Nuclear power is any nuclear technology designed to extract usable energy from atomic nuclei via controlled nuclear reactions.

The only method in use today is through nuclear fission, though other methods might one day include nuclear fusion and radioactive decay.

All utility-scale reactor heat water to produce steam, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion.

In 2007, 14% of the world's electricity came from nuclear power.


Pressurized Water Reactor


Boiling Water Reactor

Advantages (Pros):

1.Nuclear power plants are more efficient than ever before. New technology has made them more reliable (they break down less often) and safer.

2.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.

3.Although the initial cost of building nuclear plants is high, the running costs are relatively low.

4.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!

5.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).

6.Nuclear wastes can be safely stored underground

We (Malaysia) start develop and research in this field 50+ years back, together with South Korea.

BUT, we are far left behind by them. In every sectors, eg; economic.

Why? Because we spend more money on producing energy using common technique, on the other hand, South Korea had more money to develop their country.
*short intro from me

What do you guys think??

interesting....this might give a better perspective of new source of energy which often is being condemned coz of it's once upon a time disaster...

yes interesting indeed..but when we used it we cannot afford tolerance for mistake..

As far as I know, in Malaysia the electricity that we used daily is being generated via hydroelectric but I would like to see the possibilities of electricity being generated by nuclear power.

Regards, Joey

p.s: I love the illustrations provided by yu, Thread Starter.

Hydro power only plays a small part. We're still very dependent on fossil fuel for our electricity generation (and pretty much every other thing if you consider the dependency link).

yeah, take Chernobyl as an example.

thats the most simple explanation to tell people how nuc power plant works... gooodd

Just to add, the 2nd diagram of having the control rods coming up the bottom is based on an old RMBK design. Not used anymore because it was deemed too dangerous to manually jack the rods into the core in the event of a failure. Where as control rods comming from the top can just be "dropped" in emergencies.

Malaysia does have nuclear reactors. 2 of them for experimentation purposes

Effects of Chernobyl are still being felt by Europe till today. I remember reading that cows milk 2 -3 countries away still has traces of radiation.

Yes, indeed. The safety and security of the nuclear reactor are highly take into account.

Malaysia don have one RESEARCH nuclear reactor which is only generates 1 Mwatts of electricity.

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 developing into problems
-redundant and diverse systems to detect problems, control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive releases
-provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage to the plant itself.

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.

The barriers in a typical plant are: the fuel is in the form of solid ceramic (UO2) pellets, and radioactive fission products remain 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.

But 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.

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.

About the incident about nuclear reactor,


We believe that there will no other accident if operator follow the operation procudures. So far, compare to the accidents happen in other enegy generating sites, eg coal, nuclear reactor is more safe and can be said that none of accident occur.

Nice work there TS. These diagrams are very good. Especially those on documenting fatalities. Hopefully people can clearly see the statistics which clearly bust the MYTH that nuclear power is dangerous.

Its akin to comparing on why travel is by far the safest mode of transportation.

I would like to add a question to detractors of nuclear power. You say of the long term effect of nuclear waste, exposure and so. Wouldn't a fiery explosive death be far more of a scary thought when all the methane gas that is trapped in the Siberian permafrost is released and combusted due to global warming which is directly related to use of fossil fuels?

but still our country rely largely on coal and fossil fuel...hydropower alone could not meet up wif our demands

looking towards nuclear power plant is a good idea, but majority of the public wouldnt like it

This post has been edited by styrwr91: Jun 19 2009, 05:06 PM

yea.. thanks for that.. well, as long as everyone concern about what they "did" to the earth, we still have chance, i believe there groups of scientist work on that issues.. shin-pai-ja-nai

---

Added on June 19, 2009, 6:37 pmwe need to change that mind set!! there is nothing to afraid of when hear about the word "nuclear"

nuclear technolgy is gone every angle in our life,

medical: oncology, x-ray, radiopharmaceutical, etc

industrial: baggage n container scanning, non destructive testing, sterilzation, food industry, etc







This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 19 2009, 06:37 PM

It only show immediate fatalities but not the long term damage. Nuclear fallout can kill thousands, if not millions through the passage of time.

Of course, you can argue that we're killing 6 billions people by heating up the Earth. So what we truly need is renewable energy source.

Fusion seems to be the answer but it still far from maturing.

For now fission based nuclear plant supplement with decentralized energy generation seems to be the ideal answer. With a decent sized solar panel on every roof of the houses. We eliminate the need of large land area to build solar farm and at the same time reducing the need to generate huge amount of power through nuclear.

I still think nuclear (fission) is not the energy of tomorrow but hydrogen (fusion) is. The power of tiny little things. But for Malaysia, it's a better start with nuclear (fission) first...

Unless someone finds a more efficient way to extract hydrogen, otherwise we wouldn't be massively utilizing it. Using hydrogen fuel is more or less just like burning fossil fuel because most hydrogen are extracted from water using electrolysis which the electricity is generated from coal plant etc. Maybe it is much better than burning fossil fuel directly but in-terms of reducing the rate of pollutants released to earth, it is still not sufficiently good enough.

Nuclear fusion actually uses the isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Not the standard hydrogen we know. Until scientist can find a different way to initiate the fusion (only way is true fission initially) and sustain it, nuclear fusion as a source of power is still not viable.

I'm not so clear on how deuterium and tritium is obtained, but if it involves electrolysis of water, it is definitely worth it. A cup of water can generate as much energy as million of tonnes of oil.

Fission may not be tomorrow's energy but just like fossil fuels we need all the energy we need in order to get fusion.
But the research on fusion currently in France codename 'Iter' is overbudget. If you read the article fusion could only be possible within decades to come not years.

And if fission do make it to Malaysia, which state wanna have it build at and worst of all which site gonna stored the highly radioactive waste materials.
Then we gonna have alot of NIMBY mentality.
Inevitably nuclear is the most realistic and practical replacement for fossil fuels to generate energy due to global warming and fossil fuels depletion before we shift 100% to non-carbon-based renewable energies.

Anyway TS nice explanation regarding nuclear energy. I personally believe if the waste materials can be better managed and safely secured then nuclear technology can be the de facto energy of the future.

I'm saying hydrogen fuel , replying to the person above me

now we talking about generating 1000Mws of electricity. Is it possible to generate such huge energy using solar? hydrogen fuel?? no.. cant..

fusion technolgy? will not availble is this few years.. so far none of material / apparatus to hold the heat of the sun. Fusion reactor = sun, generate energy from fusing light atom such as Hydrogen and Helium.