Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Physics Nuclear power?, Use nuclear reactor to generate energy

views
     
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 06:18 AM, updated 17y ago

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


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.

user posted image
Pressurized Water Reactor

user posted image
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. cool2.gif

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. brows.gif

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

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! thumbup.gif

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). icon_idea.gif

6.Nuclear wastes can be safely stored underground
wink.gif

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
rclxms.gif

What do you guys think?? smile.gif
vinoth
post Jun 19 2009, 07:22 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
513 posts

Joined: Sep 2004
From: Kuala Lumpur


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...
ELm_ELm
post Jun 19 2009, 09:16 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
From: Los Angeles


yes interesting indeed..but when we used it we cannot afford tolerance for mistake..
Joey Christensen
post Jun 19 2009, 09:35 AM

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum
*******
Senior Member
3,651 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting



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.
tgrrr
post Jun 19 2009, 10:33 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
939 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Penang
QUOTE
Power generation capacity connected to the Malaysian National Grid is 19,023 megawatt, with a maximum demand of 13,340 megawatt as of July 2007 according to Suruhanjaya Tenaga[8]. The generation fuel mix is 62.6% gas, 20.9% coal, 9.5% hydro and 7% from other forms of fuel[9].
source: Wiki - National Grid
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).
kazairol
post Jun 19 2009, 10:40 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,008 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
QUOTE(ELm_ELm @ Jun 19 2009, 09:16 AM)
yes interesting indeed..but when we used it we cannot afford tolerance for mistake..
*
yeah, take Chernobyl as an example.
tednet
post Jun 19 2009, 11:01 AM

Waaalllaauuu
*****
Senior Member
952 posts

Joined: Mar 2009


thats the most simple explanation to tell people how nuc power plant works... gooodd
corad
post Jun 19 2009, 11:22 AM

Hard to see, the dark side is.
*******
Senior Member
2,401 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Sarawak / United Kingdom

QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 19 2009, 06:18 AM)


user posted image
Pressurized Water Reactor

user posted image
Boiling Water Reactor

*
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 smile.gif
komputer
post Jun 19 2009, 11:27 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
255 posts

Joined: Apr 2008
QUOTE(kazairol @ Jun 19 2009, 10:40 AM)
yeah, take Chernobyl as an example.
*
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.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 04:03 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


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,
user posted image

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.
user posted image
befitozi
post Jun 19 2009, 04:46 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


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?
styrwr91
post Jun 19 2009, 05:03 PM

~ON THE WAY~
****
Senior Member
696 posts

Joined: Aug 2008
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
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 06:27 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 19 2009, 04:46 PM)
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?
*
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.. nod.gif shin-pai-ja-nai


Added on June 19, 2009, 6:37 pm
QUOTE(styrwr91 @ Jun 19 2009, 05:03 PM)
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
*
we 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

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 19 2009, 06:37 PM
SeaGates
post Jun 19 2009, 08:06 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


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.
wakakaka
post Jun 19 2009, 08:31 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
284 posts

Joined: Dec 2006


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...
NicJolin
post Jun 19 2009, 08:49 PM

Stop monitoring =)
******
Senior Member
1,052 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
From: Stop monitoring =)
QUOTE(wakakaka @ Jun 19 2009, 08:31 PM)
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.
befitozi
post Jun 19 2009, 09:04 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(NicJolin @ Jun 19 2009, 08:49 PM)
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.
december88
post Jun 19 2009, 09:40 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
479 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
From: KL


QUOTE(wakakaka @ Jun 19 2009, 08:31 PM)
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...
*
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.
NicJolin
post Jun 19 2009, 09:47 PM

Stop monitoring =)
******
Senior Member
1,052 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
From: Stop monitoring =)
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 19 2009, 09:04 PM)
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.
*
I'm saying hydrogen fuel , replying to the person above me icon_rolleyes.gif

TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 09:54 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(NicJolin @ Jun 19 2009, 09:47 PM)
I'm saying hydrogen fuel , replying to the person above me  icon_rolleyes.gif
*
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. flex.gif
IcyDarling
post Jun 19 2009, 10:53 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,372 posts

Joined: Sep 2008


probably we are elft out bcoz we are too scared off the negative side effect of this nuclear
NicJolin
post Jun 19 2009, 11:11 PM

Stop monitoring =)
******
Senior Member
1,052 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
From: Stop monitoring =)
Because ppl isn't educated about it. Whenever the nuclear words appear, they'll go OMGWTFNESSBBQ RADIATION!!!
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 11:22 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


that why we should our mentality... people are making alots of money in field.. as i mention b4..

provided nuclear apparatus, consultants, services..etc..
yshiuan
post Jun 19 2009, 11:27 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,126 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
From: Kedah

no leakage oso it is bad for the environment, bcz hot water will be released into the sea. this can affect the ecosystem as well as the income of the fishermen.
SeaGates
post Jun 19 2009, 11:35 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(IcyDarling @ Jun 19 2009, 10:53 PM)
probably we are elft out bcoz we are too scared off the negative side effect of this nuclear
*
QUOTE(NicJolin @ Jun 19 2009, 11:11 PM)
Because ppl isn't educated about it. Whenever the nuclear words appear, they'll go OMGWTFNESSBBQ RADIATION!!!
*
They have good reason to fear imo.

