makes up some 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity of all radwaste.

High-level waste

High-level waste (HLW) arises from the 'burning' of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. HLW contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot, so requires cooling and shielding. It can be considered as the 'ash' from 'burning' uranium. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of electricity generation.

There are two distinct kinds of HLW:

• Used fuel itself.
• Separated waste from reprocessing the used fuel (as described in section on Managing HLW from used fuel below).

HLW has both long-lived and short-lived components, depending on the length of time it will take for the radioactivity of particular radionuclides to decrease to levels that are considered no longer hazardous for people and the surrounding environment. If generally short-lived fission products can be separated from long-lived actinides, this distinction becomes important in management and disposal of HLW.

Waste of Nuclear Could Have Own Benefits!

Nuclear energy is indeed the most efficient way of producing energy to cater for world energy demand, but the problem of waste disposal has long been one of the few hindrance of this superb technology. There is many ways that even the waste disposed can be used to many good use.

According to Charles Forsberg, director of MIT’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study, a collaborative project between the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering and the MIT Energy Initiative. “Some components of spent nuclear fuel can be recycled and used to make more energy. But it’s not economical to do so right now.”
Nuclear reactors typically use enriched uranium pellets for fuel. A starter device emits neutrons that split the atoms in the pellets. This atom splitting, called fission, releases more neutrons, which in turn split more atoms. This controlled chain reaction sustains itself until the fuel becomes “burned out” or “spent,” says Forsberg. “Like wet wood, it doesn’t burn well anymore.” Spent fuel can become high-level nuclear waste, or it can be recycled. Recycling the fuel, called reprocessing, involves removing the ash (fission products) and converting the uranium and plutonium into new fuel.

Proper waste management

Nuclear Power Plant Working Mechanism

In order to turn nuclear fission into electrical energy, nuclear power plant operators have to control the energy given off by the enriched uranium and allow it to heat water into steam.

Enriched uranium typically is formed into inch-long (2.5-centimeter-long) pellets, each with approximately the same diameter as a dime. Next, the pellets are arranged into long rods, and the rods are collected together into bundles. The bundles are submerged in water inside a pressure vessel. The water acts as a coolant. Left to its own devices, the uranium would eventually overheat and melt.

To prevent overheating, control rods made of a material that absorbs neutrons are inserted into the uranium bundle using a mechanism that can raise or lower them. Raising and lowering the control rods allow operators to control the rate of the nuclear reaction. When an operator wants the uranium core to produce more heat, the control rods are lifted out of the uranium bundle (thus absorbing fewer neutrons). To reduce heat, they are lowered into the uranium bundle. The rods can also be lowered completely into the uranium bundle to shut the reactor down in the event of an accident or to change the fuel.

The uranium bundle acts as an extremely high-energy source of heat. It heats the water and turns it to steam. The steam drives a turbine, which spins a generator to produce power. Humans have been harnessing the expansion of water into steam for hundreds of years.

 

The Positives of Nuclear

Positive Effects of Nuclear Plants

Nuclear power plants produce energy through the fission of uranium or uranium and plutonium. Control rods control the reaction so that the plant produces only enough energy to heat water and generate steam. The steam acts on a turbine, which runs a generator to produce electricity. Although nuclear power plants became more controversial in the United States after a near disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania in 1979, some scientists and environmentalists have started touting the positive effects of nuclear power plants in relation to other forms of energy, especially fossil fuel energy.


          Environment

Because nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels, they do not produce carbon dioxide, which is the primary contributor to global warming. Whereas power plants burning fossil fuels pollute the environment with substances that cause acid rain--nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides--nuclear power plants do not. A small amount of uranium can release a large amount of energy; according to Max W. Carbon, Emeritus Professor of Nuclear Engineering at University of Wisconsin-Madison, "The nuclear energy in a pound of uranium is three million times the energy released in burning a pound of coal." The result is less strip mining to reach the uranium in the earth (strip mining can disrupt wildlife and negatively impact groundwater).

