(I'm not having a lot free time for now actually, so pardon my topic for the lack of facts/statistics)

I'm sure nuclear energy is no longer a new issue/topic.
Its power generation output is high enough to contribute towards the power grid of a country, making it as reliable as the conventional power generation methods.
Besides, the yield/input ratio is pretty high, i.e. a relatively small amount of fuel (herein uranium) required to generate a substantial amount of power.

That, I'm sure most of us know. Another pros about nuclear energy is that in contrast with other alternative energies, nuclear generation's output is more predictable/controllable. Hence, it has not much issue when being connected to the power grid. Wind and wave energy, are still being used for small scale because their output is not constant and can't be predicted. Hence, making it not reliable when it comes to analysing for power supply to meet the base load demand of the country/state.

Cons, includes the difficulty in handling the toxic waste. The fuel waste after the power generation process, remains radioactive for a very long time (for a thousand years, well that's what I've read).

Others include fear of the plant being unstable and hence explode. This is rather untrue, because the nuclear fission process is very much safe and has a number of check-and-balance system for safety purposes (I remembered clearly there are steps to ensure the stability of the fission reactions. Something about the Boron rods.... akh I'd do some search ups when I'm free.)
However, public opinion remains it is dangerous, perhaps from them thinking nuclear power plants are just another form of nuclear bomb.
Also, the Chernobyl incident have gave the wrong impression that nuclear power plant does have the risk of blowing up.


So all being said, I'd hope the topic has a sense of direction in terms of:
1) The power generation by nuclear fission. Pardon but I've always think scientific discussions always work better with numbers.

2) Should countries begin to adopt nuclear energy? (For scoping purposes, let's focus on Malaysia first.)
If yes why so, and if not, why not? XD


This is the first time I've created a topic here, so pardon me if it's lacking anything >< (I know! The numbers are missing!)
I hope there will be a fruitful discussion, in contrast to those topics we've been having for a while now

Agreed. Countries whose economy relies heavily on the export of oil, will face devaluation of oil if a better alternative was found. Fact remains oil generation is still by far the best.

1) I've forgotten about the little part about nuclear physics during my STPM. So I can't comment much on this.

2) Europe will tend to adopt nuclear energy for its own, as other alternative energy is not really applicable. (Only few countries utilises wind energy).
As for Malaysia, one of my main concern is public opinion. Granted, majority still have an ill opinion when it comes to nuclear energy.

3) I disagree. We should all progress towards the path of sustainable development, else the world would be heading towards its destruction in much shorter time than it's supposed to be.

Really, I felt honoured that you've taken much of your time to construct such.... beautifully written post.

1) Availability of uranium ores: The last that I've read, the ore price is lower than that of silver, even coal at one time. And it's stable too.
However, we all realise this will not necessarily stay should nuclear energy be popular. Thus it is rather difficult to construct an cost-benefit projection should nuclear energy be adopted.

2) Security of Ore: As said above, once nuclear generation becomes widespread, the focus might shift from petroleum/oil to uranium ore. Is it necessarily a good thing? Perhaps. There might be a balancing act for market price for uranium and oil, hence making a major part of the world does not rely on just the whim of world oil prices.

3) Alternative energy: I'll share what I've learned
+ Hydro-Electric power plants - For base load capacity (In Malaysia, Hydro is used to supply the peak load demand. The intermediate is supplied by coal and gas, while base load is by coal.)

+ Coal-fired or Diesel power plants - For emergency capacity (Erm, as i said above, coal is for base load.)

+ Photo Voltaics
(Thing about solar power, is that its output is too small to be considered as useful. What could be done, is perhaps to adopt German technology, where they integrate the PV cells into the building, i.e. the lighting and some electrical appliances are powered by PV.)

+ Concentrated Solar Power (Solar Thermal)
(The amount of sunlight in Malaysia is not constant, hence bringing back the problem of unpredictable output.)

+ Underwater River Turbines
+ Underwater Sea Turbines
(I'm unsure of these two, haven't heard about it before being used in Malaysia)

Really? Nuclear fusion is possible?
If I remembered correctly from what little things I've studied in STPM, one of the condition for nuclear fusion to happen is extremely high temperature, which happens only in the sun. Up till then (4~5 years ago), technology is still yet to be able to emulate the condition in the sun.

But then again, perhaps the emulation is now possible, with CERN's LHC. I don't know.

Anyway, why would you suggest that Malaysia is rather late to begin adopting nuclear energy?

Agreed with the top half part.

Well, this might sound rather paranoid.

A nuclear power plant is a big fat target for enemy's assault should the country be involved in a war. Blow it up and major damage is done.

So basically, up till now the fusion reaction is yet to be self-sustainable?
Yeah I understood that fusion reaction releases way more energy then fission reaction. But as you've said, the energy required to start the reaction up rather nullify the high output. However, if it's self-sustainable, it'll be AWESOME!!!

Agreed! XD

1) Reaction destroying the reactor? How so? Due to the extremely high temperature of the plasma?

2) Coal as base-load: Well that was what I've learned in Basic Power Engineering subject, as told by my lecturer. XD

3) Different generation will have its effect when being linked to the national grid. I suppose there are some counter-measures for this. But I've yet to learn anything about it (Next semester, perhaps XD), the most I can relate to is perhaps the quality of power supplied.

4) Yeap, where/how to deal with the waste is among the main concern in Malaysia's scope.

5)I suppose UK can do it, as the wind there is much stronger compared to here. However, the wind farm requires a large area in order for it to generate significant amount of power.
Erm, small scale or no, there would still be radioactive by-products no?

1) But why are you saying that nuclear is not a long term solution? Perhaps due to the waste issue, that one day it'll accumulate too much?

2) Ah, the clean-coal technology. If I'm not mistaken, the proposed and approved coal-fired power plant in Lahad Datu utilises this technology.

3) Your idea about wind farm in the South China Sea is interesting enough. But some of the concerns I felt includes need of building an underground transmission line, which will increase the cost.

Very interesting indeed. Seems as though the concern regarding nuclear energy has shifted towards the cost perspective.

Thanks for the information.
One thing though, sure it's clean coal, but how clean is it compared to other methods, say, oil-based generation?

Then the only way to keep the neutrons in place is by physical means i.e. wall. So currently they're still in the midst of overcoming this issue too?

1) Uranium ore: Yes, I agree with your sentiment here, of which I've considered too in my earlier post. While uranium ore may be abundant now, relying on it will merely shift the reliance on oil unto uranium, which the cycle of dependency still continue. :/

2) Underwater plug points: Akin to multiple sockets extension box? XD Very interesting indeed. Your posts are most enlightening to read

3) Data collection: Well, I suppose if TNB has the initiative to implement this, the research and study to measure the wind density/abundance in South China Sea shouldn't be an issue.

Things like highway i.e. MRR2 ring road is deemed to be critical as well. Yet we observe of mishandling there.

While cracks in the pillar would spell certain disaster, cracks in a nuclear power plant could give us the entire thesaurus for the word disaster.