Events that cause the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happens all the time, overheating, equipment failure, human error but were brought under control with ease. What happened at Three Mile Island/Chernobyl are a series of continuous mistakes and failure to rectify the problem that caused the meltdown.

Unless Malaysia has a well trained crew manning these reactor and even with that, people will still be paranoid about having nuclear plant near their home.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 11:39 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(yshiuan @ Jun 19 2009, 11:27 PM)
no leakage oso it is bad for the environment, bcz hot water will be released into the sea. this can affect the ecosystem as well as the income of the fishermen.
*
is it warm water.. warm water will promote the growth of plankton, which is food for fishes..
In Japan, there are more fish near the reactor.. blush.gif
NicJolin
post Jun 19 2009, 11:42 PM

Stop monitoring =)
******
Senior Member
1,052 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
From: Stop monitoring =)
QUOTE(yshiuan @ Jun 19 2009, 11:27 PM)
no leakage oso it is bad for the environment, bcz hot water will be released into the sea. this can affect the ecosystem as well as the income of the fishermen.
*
Er...there's a cooling tower there for a reason

QUOTE(SeaGates @ Jun 19 2009, 11:35 PM)
They have good reason to fear imo.

Events that cause the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happens all the time, overheating, equipment failure, human error but were brought under control with ease. What happened at Three Mile Island/Chernobyl are a series of continuous mistakes and failure to rectify the problem that caused the meltdown.

Unless Malaysia has a well trained crew manning these reactor and even with that, people will still be paranoid about having nuclear plant near their home.
*
Exactly the problem in M'sia. Lack of well trained guys
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 11:44 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(SeaGates @ Jun 19 2009, 11:35 PM)
They have good reason to fear imo.

Events that cause the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happens all the time, overheating, equipment failure, human error but were brought under control with ease. What happened at Three Mile Island/Chernobyl are a series of continuous mistakes and failure to rectify the problem that caused the meltdown.

Unless Malaysia has a well trained crew manning these reactor and even with that, people will still be paranoid about having nuclear plant near their home.
*
nothing to worry about that..

if u travel alot via airplane, you will receive more dose than nearby nuclear reactor.. this is fact..

can u show me where did that accident happen again??

SeaGates
post Jun 19 2009, 11:53 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 19 2009, 11:44 PM)
nothing to worry about that..

if u travel alot via airplane, you will receive more dose than nearby nuclear reactor.. this is fact..

can u show me where did that accident happen again??

*
What accident? You mean those overheating, equipment failure? Those are inherent problem when you deal with technologies.

It's not accident until someone say 'uh oh' laugh.gif
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 11:53 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(NicJolin @ Jun 19 2009, 11:42 PM)
Er...there's a cooling tower there for a reason
Exactly the problem in M'sia. Lack of well trained guys
*
Yub! Now Malaysia concentrate on producing more well trained personnel regarding nuclear field.. rclxms.gif
a good start.. UKM producing around 40+ students per year in nuclear science, soon, nuclear engineering will be available in Malaysia..
ah liew
post Jun 19 2009, 11:54 PM

エンジンオイル
*****
Senior Member
829 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: ☆柔弗洲 to 沙巴★ Status: Dori Dori



Not every country has the chance to use Nuclear Energy because of Nuclear Proliferation. The WNA will keep an eye on you.

Read more about it:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf12.html

This is to prevent the misuse of Nuclear Energy. Because military projects can develope Nuclear Weapons.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 19 2009, 11:56 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(ah liew @ Jun 19 2009, 11:54 PM)
Not every country has the chance to use Nuclear Energy because of Nuclear Proliferation. The WNA will keep an eye on you.

Read more about it:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf12.html

This is to prevent the misuse of Nuclear Energy. Because military projects can develope Nuclear Weapons.
*
Malaysia probably will have own nuclear reactor in 2023.
amduser
post Jun 20 2009, 12:33 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
5,542 posts

Joined: Dec 2006


just to write out some of my own opinion here.

building a nuclear reactor is costly, and have to train the employees and engineer in different section in operating the plant, even a slight flaw and something unimaginable will happen.

and i dont think we really need that much power from a nuclear reactor, even a small one, maybe is one of the reason why malaysia does not have a nuclear reactor power plant.

furthermore, the area requires to build a nuclear reactor is very big, you need to isolate the nuclear plant from the residential area, so far as i know, most of the lan in malaysia are still forest, and they are protected forest, and there are many mountain area in malaysia, so i dont think it will be an ideal place for building a nuclear reactor.

IF a nuclear reactor were built in malaysia, i bet some people will held protest about the nuclear plant and said that it is dangerous bla bla bla, and the endless debate will start
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 12:34 AM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


0.01 error rate will destroy u and me and him....

we are not prepared for this ... 0% tolerance rate
johnsonwps
post Jun 20 2009, 12:49 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
232 posts

Joined: Feb 2009
Nuclear power??? Not for me, if Malaysia wants to build nuclear reactor, think twice please.