Health

Plants that use fossil fuels discharge particulates into the air, a type of air pollution that is associated with lung cancer and respiratory diseases, according to the World Resources Institute. Nuclear power plants, in contrast, do not have as a by-product any type of soot or particulates. Although nuclear power plants do emit some radioactivity, this amount is inconsequential during normal operation, according to Daniel D. Chiras, an environmental scientist.

Cost

Reports show that the transportation costs of fuel are also less for nuclear power plants because of the concentrated nature of uranium. In the 1970s, nuclear power plants in the United States were cheaper than other forms of power plants; but in the 1980s, stricter governmental regulations and environmental lawsuits raised the cost of operating nuclear power plants. In the United States today, according to Chiras, the cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant is two times the cost of electricity produced by a coal plant. Max Carbon, however, predicts that nuclear power will eventually become cheaper than fossil fuel energy, as environmental regulations aiming to cut down carbon emissions raise the operating costs of fossil fuel plants.

Overview of Nuclear Energy

Transport of nuclear materials

Safety is the prime requirement with nuclear transports, particularly those of highly-radioactive used fuel, and the record is impressive. Shielding, and the security of that shielding in any accident, is the key with any nuclear materials, especially those which are significantly radioactive. 

There has never been any radiation release from an accident involving such materials. For instance, if used fuel needs to be transported, it is shipped in large and extremely robust steel casks weighing over 100 tonnes, and each holding only about 6 tonnes of fuel.

Radiation

Ionising radiation, such as occurs from uranium ores and nuclear wastes, is part of our human environment, and always has been so. At high levels it is hazardous, but at low levels such as we all experience naturally, it is harmless. Considerable effort is devoted to ensuring that those working with nuclear power are not exposed to harmful levels of radiation from it, and standards for the general public are set about 20 times lower still, well below the levels normally experienced by any of us from natural sources.

Introductory factsheet on radiation

Avoiding weapons proliferation

The initial development of atomic energy during and immediately after the second world war was to produce bombs. An early concern when the atom was harnessed for controlled civil use was that this nuclear power should not enable more countries to acquire nuclear weapons. 

Through the United Nations, procedures were set up to ensure this, and in fact they have been perhaps the most conspicuous success of that body. No nuclear materials such as uranium from the civil nuclear fuel cycle have ever been diverted to make weapons. In fact today the whole picture is reversed in that a lot of military uranium is being brought into the civil nuclear fuel cycle to make electricity, which is widely seen as a positive development, unimaginable 40 years ago. One tenth of US electricity is made from Russian military warheads.

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy is the energy that is released from the nucleus of an atom, as it is evident from the term nuclear. During the process, mass gets converted into energy. The relation between mass and energy is given by Einstein’s famous formula E=mc², where ‘E’ is energy, ‘m’ is mass and ‘c’ is the constant speed of light. In brief, nuclear energy is the energy that is obtained from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process known as nuclear fission. Although there are three ways from which nuclear reaction is possible - fission, fusion and decay, only the energy from the first has been utilized till date.

Reasons to Use Nuclear Energy

Environmental Safety
The process to generate nuclear energy is one of the most cleanest, and makes lowest impact on the environment. It is because nuclear plants do not emit any harmful gases like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, produced from the conventional electricity power plants that threaten atmosphere by increasing global warming. The energy can hence be termed as ‘emission-free energy’. They require little space for the production, thus promoting land and habitat preservation. There is absolutely no effect on land, water and air resources.

Clean Water
The water discharged from nuclear power plants is very safe, free of any radiation or harmful pollutants, and meets all regulatory standards. Hence, helps in protecting the aquatic life and conserving wildlife.

Reliable
One utmost importance of nuclear energy, is reliability. The energy don’t have to depend upon weather conditions, unpredictable costs or foreign supplies. Its a reliable source of energy even during extreme weather changes. The plants can run for about 500 to 700 days continuously, before they are shut down for refueling.

