i mean... the current method of producing energy is not bad either.. i mean.. the world is not running out of petroleum or natural gas... tankers are still moving right? ppl said petrol is finishing soon tat's why price so high... actually it's all about the futures market.. these speculator wanna untung money so purposely play the price til high.... earth still haz a LOT of natural resources... why not spend more on enhancing the current method.. instead of wasting money on nuclear power... because the total sum will shows more negative value in the government's account book if we wanna spend on nuclear

The main benefit of nuclear energy, aside from its insanely cheap power/cost ratio ( on the long run ), it is also environmental friendly. It won't be a waste at all seeing how we get to reduce the greenhouse gasses. Politically, we will turn many heads in the international scene. Though i don't see a negative reaction on our 1MW fully operation nuclear research reactor.

Earth has alot of natural resources, but we Malaysia are running out of oil. Perhaps the true cost benefits of having nuclear will not be seen until we become a net importer of oil.

Dangerous? How bout the flying aeroplane that flies over Klang valley everyday? Do you think a meltdown is more likely then a plane crashing into your neighbourhood?

Ponder on these.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Jun 20 2009, 01:20 AM

more to algae i blieve.

Doesn't fish eat algae as well?

Chernobyl?

Do you think malaysian can do a job well done?

all the smart ass left to some high paying country dy..

which PhD would still stay in Msia if not those <insert something here> who only carries the title but not the knowledge.

I wouldn't risk.

Chernobyl is 1 in a few million hours of reactor operation.

Don't underestimate Malaysians, they'll probably hire foreigners

I would prefer not to risk earth's climate going through an irreversible warming.

Just think out of box.. We are not move into nuclear unless it is to reduce emission of CO^2, preserve our nature to next generation... dont u want ur next generation know what is koala bear? polar bear? play with them??

we need to use green energy rather than burn those petroleum, coal, or natural gas..

besides that, it will be cheaper in term of long term usage.. TNB had proposed their paperwork regarding this..

---

Added on June 20, 2009, 1:36 amso, r u belong to those "smart ass"??

think positive, logical and rational are not bad..

This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 20 2009, 01:36 AM

sudden bloom of algae can make the O2 level in the water drops. this will block the sunlight penetrate into the sea and may cause the death of other species.

The rate of the fish eating the algae would be far greater then any warm water induced algae boom can do. We are not dumping nitrates into the ocean mind you. Just plain fresh H20.

absolutely...

Don't think it will lead to eutrophication.

Anyway solar energy can be harvested not only be solar cell which the efficiency is utterly low. There's some other method like focusing the light beam from sun and use it to boil water which powers a steam turbine. Such solar power plant is much more efficient and since we're on the equator which is 365days summer, we can really consider about this. But still...the govt wouldn't bother of it

This post has been edited by NicJolin: Jun 20 2009, 02:10 AM

We may be at the equator, but don't forget, we are a tropical country. When thunderstorm comes, we lose power. Until energy storage( which is infact one of the hardest thing to do) becomes better, we cannot use solar as our main source of energy.



This post has been edited by befitozi: Jun 20 2009, 03:14 AM

hire foreigner will be very expensive.. there goes taxpayer money again

no lah.. if i smart ass i wouldnt b in msia liao lol

yah true lah wat u said.. i do agree nuclear power bring a lot benefits.. but its about method of execution and how our government implements it

I guess you really don't get the point of going nuclear do you?

yah i got it my concern somewhat not related to the topic. ok

Solar energy is actually a wasted resource, so every small bit of harvesting counts.

Sunlight contains a lot of energy but the problem is the harvesting method which have pathetic efficiency. We will see that improves in the future to a point that efficiency rate overtakes conventional power plant. Steam based power generator efficiency is not very high. Maybe 30-40%? Majority of the energy are lost through heat and sound.

Nuclear power aren't a total solution to fossil fuel plant because it isn't renewable either. We will eventually run out of fission material. So the ideal 'solution' is to supplement fuel based power plant with renewable energy, reducing the strain on limited fuel, be it uranium or Gas/Oil/Coal

What i was trying to say is, if we were to make say 75% of our powergrid sourced by solar, in the event that the sun does not shine, we will have power shortages. It is even more impractical to harvest the energy and store it in giant batteries.

Yea fissionable material is not renewable as well. Though it certainly will last much longer than fossil fuels. If only cold-fusion isn't fiction.

I did mention 'supplement', and not replace

The only renewable energy source currently is hydroelectric but that's because it has a huge buffer unlike solar/wind. At worst case scenario, hydro dam can dry up and electricity stops flowing.

This diagram is applicable to USA

This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 20 2009, 06:10 PM

Any source?

Wawasan 2020 had failed before, don't be too optimistic.