For Malaysia, we can have better option like solar power or wind power.. We have endless sun, for those who lived at Sitiawan, you'll understand my point.

Solar or wind power would not attract too much attention from other country.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 12:54 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(amduser @ Jun 20 2009, 12:33 AM)
just to write out some of my own opinion here.

building a nuclear reactor is costly, and have to train the employees and engineer in different section in operating the plant, even a slight flaw and something unimaginable will happen.

and i dont think we really need that much power from a nuclear reactor, even a small one, maybe is one of the reason why malaysia does not have a nuclear reactor power plant.

furthermore, the area requires to build a nuclear reactor is very big, you need to isolate the nuclear plant from the residential area, so far as i know, most of the lan in malaysia are still forest, and they are protected forest, and there are many mountain area in malaysia, so i dont think it will be an ideal place for building a nuclear reactor.

IF a nuclear reactor were built in malaysia, i bet some people will held protest about the nuclear plant and said that it is dangerous bla bla bla, and the endless debate will start
*
of coz ppl will protest.. but if u can overcome negative perception in this issues, u will thanks god for this technology..

France, German, USA, Japan..etc mostly depends on nuclear power plant to power up their country. Are they out dated like us? whistling.gif
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 12:55 AM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


more on political issue here...

imagine Singapore got nuclear pahwer.. what will malaysian government do ?

so i think it will be a long long way before we can lay our hand on nuclear..
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 12:56 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 12:34 AM)
0.01 error rate will destroy u and me and him....

we are not prepared for this ... 0% tolerance rate
*
nuclear power plant technolgy safety and security is far beyond of ur thinking.. cool2.gif
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 12:59 AM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 20 2009, 12:56 AM)
nuclear power plant technolgy safety and security is far beyond of ur thinking..  cool2.gif
*
and far beyond malaysia human capital and money capital too

politic kills science... just like how religion kill science inb4
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 12:59 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(johnsonwps @ Jun 20 2009, 12:49 AM)
Nuclear power??? Not for me, if Malaysia wants to build nuclear reactor, think twice please.

For Malaysia, we can have better option like solar power or wind power.. We have endless sun, for those who lived at Sitiawan, you'll understand my point.

Solar or wind power would not attract too much attention from other country.
*
for your information, solar power are not practical to generate electricity...

wind power are practically suitable for Malaysia.. need larger space to fits turbine where nuclear can do..


Added on June 20, 2009, 1:00 am
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 12:59 AM)
and far beyond malaysia human capital and money capital too

politic kills science... just like how religion kill science inb4
*
i agree.. no doubts about this..

This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 20 2009, 01:00 AM
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 01:03 AM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 20 2009, 12:59 AM)
for your information, solar power are not practical to generate electricity...

wind power are practically suitable for Malaysia.. need larger space to fits turbine where nuclear can do..


Added on June 20, 2009, 1:00 am

i agree.. no doubts about this..
*
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
befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 01:19 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:03 AM)
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
yshiuan
post Jun 20 2009, 01:19 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,126 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
From: Kedah

QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 19 2009, 11:39 PM)
is it warm water.. warm water will promote the growth of plankton, which is food for fishes..
In Japan, there are more fish near the reactor..  blush.gif
*
more to algae i blieve.
befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 01:20 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(yshiuan @ Jun 20 2009, 01:19 AM)
more to algae i blieve.
*
Doesn't fish eat algae as well?
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 01:25 AM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 01:19 AM)
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.
*
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.


befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 01:33 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:25 AM)
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 nod.gif

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

TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 01:34 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:03 AM)
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
*
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.. yawn.gif

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 am
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:25 AM)
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.
*
so, r u belong to those "smart ass"??

think positive, logical and rational are not bad.. icon_rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 20 2009, 01:36 AM
yshiuan
post Jun 20 2009, 01:42 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,126 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
From: Kedah

QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 01:20 AM)
Doesn't fish eat algae as well?
*
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.
befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 01:50 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(yshiuan @ Jun 20 2009, 01:42 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.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 02:08 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 01:50 AM)
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... rclxms.gif
NicJolin
post Jun 20 2009, 02:09 AM

Stop monitoring =)
******
Senior Member
1,052 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
From: Stop monitoring =)
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
befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 02:46 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(NicJolin @ Jun 20 2009, 02:09 AM)
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
*
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
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 01:37 PM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 01:33 AM)
Chernobyl is 1 in a few million hours of reactor operation.