Reduces the Dependence on Fossil Fuels
There has been an increase in production and supply of fossil fuels like oil and gas, as the world has been using them at an unbelievable pace. Their deposits are emptying. On the other hand, nuclear energy requires very little quantity of fuel to produce large quantities of energy. Consider this, one ton of uranium can produce energy that is more than that of several million tons of coal and oil.

Peaceful Uses

There has been great advances in using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as medicinal use of isotopes and radiation techniques. One major on-going advancement is Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), that helps in large scale food irrigation and biological control of pests. Other various uses are:

Food and Agriculture
The use of isotopes and radiation techniques in agriculture come under this category. Leading organizations have been working on the technology to increase agricultural production, improve food availability and quality, reduce production costs and minimize pollution of food crop.

Human Health
One very common application of nuclear energy, is in the treatment of cancer - radiotherapy. Also, small amounts of radioisotope tracers are used for diagnostic and research purposes. These techniques have helped in monitoring the levels of toxic substances in food, air and water.

Nuclear energy can also be used in industries for processing and sterilization of various products by means of radiation. With so many above mentioned advantages, nuclear energy is surely the fuel for the 21st century. To conclude, nuclear energy has enormous benefits but, its up to humans to use it safely, and for peaceful purposes.

Pro-nuclear arguments

Nuclear is a clear energy alternative to fossil fuel
Nuclear energy is vital following the increase in the world fuel price and our limited oil reserve. It is the source of 17% of the world electricity need and is witnessing a resurgence as country after country decides to go nuclear. This resurgence is driven not just by the continuing development in many parts of the world, but dwindling resource of fossil fuels, limitations of hydro electric resources, environmental concerns (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, green house gases from burning of fossil fuel) and the under capacity of alternatives (solar, wind and biofuel) to supply the bulk of industrial need.
Nuclear is safe!
The nuclear industry has an excellent safety record, with some 12,000 reactor operating for years spanning five decades with minimal risk of accidents. Since Chernobyl, nuclear facility management and technology has progressed by leaps and bounds. The Chernobyl disaster was basically irrelevant to any western reactor, or any that might be built today.
Nuclear helps to offset carbon emissions
Currently nuclear energy saves the emission of 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 relative to coal. For every 22 tonnes of uranium used, one million tonnes of CO2 emissions is averted. Doubling the world's nuclear output would reduce CO2 emissions from power generation by about one quarter.
Nuclear is a technology driver for many developing countries
Nuclear technology has been the driver of high technology growth in the economy (Korea, Japan, China). This cascade effect will also unleash high technology industrial development for Malaysia. The Malaysian Nuclear Agency has been operating for more than three decades and accumulated a wealth of technical capabilities and experience. Going nuclear will help Malaysia achieve high income nation status.

A new company, Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation, will spearhead planning the eventual deployment of nuclear power plants in the country.

In the Third Economic Transformational Program update speech made on 11 January, prime minister Najib Tun Razak outlined 19 projects of key national economic significance that are expected to lead to up to 67 billion ringitts ($22 billion) in investment and as many as 35,000 new jobs for the country. 
Regarding the new nuclear company, the prime minister named Mohd Zamzam bin Jafaar as CEO, and mentioned a time frame of 11-12 years from pre-project to commissioning for Malaysia’s first nuclear plant. The company is expected to create 2600 jobs over time.

This is the latest development in a steady process leading to the adoption of nuclear power in the country, though an official decision on whether to proceed is currently set for 2013 based on the findings of three high level working groups. The current indications point to a nuclear plant being commissioned some time in the early 2020s, pending the decision to proceed.

In 2008 and in the wake of escalating fossil fuel prices on which the country is over 90% dependent for its electricity needs, the Malaysian government expressed its tentative support for nuclear power and set up a task force to investigate the option. In early 2010 the government had set aside $7 billion for plant construction and the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water was instructed to identify suitable locations, yielding eight possible sites.

Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries

• Over 45 countries are actively considering embarking upon nuclear power programs. 
• These range from sophisticated economies to developing nations. 
• The front runners are Iran, UAE, Turkey, Belarus, Vietnam and Jordan.
   

Nuclear power is under serious consideration in over 45 countries which do not currently have it (in a few, consideration is not necessarily at government level).  For countries in bold, nuclear power prospects are more fully dealt with in specific country papers:

• In Europe: Italy, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Turkey.
• In the Middle East and North Africa: Iran, Gulf states including UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Kuwait, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
• In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia.
• In South America: Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela.
• In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
• In SE Asia: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand.
• In east Asia: North Korea

Despite the large number of these emerging countries, they are not expected to contribute very much to the expansion of nuclear capacity in the foreseeable future – the main growth will come in countries where the technology is already well established.  However, in the longer term, the trend to urbanisation in less-developed countries will greatly increase the demand for electricity, and especially that supplied by base-load plants such as nuclear. The pattern of energy demand in these countries will become more like that of Europe, North America and Japan.
Some of the above countries can be classified according to how far their nuclear programs or plans have progressed:

• Power reactors under construction: Iran (reactor has started up).
• Contracts signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure well-developed: UAE, Turkey.
• Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure developing: Vietnam, Jordan, Belarus.
• Well-developed plans but commitment pending: Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Poland, Lithuania, Chile; or commitment stalled: Italy.
• Developing plans: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Kuwait. 
• Discussion as serious policy option: Namibia, Kenya, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Estonia & Latvia, Libya, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Syria, Qatar, Sudan, Venezuela.
• Officially not a policy option at present: Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Norway, Ireland.

A September 2010 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on International Status and Prospects of Nuclear Power said that some 65 countries without nuclear power plants “are expressing interest in, considering, or actively planning for nuclear power” at present, after a “gap of nearly 15 years” in such interest worldwide. Of these 65 un-named countries, it said that 21 are in Asia/Pacific, 21 in Africa, 12 in Europe (mostly eastern Europe), and 11 in Latin America. However, of the 65 interested countries, 31 are not currently planning to build reactors, and 17 of those 31 have grids of less than 5 GW, “too small to accommodate most of the reactor designs on offer.” The report added that technology options may also be limited for countries whose grids are between 5 GW and 10 GW.
Of the countries planning reactors, at September 2010: 14 “indicate a strong intention to proceed” with introduction of nuclear power; seven are preparing but haven’t made a final decision, 10 have made a decision and are preparing infrastructure, two have ordered a new nuclear power plant and one has a plant under construction, according to the IAEA assessment (see below re IAEA 'milestone' approach). These are identifiable in our development breakdown above.
In all countries governments need to create the environment for investment in nuclear power, including professional and independent regulatory regime, policies on nuclear waste management and decommissioning, and involvement with international non-proliferation measures and insurance arrangements for third party damage