Don't underestimate Malaysians, they'll probably hire foreigners nod.gif

I would prefer not to risk earth's climate going through an irreversible warming.
*
hire foreigner will be very expensive.. there goes taxpayer money again nod.gif

QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 20 2009, 01:34 AM)
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..  yawn.gif

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 am

so, r u belong to those "smart ass"??

think positive, logical and rational are not bad..  icon_rolleyes.gif
*
no lah.. if i smart ass i wouldnt b in msia liao lol biggrin.gif

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
befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 01:50 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:37 PM)
hire foreigner will be very expensive.. there goes taxpayer money again nod.gif
I guess you really don't get the point of going nuclear do you?
chezzball
post Jun 20 2009, 02:04 PM

Cheese
******
Senior Member
1,542 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: cheeseland


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 01:50 PM)
I guess you really don't get the point of going nuclear do you?
*
yah i got it wink.gif my concern somewhat not related to the topic. ok
SeaGates
post Jun 20 2009, 03:52 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 02:46 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.
*
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
befitozi
post Jun 20 2009, 03:58 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(SeaGates @ Jun 20 2009, 03:52 PM)
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.
SeaGates
post Jun 20 2009, 04:10 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 03:58 PM)
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 biggrin.gif

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.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 06:09 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


user posted image
This diagram is applicable to USA doh.gif

This post has been edited by profdrahhen: Jun 20 2009, 06:10 PM
ah liew
post Jun 20 2009, 09:59 PM

エンジンオイル
*****
Senior Member
829 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: ☆柔弗洲 to 沙巴★ Status: Dori Dori



QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 19 2009, 11:56 PM)
Malaysia probably will have own nuclear reactor in 2023.
*
Any source?

Wawasan 2020 had failed before, don't be too optimistic.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 10:10 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(ah liew @ Jun 20 2009, 09:59 PM)
Any source?

Wawasan 2020 had failed before, don't be too optimistic.
*
waiting for confirmation now.. hmm.gif
ah liew
post Jun 20 2009, 10:17 PM

エンジンオイル
*****
Senior Member
829 posts

Joined: Oct 2008
From: ☆柔弗洲 to 沙巴★ Status: Dori Dori



QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 20 2009, 10:10 PM)
waiting for confirmation now..  hmm.gif
*
Should Malaysia build a nuclear power plant?

Read all about it.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 20 2009, 10:44 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(ah liew @ Jun 20 2009, 10:17 PM)
Let it be.. South Korea can be our role model.. thumbup.gif

there is no point escaping from this technolgy.. if we are worry about nuclear waste, its all political issues. Technology in managing waste is available and being use..

Integrated Used Fuel Management
Under an integrated management approach, used nuclear fuel will remain stored at nuclear power plants in the near term. Eventually, the government will recycle it and place the unusable end product in a deep geologic repository.

Used Nuclear Fuel Is Solid and Compact
Used nuclear fuel consists of small ceramic uranium fuel pellets. All the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in nearly 50 years—if stacked end to end—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of less than 10meters.

Near- and Long-Term Plans for Managing Used Fuel
Currently, used nuclear fuel is safely stored at nuclear plant sites, either in steel-lined, concrete vaults filled with water or in airtight steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters. Diligent monitoring and maintenance of safety systems ensures that the fuel is safely stored.

Components of an Integrated Management System
-interim storage of used fuel at centralized volunteer locations
-advanced fuel reprocessing and recycling of used fuel to reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of nuclear waste and recover useful materials
-permanent disposal of the byproducts of recycling and used nuclear fuel at a deep geologic repository.

aranur
post Jun 21 2009, 03:49 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,545 posts

Joined: Dec 2004
From: Gombak


yeah... pray the local council people don't forget about that wasted nuke stockpile they left in your backyard.

I remember reading someone's story about a university that once failed to properly dispose of dysfunctional machine that uses radioactive material. they left it on the corridor for God knows how long. along the way, a couple of professors whose rooms were nearby died from cancer.
TSprofdrahhen
post Jun 21 2009, 04:47 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(aranur @ Jun 21 2009, 03:49 PM)
yeah... pray the local council people don't forget about that wasted nuke stockpile they left in your backyard.

I remember reading someone's story about a university that once failed to properly dispose of dysfunctional machine that uses radioactive material. they left it on the corridor for God knows how long. along the way, a couple of professors whose rooms were nearby died from cancer.
*
Well, in Malaysia we have Act. 304 for regulation in any nuclear related matters, need of licence, reporting to Atomic Energy Licencing Board (AELB)... etc.

This law must be strictly followed by anybody.

user posted image

For more information, click on the link below
Act. 304
ELm_ELm
post Jun 21 2009, 05:15 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
201 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
From: Los Angeles


i think we should go for nuclear energy in the future but the question is when and are we ready for it...
rainpocky
post Jun 22 2009, 12:13 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
387 posts

Joined: May 2008


Is Malaysia capable of using heavy water? I heard that CANDU reactors are supposedly the safer version of nuclear reactors. If Malaysia was more diligent in their record keepings and anti-corruption it would be a good idea to have a nuclear reactor, but thinking how people here built a highway (missing link) and spend so much money on it to see it not work an them stealing away or hoarding corrupt money, makes me wonder if we had a nuclear reactor, would it be safe or will some bureaucrat turn around and cheat somewhere and we'll all be part of a Chernobyl part 2 disaster?
Cheesenium
post Jun 22 2009, 01:19 PM

Vigilo Confido
*******
Senior Member
4,852 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
QUOTE(december88 @ Jun 19 2009, 09:40 PM)
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.
*
The earliest year that a proper electric generating fusion reactor would be 2060,provided ITER starts in the next few years.Even after ITER,the scientists and engineers have to build another experimental reactor codename DEMO which will cost even more than ITER.Fusion is a huge challenge in engineering and science.

As far as i know,ITER cost more then the "Doom's Day Machine",Large Hardon Collider.It's probably be one of the tech we wont see in our lifetime,as it is lacking of funds now.

I did read an article on fusion.It's pretty promising,IMO,as if we have functional fusion tech,a lot of today's problems like lack of sources to power the hydrogen economy for cars etc,exploration to space or even green house effects could be solved by fusion.

I do think fusion is the key to make our sci fi dreams come true. tongue.gif

QUOTE(johnsonwps @ Jun 20 2009, 12:49 AM)
Nuclear power??? Not for me, if Malaysia wants to build nuclear reactor, think twice please.

For Malaysia, we can have better option like solar power or wind power.. We have endless sun, for those who lived at Sitiawan, you'll understand my point.

Solar or wind power would not attract too much attention from other country.
*
Solar still have very poor efficiency in terms of generating electricity.Thats why it's still a heater for our house.

QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:03 AM)
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
*
No doubt earth have a lot of natural resource,like there are a lot more fuel in the north pole,but still,dont forget that these resource are finite that will run out sooner or later.Humans might as well look for alternatives while there are still time before it run out.

Improving the current method isnt the best solution,like solar still have pathetic power output.It isnt as easy as pressing a research button Starcraft.

QUOTE(NicJolin @ Jun 20 2009, 02:09 AM)
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
*
I still think it's because of the low power output of solar panels.It isnt enough to power our needs,and it's still not cheap.
december88
post Jun 22 2009, 05:04 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
479 posts

Joined: Nov 2007
From: KL


QUOTE(ah liew @ Jun 20 2009, 09:59 PM)
Any source?

Wawasan 2020 had failed before, don't be too optimistic.
*
See spoiler for source.
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


Based on the article i can assumed TNB is seriously considering going nuclear. Probably good for their bottom line also since they are bleeding alot of money.
So now fellow Malaysian if the feasibility study is positive, which nuclear design you wanna go with? China, Russia or US?
Will be interesting where they gonna build the nuclear plant.
selenium
post Jun 22 2009, 07:24 PM

RipVanWinkle
******
Senior Member
1,032 posts

Joined: Nov 2005
From: kuala lumpur


nuclear waste are practically harmless and can only be harmfull if exposed for a long long time.

the plant in Chernobyl blew up because at that time the russians cant even differentiate a tractor from a monkey wrentch.

neways, nuclear is the way to go and if you are looking at fusion of hydrogen. wait another 50 yrs as CERN scientist just only cracked the code. but it is currently consuming more energy than it can produce.
SurpriseZZZZZ
post Jun 24 2009, 08:20 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
425 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Seremban



QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:03 AM)
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
*
I disagree. Current energy production is mostly powered by coal, which pollute environment so much than nuclear power. Nuclear power does pollute environment BUT only when disaster kicks in. It is one of the cleanest power on earth beside solar. Ferrari can send you to your destination if you know how to control it or send you to hell if you do not know how to control it. Same theory. Nuclear power is sustainable compared to most of the energy production right now. Coal, oil are simply not sustainable. It won't last long. What I meant by long is 100 years? or even 200 years? By using carbon fuels, we are subjected to the fluctuation of international fuel price. That means we gonna pay more when someone jack the price up, but nuclear power is not. Indeed, implementing nuclear power is very costly, but in the long run, it is considered cheap, compared to carbon fuel powered energy production.


Added on June 24, 2009, 8:23 am
QUOTE(selenium @ Jun 22 2009, 07:24 PM)
nuclear waste are practically harmless and can only be harmfull if exposed for a long long time.

the plant in Chernobyl blew up because at that time the russians cant even differentiate a tractor from a monkey wrentch.

neways, nuclear is the way to go and if you are looking at fusion of hydrogen. wait another 50 yrs as CERN scientist just only cracked the code. but it is currently consuming more energy than it can produce.
*
Yes, they failed their own reactor when they tried to TEST it out WITHOUT following standard operating parameters. They blew themselves off. There is no accident. It was caused by human error.

This post has been edited by SurpriseZZZZZ: Jun 24 2009, 08:23 AM
SUSMiri-Sarawak
post Jun 28 2009, 03:44 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
131 posts

Joined: Sep 2006
Yeeeaaaaaaa !! We gonna kill ourself if we DONT KNOW HOW TO ACT IN EMERGENCY REGARDING NUKE POWER IF ANYTHING HAPPEN.
But as you know malaysian standard of seriousness in working area. VERY SLACKING and NO DISIPLIN !!
wild_card_my
post Jun 30 2009, 10:15 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
6,562 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Kuala Lumpur

will uranium supplied deplete?
linachan
post Jul 2 2009, 02:35 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
50 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
From: selangor


QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 21 2009, 04:47 PM)
Well, in Malaysia we have Act. 304 for regulation in any nuclear related matters, need of licence, reporting to Atomic Energy Licencing Board (AELB)... etc.