Rethink nuclear power

The tragedy unfolding in Japan following the massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami is heartbreaking. It is an unfolding crisis.
It is tragic that panic over radiation leaks from the Daiichi plant is diverting attention from other threats to survivors of  March 11 9.0 magnitude quake and tsunami, such as the cold or access to fresh water, food and fuel.
On Friday March 18, Japan raised the severity rating of the country’s nuclear crisis  from Level 4 to Level 5 on a seven-level international scale, putting it on par with the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.
We should draw a lesson from Japan which is now fighting a lethal peril, right after the earthquake and tsunami.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company reactors in Fukushima are releasing radioactive materials into the environment.  Radiation levels near the quake-stricken nuclear plant are now harmful to human health within a radius of 20 kilometres, Japan’s government says after explosions and fires at the facility.
We have now had four grave nuclear reactor accidents – Windscale in Britain in 1957, Three Mile Island accident, the US in 1979 ,Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, 2011.
The dangers from exposure to radiation are well known, such as long-term health problems – cancers and hereditary defects. Contamination of the environment and agriculture, etc. all pose many risks for people, animals and plants.
There are major concerns on the safety of nuclear power stations. The risks far outweigh the benefits.
Millions of dollars of investment in nuclear power have the potential to turn into trillions of dollars of liability and environmental nightmare.
The lesson from Fukushima is that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous. As Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post recently: “We can engineer nuclear power plants so that the chance of a Chernobyl-style disaster is almost nil. But we can’t eliminate it completely — nor can we envision every other kind of potential disaster. And where fission reactors are concerned, the worst-case scenario is so dreadful as to be unthinkable.”
Countries like Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and others have responded quickly to Fukushima Daiichi by reviewing their nuclear plant operations or plans to construct new reactors.

South Korea, Malaysia Discuss Nuclear Energy Cooperation

South Korea's presidential office said in a press release that South Korean President Lee Myung-bak during a two-day state visit by Malaysian King Mizan Zainal Abidin discussed enhancing cooperation between the two countries in nuclear energy and other economic fields.
Reporting on the bilateral discussions, a presidential official quoted President Lee as saying, "Malaysia has recently successfully overcome the global economic crisis, demonstrating a high level of national competitiveness," Yonhap news agency reported.
South Korea has been intensifying its efforts to export nuclear power plants since South Korean firms in 2009 were awarded a $18.6 billion contract to build four atomic power plants in the United Arab Emirates after besting U.S., Japanese and French companies bidding for the contracts.
In response, the Malaysian monarch stated that he hoped that bilateral cooperation between the two countries could be expanded beyond its immediate parameters to include such promising new fields as renewable energy and green technologies.
South Korea is seeking to expand its civilian nuclear options, as last week South Korean and U.S. envoys met for a third set of discussions on South Korea's interest in broadening the scope of nuclear activities it is permitted to conduct through a new bilateral nuclear cooperation deal, expanding the parameters of talks that began last March.
The U.S.-South Korean pact on civilian nuclear energy is due to lapse in 2014, four decades after it was signed. Its terms bar South Korea from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, but Seoul wants any new treaty to permit byproprocessing, a next-generation reprocessing technique which reportedly poses fewer proliferation risks.

Site search is on for Malaysian nuclear plants

Malaysia's Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water has been given the go-ahead to look for suitable sites for a nuclear power plant.
According to reports on state news agency Bernama and prime minister Najib Razak's blog, the country's Economic Council has given its approval for the ministry to look into identifying suitable sites for a nuclear power plant, looking towards a startup date in the early 2020s.

Speaking after a conference on sustainable buildings in Kuala Lumpur, minister for energy, green technology and water Datuk Seri Peter Chin Fah Kui told reporters that a stakeholder consultation would take place once a site had been identified. Chin described nuclear energy as the "only viable option" for Malaysia's long term energy needs.

Malaysia is heavily reliant on gas and coal for its electricity: in 2006, 64% of the country's generation was from gas and 25% from coal. Government policy calls for a reduced reliance on gas, and the country has been taking tentative steps towards nuclear power, with recent reports of a $7 billion budget to build a nuclear power plant by 2025.

A keen user of social networking sites, Najib Razak has recently used his Facebook page to seek out the views of Malaysian citizens on the country's aims to become a low carbon economy. In his latest blog entry, the prime minister asks if nuclear is the right energy source for Malaysia. "Before embarking on such an important decision we must conduct a comprehensive study on it. As such the Government is undertaking feasibility studies on nuclear energy use for electricity generation. I am eager to understand better and to know the findings," he said.

Malaysia has operated a 1 MWt Triga research reactor since 1982. The country has had an international nuclear safeguards agreement in place since 1972 and recently tightened export control laws to thwart the possibility of nuclear technology smuggling.

Shortsightedness in a Greening Global Economy?

Malaysians must decide if nuclear energy is the right choice for our country. The key word to note here is “choice” – there is now an increasing number of truly clean and renewable energies in solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc. Nuclear energy is merely one of the many available options. For some, however, the threat of climate change and peak oil has forced a false dilemma of either nuclear or unabated global warming.
Nuclear is neither renewable nor clean. Nuclear is not only potentially catastrophic to human lives, but is also now economically, socially and environmentally inferior to the new technologies mentioned.
The recent UK Sustainable Development Commission answered a clear “no” to nuclear as a solution to our energy and climate crisis.

Nuclear is more costly

In fact, if we take the example of solar power in Concentrating Solar Thermal (CST) plants, this is widely expected to come to cost parity with fossil fuel power generation by 2020 or earlier.
Conservative estimates by studies done for the US Department of Energy  and by McKinsey expect the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LEC) at around RM0.17-RM0.36/kWh in 2020, with an optimistic scenario of as low as RM0.11/kWh.
These figures are supported by an award-winning and peer-recognized research conducted by the University of Melbourne Energy Research Institute, which expects the range at RM0.15-RM0.24/kWh for CST with molten salt storage for “better-than-baseload” performance.
(LEC is a method of measurement which factors in all costs involved throughout the lifespan of a power plant, per unit of the total power generated.)
This is on par with or cheaper than our current cost of electricity of RM0.315/kWh once government subsidies are taken into account.
However, the LEC for nuclear is estimated at around RM0.321/kWh to RM0.414/kWh, and expected to increase. It must be noted that the LEC for nuclear is highly variable due to large risks and uncertainties as demonstrated by the most recent example in Finland’s Olkiluoto plant.
There is a strong consensus in the industry and among analysts that technologies like solar, wind, tidal, wave will become considerably cheaper in the near future as economies of scale of manufacturing is achieved and the technology matures. Today, wind power has already reached cost parity with fossil fuel power in some countries.
However, the opposite is true for fossil fuel including nuclear as reserves dwindle.

The case against nuclear energy

BEFORE the Malaysian government takes the country down the path towards nuclear energy, every citizen must decide if nuclear power is the right choice for the nation.
For some, the threat of climate change and peak oil has produced a false choice between either going nuclear or suffering unabated global warming. But Malaysia, and indeed, the rest of the world, has an increasing number of clean and renewable energy options to choose from, such as solar, wind, tidal and wave.
The Malaysian government appears to have embraced the idea that the country needs to go nuclear to meet its growing energy needs. Little emphasis appears to have been given to green technologies in the government’s recently-unveiled Economic Transformation Programme.
Kudos to the government for recognising that we need to diversify the nation’s energy mix and decentralise power generation. This is achievable and affordable with the green technologies of solar, wind, tidal and wave. But nuclear energy, which is neither renewable nor clean, is not only potentially catastrophic to human lives, but also exacts a far higher cost economically, socially and environmentally than the green technologies, factors that led Britain’s Sustainable Development Commission to emphatically reject nuclear power as a solution to the country’s energy and climate change mitigation efforts in 2006.
Why the rush into nuclear now? Malaysia has more than 50% in reserve margin or excess power at the moment. In fact, today’s total installed generation capacity of close to 22,000MW is more than the country’s projected demand in 2020.
Perhaps the apparent haste to embrace nuclear energy is because a nuclear plant takes 10 to 15 years to build and the government is keen to plan ahead so the country’s future energy needs are met. Planning and foresight are to be applauded. But even the largest solar installations like Concentrating Solar Thermal plants (which uses mirrors to concentrate a large area of sunlight onto a small area) only require two to five years to complete, making it a far nimbler option, especially in terms of taking advantage of the widely expected reduction in the cost of producing solar energy.
And should the need arise, Malaysia can utilise its vast amount of palm biomass as an interim measure while it brings green technologies on stream. Let us consider the green alternatives to nuclear:

Malaysia says to go ahead with nuclear plans, to learn from Japan crisis

PUTRAJAYA, March 15 — Malaysia is taking note of the Japan nuclear crisis when implementing its plan to build two nuclear power plants in the future, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said today.
He hat while the government is concerned about public safety and is watching developments in Japan, he remained confident that Malaysia would “implement what is the best” for the country.
The deputy prime minister stressed that the government would learn from Japan to ensure public safety.
“I think it is something which every country in the world is taking note of, what is happening in Japan. There are many things that we can learn but what is important is the safety of the country and the people.
“In this matter, we have an agency that is responsible and they know what they are doing and we are confident that they will implement what is the best,” he told reporters during a press conference today.
Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Peter Chin had also said that the “government will not do it secretly without informing the public”.
Chin added that the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation had opened a tender to international consultants to conduct a study on the location, suitability and safety of the location, type of technology and public acceptance of the proposal.
However, MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek yesterday had called on the government to reconsider building a nuclear plant following the explosions to nuclear reactors in Japan after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated the country.
He said the government must re-evaluate nuclear power in the country.
Reuters reported today that Japan’s Prime Minister Naota Kan has warned that radioactive level in the vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi plant had become high and that the risk of more radioactive leakage was increasing.

Medical Physic Group

 The Medical Physics Group in Malaysian Nuclear Agency (Nuclear Malaysia) was formally established in 1995 with the objectives among others to establish a secondary standard laboratory for calibration of QC test tools used in medical diagnostic radiology. It is also our interest to verify that X-ray machines used in diagnostic radiology are operated at optimum performance to continuously produce good image quality with minimum radiation dose to patient. 

The Medical Physics Group provides quality control (QC) services to diagnostic radiological centers including clinics and hospitals throughout the country. Our scope of work covers QC for conventional radiography (including general purpose, mobile and veterinary), dental (including intra-oral, cephalometric and panoramic), fluoroscopy (including mobile and fixed fluoroscopy, angiography and lithotripter), mammography, CT scan (including PET CT), bone densitometer and gamma camera. 

The staff members of the Medical Physics Group include two senior research officers, seven research officers and seven technical support personnel. Most of the staffs are recognized and approved by the Malaysian Ministry of Health to perform the above mentioned services.

Core Activities:

Medical Physics Standard Laboratory in Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear

The Medical Physics Calibration Laboratory is the one and only secondary standard laboratory in diagnostic radiology in Malaysia and in the region that provides calibration service for diagnostic radiology equipment. Parameters calibrated include dose, kilovoltage (kV), exposure time, film optical density and sensitometric monitoring. Our reference instruments are traceable to Primary Standard Lab i.e. Physikalish-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) for Standard Radiation Qualities RQR, RQA and RQT. The establishment of standard radiation qualities is based on IEC 61267:2003 and the calibration procedures are in accordance with IAEA s Technical Report Series No. 457:2007. We are gearing-up towards MS ISO/IEC 17025:2005 accreditation.

Medicine Calibration of QC test tools used in Diagnostic Radiology

The Medical Physics Calibration Laboratory is the first and the only facility in the region that offers calibration of all kind of QC test tools used in diagnostic radiology such as dosimeter, kVp meter, exposure timer, densitometer and sensitometer. Our laboratory is equipped with standard measuring instruments that are traceable to international standard laboratories. We have well trained and competent technical staff to carry out the calibration procedures.

Calibration of Dose Calibrator used in Nuclear Medicine Facility

The Medical Physics Group introduced the service on calibration of dose calibrator in 2007. The performance of dose calibrator is evaluated from various aspects such as contamination test, system stability test, accuracy test, constancy test, linearity test, precision test and geometry test. The acceptance criteria for performance checks of dose calibrator are based on the IAEA s Technical Reports Series No.454: 2006.