This law must be strictly followed by anybody.

user posted image

For more information, click on the link below
Act. 304
*
YUP, totally agree with profdrahhen! in my university, my lecturer is a RPO (radiation protection officer) and he will check the dose of radiation, make sure that it is still "As Low As Reasonably Achievable"
SeaGates
post Jul 2 2009, 11:48 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(wild_card_my @ Jun 30 2009, 10:15 PM)
will uranium supplied deplete?
*
All natural resource depletes eventually. There's still a lot of uranium for us however.
befitozi
post Jul 3 2009, 04:12 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(SeaGates @ Jul 2 2009, 11:48 PM)
All natural resource depletes eventually. There's still a lot of uranium for us however.
*
Dare we say that fresh water supply is in dangerous of depleting before uranium does? Especially if we consider the most grim consequences of global warming.
Celebrex
post Jul 3 2009, 03:32 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
49 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
From: JB


God bless if Malaysia is really building a nuclear plant...
marsupilami
post Jul 3 2009, 03:58 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
313 posts

Joined: Mar 2009
From: ✡ ✈ ▌▌

20 years ago.
we think that we can't and will never be able to dig out oil and gas from the deep sea with our own expertise.everybody think that it is almost impossible for us locals to manage the oil platform, let alone the search for new wells.but now?Malaysian expertise is seek by a big oil company all around the world, especially in geological science, malaysian is very good at that.

that's 50 years of independence only..dont compare with those who already enjoying 100years of independence and a stable politics and corruption (this is our main problem).

and i think 20 years later we might already cracks that helium butts ourself and produce fusion power! don't follow others but lead them.some brainiac at MIT already managed to produce fusion power but only with low efficiency and they said they need more 50 years to make it 100% efficient.
xavi5567
post Jul 4 2009, 11:19 AM

\(●'Å'●)/
*******
Senior Member
3,348 posts

Joined: May 2006
From: The Matrix

Fusion technologies is the way to go.. But currently nuke energy is being consider .. I would said it is a good time to do it in malaysia provide it is taken care off by some expert.. dont let them being taken care by some third world metality people enough la.. The danger of leaking is a risk but with timely care and check it can be prevented and control.. Jus hope ur nuke expert is up to mark...b4 they considering bringing in the technologies..
ninty
post Jul 4 2009, 06:28 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
122 posts

Joined: Nov 2007


we don't have the technology, resources or people to handle this kind of thing at the moment.
even have to import contractors, otherwise get faulty reactor tongue.gif
and if we want to enrich our own uranium obama will think we're building nukes


SeaGates
post Jul 4 2009, 07:15 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(befitozi @ Jul 3 2009, 04:12 AM)
Dare we say that fresh water supply is in dangerous of depleting before uranium does? Especially if we consider the most grim consequences of global warming.
*
Unless you're able to digest sea water, yes fresh water is depleting faster than uranium.
johnnight2
post Jul 5 2009, 08:26 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
183 posts

Joined: Jul 2008


Go ahead with the plan. Malaysian is consuming to much fossil oil and the earth is getting hotter.
SUSkuroman84
post Jul 5 2009, 09:46 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Senior Member
805 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
i believe it is necessary as it can produce infinite energy. Imagine even the fusion of electron and positron would create an energy with almost equal with speed of light.

Offtopic, who moderating this forum and at least i can say that this is the first science forum that i ever meet for malaysian. BTW, im telling to myself as well to others, i feel like this forum really lacking people who really know science in detail. Most of the fact is just vomitting from what we know, there is no mechanism or formula involvded in this discusion, n that including me as well. Perharps we should promote such this forum to student in university so that they can participate in active n we would learn something from the expert
TSprofdrahhen
post Jul 6 2009, 11:01 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
107 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
From: UKM Bangi


QUOTE(kuroman84 @ Jul 5 2009, 09:46 PM)
i believe it is necessary as it can produce infinite energy. Imagine even the fusion of electron and positron would create an energy with almost equal with speed of light.

Offtopic, who moderating this forum and at least i can say that this is the first science forum that i ever meet for malaysian. BTW, im telling to myself as well to others, i feel like this forum really lacking people who really know science in detail. Most of the fact is just vomitting from what we know, there is no mechanism or formula involvded in this discusion, n that including me as well. Perharps we should promote such this forum to student in university so that they can participate in active n we would learn something from the expert
*
ohh really? what kind of formula you looking for??? i will try my best to explain.. emmm.. yes, i will!! hmm.gif

*p/s: "will try my best" actually not a wise answer, according to Licenced councellor.. hahaa.. he said, we have no time to waste on trying any more, simply answer yes or no will do!! that's what happen in develop country.. Malaysia, malingsia.. flex.gif
devil75
post Jul 6 2009, 10:03 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
241 posts

Joined: Mar 2006
dont tel u me u wanna go bac into the einstein age and talk about how E=mc2 is proved and how it helped with the progress in nuclear advancement Zzzz...
This is an open topic , does every science topic has to involve calculations and equations ? Zzzzz
befitozi
post Jul 7 2009, 03:58 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(devil75 @ Jul 6 2009, 10:03 PM)
dont tel u me u wanna go bac into the einstein age and talk about how E=mc2 is proved and how it helped with the progress in nuclear advancement Zzzz...
This is an open topic , does every science topic has to involve calculations and equations ? Zzzzz
*
When it comes to the science of physics, equations and calculation is the basis of everything.