Quality Control in Diagnostic Radiology

Quality control of X-ray machine is performed to ensure continuous production of diagnostic radiology images with optimum quality at lowest possible cost using minimum necessary dose to patient. Our scope of work covers are general radiography unit (including mobile and veterinary), Dental (including intra-oral, cephalometric and panoramic), Fluoroscopy (mobile & fixed units, angiography and lithotripter), Mammography, Computed Tomography (including PET CT) and Bone densitometer.

Quality Control for Gamma camera

Gamma camera is the main instrument used in diagnostic nuclear medicine. It is essential to ensure that the quality of the examination, level of protection and optimisation of medical exposure is as high as possible. Therefore, a maintenance and quality control test of the equipment should be performed regularly. We have well trained personnel to perform the test and evaluate the results based on NEMA NU1: 2001 and IAEA Tecdoc 602: 1991.

 Integrity Testing/Measurement including lead equivalent thickness of protective barriers

Failure in protection or shielding has led to cases of unnecessary radiation exposure to public, staffs and patients. Integrity of X-ray room and protective clothing in term of lead equivalent thickness should be verified periodically to ensure sufficient protection for all concerned. Radiation protection construction/shielding or PPE, which no longer meet the specified criteria, should be replaced or upgraded as soon as possible.

 Training and Education in Diagnostic X-Ray for medical staffs

Nuclear Malaysia has years of experience in conducting training courses especially for X-ray operators, radiographers and medical practitioners who provides diagnostic radiological examinations. Details on the training programs can be obtained from our training centre. Nuclear Malaysia also offers shortterm scientific attachments especially for medical physicists, technical staffs and those working in related field. Our well-equipped laboratory, staffed by experienced personnel is very appropriate to acquire hands-on experience and to enhance one s knowledge in this rapidly expanding field.

R&D in Medical Physics

Our research interest covers topics in standardization of radiation measurements and calibration, medical digital radiography, conventional and digital image processing, radiation protection (medical) and optimization of dose to patient in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island

Chernobyl disaster.

Three Mile Island

Nuclear Tragedies in Japan

Nagasaki bombing which forced the Rising Sun to surender

Fukushima plant hit by earthquake, which resulted in failure of the cooling tower

Fusion vs Fision

Fission and fusion are different types of nuclear reactions in which energy is released from the high-powered bonds between particles in the atomic nucleus. The atomic nucleus is most stable when binding energies between particles are strongest. This occurs with iron and nickel. For lighter atomic nuclei, energy can be extracted by combining these nuclei together, a process known as nuclear fusion. For nuclei heavier than those of iron or nickel, energy can be extracted by splitting them apart in a process called nuclear fission.
Because the binding force in the atomic nucleus contains enormous energy, fission and fusion can both provide tons of power, in principle. However, practical considerations make the exploitation of nuclear power more difficult than something as simple as starting a fire. For fission, highly purified feedstock, usually uranium or plutonium isotopes, must be used. Isotopes are favored because their instability makes them easier to break apart. The purification of these isotopes is extremely expensive and requires multimillion-dollar centrifuges.

In fusion, an extremely high threshold energy must be reached to combine atomic nuclei. In nature, the only place where this occurs is in the core of a star. The temperature required is in the millions of degrees. Superheated plasma and the focusing of laser power are two methods to achieve this threshold energy.

Because the matter that serves as the medium of fusion must be so hot, it must be isolated from surrounding matter using powerful magnetic fields or inertial containment. This is the principle behind the Tokamak reactor. Still, fusion requires so much energy that no one has yet built a reactor that produces more than it consumes.

The downsides to fission power include both radioactive byproducts and its association with nuclear weapons and meltdowns. In the last decade or so, nuclear physicists have developed safer ways of building reactors, including methods for recycling the radioactive byproducts of fission. These advances have caused the US government to begin advocating the construction of nuclear reactors again.