Mind to explain what do you mean by einstein age?
SeaGates
post Jul 8 2009, 09:48 PM

Kisses to the world
Group Icon
VIP
1,780 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Somewhere


QUOTE(devil75 @ Jul 6 2009, 10:03 PM)
dont tel u me u wanna go bac into the einstein age and talk about how E=mc2 is proved and how it helped with the progress in nuclear advancement Zzzz...
This is an open topic , does every science topic has to involve calculations and equations ? Zzzzz
*
Mathematics is the universal language for the law of the universe, it's inevitable whether you like it or not, nuclear power is no exception.
Mercury_fulminate
post Dec 17 2009, 09:09 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
70 posts

Joined: May 2009
From: Perhentian, Jauhar



profdrahhen, just wondering are you UKM staff or student?

This post has been edited by Mercury_fulminate: Dec 17 2009, 09:09 AM
TheDoer
post Dec 17 2009, 11:10 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,853 posts

Joined: Oct 2009


humm.... I guess nuclear is a very good option. But I'm still waiting for nuclear fusion.

When it comes to fision, once pandora's box is open, there's no closing back.

Anybody knows how the chain reaction can be stopped? or does it just disperse into the atmosphere, and continue?


Added on December 17, 2009, 11:25 am
QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 19 2009, 04:03 PM)

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.
user posted image
*
I'm not against nuclear plants, but I think the statistics, failed to cater for the prolong effects of nuclear disasters. The suffering and deaths of those who live in the surrounding area of the site.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ne...l-deaths-180406

And I don't think preventing of another failure will ever be full proof, as an example of how we've been trying to make flying safer, accidents still occur. And a single instance of nuclear disaster is catastrophic enough.

Once again, I'm not pro, or against, just food for thought here.

This post has been edited by TheDoer: Dec 17 2009, 11:25 AM
makiru99
post Jan 3 2010, 11:52 AM

New Member
*
Newbie
1 posts

Joined: Jan 2010


???
TheDoer
post Jan 4 2010, 02:20 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,853 posts

Joined: Oct 2009


QUOTE(makiru99 @ Jan 3 2010, 11:52 AM)
???
*
??? X 2
lin00b
post Jan 4 2010, 03:01 PM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
thorium salt bed as an alternative for uranium in nuke power?
TheDoer
post Jan 6 2010, 09:07 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,853 posts

Joined: Oct 2009


QUOTE(lin00b @ Jan 4 2010, 03:01 PM)
thorium salt bed as an alternative for uranium in nuke power?
*
??? X 3
Cesc.FIBREGLASS
post Jan 6 2010, 12:23 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
4 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
i just want to point out a few things

1. cost
The cost of nuclear energy can be separated into the following main components:

• Research and development
• Construction cost of building the plant.
• Operating cost of running the plant and generating energy.
• Cost of waste disposal from the plant.
• Cost of decommissioning the plant

Quantifying some of these costs is difficult as it requires an extrapolation into the future.

There are a few cases in Finland and France where the costs shoots up and then the government wished they didnt start the god-forsaken project in the first place.

2. national security
terrorist atacks, theft and proliferation

u all do seriously trust malaysia's security personnel in term of dealing with these stuff?

Even former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has doubted the ability of local authorities to handle such issues. He then referred to the Bukit Merah case in the 1980s, where the mining of yttrium from a by-product of tin, resulted in radioactive waste being dumped at the site.

frankly, IMO, Dr. M knows what kind of keldais and dungus are sitting in the posts. what do you think?
TheDoer
post Jan 11 2010, 05:30 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,853 posts

Joined: Oct 2009


Hummm... ok, they can build a Nuclear power plant if they want, as long as the radius in case of a meltdown does not cover where I live tongue.gif.
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Jan 12 2010, 02:49 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


The main problem is paranoia, and I'd suppose some view it as a form of justified paranoia, therefore people adopts "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" philosophy to it.

Too bad, really. The world could use further development in this field.
SUSDickson Poon
post Jan 12 2010, 06:15 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
140 posts

Joined: Apr 2009


Malaysians are truly dungus. Even our most educated people unquestioningly believe whatever the media tells them.
bendonarticx
post Jan 12 2010, 07:00 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
199 posts

Joined: Jan 2010

QUOTE(Dickson Poon @ Jan 12 2010, 06:15 PM)
Malaysians are truly dungus. Even our most educated people unquestioningly believe whatever the media tells them.
*
what about an experienced, educated university professor with vast knowledge on the field?
SUSDickson Poon
post Jan 12 2010, 07:16 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
140 posts

Joined: Apr 2009


QUOTE(bendonarticx @ Jan 12 2010, 07:00 PM)
what about an experienced, educated university professor with vast knowledge on the field?
*
Ya, and we must put all our trust and faith in such "experts" because we ourselves don't know any better. Is that what you mean?

ROFL!
bendonarticx
post Jan 12 2010, 07:32 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
199 posts

Joined: Jan 2010

So do you strive to know the ins and outs of the matter? looking at it from a point further from politics? Having deep insight and knowledge so you can say "I know better"?
SUSDickson Poon
post Jan 12 2010, 08:38 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
140 posts

Joined: Apr 2009


QUOTE(bendonarticx @ Jan 12 2010, 07:32 PM)
So do you strive to know the ins and outs of the matter? looking at it from a point further from politics? Having deep insight and knowledge so you can say "I know better"?
*
And that's where our stances differ. I do not separate the politics and the question of "who profits" from the discussion because the two are inseparably linked to this matter.
bendonarticx
post Jan 12 2010, 08:47 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
199 posts

Joined: Jan 2010

QUOTE(Dickson Poon @ Jan 12 2010, 08:38 PM)
And that's where our stances differ. I do not separate the politics and the question of "who profits" from the discussion because the two are inseparably linked to this matter.
*
I respect your stand on this. But I had assumed that this section of the forum is reserved for more... shall we say... academical discussions. More towards the science of the issue rather than the politics, which I assume would be in the Real-Life Issues sub-forum.

Not wanting to get drifted, what other alternatives we have? Solar, hidro, wind and all this ala green peace power generators still havent come close to the energy that nuclear can produce. not yet anyway. and not without sacrificing tons of land and forest.
SUSDickson Poon
post Jan 12 2010, 08:58 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
140 posts

Joined: Apr 2009


QUOTE(bendonarticx @ Jan 12 2010, 08:47 PM)
I respect your stand on this. But I had assumed that this section of the forum is reserved for more... shall we say... academical discussions. More towards the science of the issue rather than the politics, which I assume would be in the Real-Life Issues sub-forum.

Not wanting to get drifted, what other alternatives we have? Solar, hidro, wind and all this ala green peace power generators still havent come close to the energy that nuclear can produce. not yet anyway. and not without sacrificing tons of land and forest.
*
The problem with academic discussion is that it is not just divorced from the realities of life, it is also because academia is funded and encouraged by real life political-economic power bases and factions.

One alternative we have is to shift our economy into one that is less consumption based, to one that is more sustainable.

One problem that people will always face is the Malthusian dilemma of not just the scarcity of food but also of raw materials and energy.

The minerals we can extract from Earth are FINITE. This includes anything we will use as nuclear fuel. This finiteness of resources, and the eventual outcome that we WILL use them up, is a shadow of an Easter Island type of extinction that hangs over the entire human species.
bendonarticx
post Jan 12 2010, 11:52 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
199 posts

Joined: Jan 2010

You have me at a disadvantage when it comes in politics. so I'll try to stick to what I know.

Finite as it is, it will not deplete for a very long time. with advances in reactor technology such as breeder reactors, the deadline can be extended quite significantly.

Unfortunately, it is still finite. Hopefully, by the time we actually deplete sources, fusion technology would become reality. Either that or hope that man has made significant leaps in technology of renewable sources.
lin00b
post Jan 13 2010, 01:15 AM

nobody
*******
Senior Member
3,592 posts

Joined: Oct 2005
QUOTE(TheDoer @ Jan 6 2010, 09:07 AM)
??? X 3
*
contrary to your belief, nuke fuel is not just uranium + plutonium
thorium

CarroTT
post Jan 13 2010, 02:17 AM

ms. sunflower
******
Senior Member
1,216 posts

Joined: Sep 2006


i wunder how many nuke powerplants r there in this world . . . .


duno malaysia got o not
but we seems like never have problem with electrical shortage wan . . . .
bendonarticx
post Jan 13 2010, 12:52 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
199 posts

Joined: Jan 2010

QUOTE(CarroTT @ Jan 13 2010, 02:17 AM)
i wunder how many nuke powerplants r there in this world . . . .
duno malaysia got o not
but we seems like never have problem with electrical shortage wan . . . .
*
as of 2006, there are 441 nuclear powerplants with US(103), France(59), and Japan (55) the top 3 followed by Korea, Russia, India, other European countries, etc..

Malaysia does have a nulear reactor but for research purposes only.

And true, we do not have power shortages right now. But the whole reason why they were considering Nuclear is because our nations oil supply is running low.

Trivia: We nearly had a Nuclear powerplant built in the 70s. The site and every other logistics were pretty much settled (planning wise). Then we struck oil
chocolatezbar
post Jun 6 2010, 02:48 AM

New Member
*
Newbie
1 posts

Joined: Sep 2009
what happen with this topic? dead?
Cesc.FIBREGLASS
post Jun 12 2010, 09:59 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
4 posts

Joined: Jan 2009
QUOTE(chocolatezbar @ Jun 6 2010, 02:48 AM)
what happen with this topic? dead?
*
haha maybe ppl are not interested anymore.

anywaysss, last week Lim Guan Eng dropped the bomb on our Green Tech Minister in Parliament. He said that "If stadium roof can collapse (refering the one in Terengganu), how can we assume that the same thing would not happen to a nuclear power station?"

What do you guys think on this?

Cesc
B Eng (Chemical)
Monash University

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0702sec    0.20    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 26th November 2025 - 08:19 AM