Alhamdulillah,
We thank all of our readers for their comments and their support.
2066 views in the space of 1 month is more than what we initially expected....
We will keep improving on our articles for your reading pleasure...terima kasih
Truly Malaysian,
Effei
p/s: you can add me on facebook......profile name: Effei Nadiah
Sunday, October 31, 2010
In short, is nuclear power plant safe?
There is plenty of discussion with regards to the safety of a nuclear power plant....
The Chernobyl accident is painted as one of the great industrial disasters of the twentieth century…
But should we just say no to nuclear just because of what had happened Chernobyl-and not to mention; The Three Mile Island....
In short, this is my view....
If nuclear power were really as dangerous as people believe, isn’t France—with its 59 nuclear reactors making 78 percent of its power—grossly polluted and doomed? Far from it my fellow addicts. The world’s nuclear champion is safe and its health is among the world’s best…
Why cant we Malaysian be optimistic about it? Where is the "Malaysia boleh!" spirit?
Or maybe, Malaysians do not believe in their own capability.... Maybe Malaysians are starting to say that "Malaysia tak boleh"....
We had defy odds.. We have gone through great length in the search for development...
We have KLCC!...once the talllest building in the world...
We have our own F1 team! and the circuit is world class!
We went to space!
Malaysia is already in the world map.....but, should we stop here.......
Are these enough?
So what do all these have anything to do with nuclear?
In the US – the driving economy behind the last economic bubbles – the Obama administration has developed an ambitious plan to develop the renewable energy sector. It has promised to double the share of renewable energies (currently 7%) in its national energy mix over the next three years. It promises to create some 460, 000 new jobs in the energy sector. Under the current stimulus plan, it will invest $25 billion directly in the renewable energy sector. A new energy bill will slate additional funding for the sector. A nationwide emissions trading system will be introduced by 2012..
So, where do we go from here?....do we still need to rely heavily on fossil fuel?
If yes is the answer, tell me where can we get more of them if it is soooo clear that the world is running out of fossil fuel?
Are you willing to pay a staggering price of RM8/litre for your vehicle in the near future? Can our country survive this outbreak?
Changed your mind just yet? Now you think that we need something else to replace fossil fuel, yes?
My question is, what is it?
Solar, wind, nuclear, biofuel?
My answer will be all of them....
However, another question that I would like to ask is.....out of all renewable energy, which one is the most suitable for this country......??
Any way any how, we still have to choose at least one of them.....
No surprise here, my answer will be nuclear........it will be our nation new economic bubble....As private investors struggle to find new profitable sectors to invest in a sinking economy while governments subsidise energy investments, it is possible that the foundations of a new bubble are being lay down on our watch, only to burst at the end of the next economic boom.
Renewable energy is the next bubble.....bye bye internet bubble....your time is up.....
The Chernobyl accident is painted as one of the great industrial disasters of the twentieth century…
But should we just say no to nuclear just because of what had happened Chernobyl-and not to mention; The Three Mile Island....
In short, this is my view....
If nuclear power were really as dangerous as people believe, isn’t France—with its 59 nuclear reactors making 78 percent of its power—grossly polluted and doomed? Far from it my fellow addicts. The world’s nuclear champion is safe and its health is among the world’s best…
Why cant we Malaysian be optimistic about it? Where is the "Malaysia boleh!" spirit?
Or maybe, Malaysians do not believe in their own capability.... Maybe Malaysians are starting to say that "Malaysia tak boleh"....
We had defy odds.. We have gone through great length in the search for development...
We have KLCC!...once the talllest building in the world...
We have our own F1 team! and the circuit is world class!
We went to space!
Malaysia is already in the world map.....but, should we stop here.......
Are these enough?
So what do all these have anything to do with nuclear?
In the US – the driving economy behind the last economic bubbles – the Obama administration has developed an ambitious plan to develop the renewable energy sector. It has promised to double the share of renewable energies (currently 7%) in its national energy mix over the next three years. It promises to create some 460, 000 new jobs in the energy sector. Under the current stimulus plan, it will invest $25 billion directly in the renewable energy sector. A new energy bill will slate additional funding for the sector. A nationwide emissions trading system will be introduced by 2012..
So, where do we go from here?....do we still need to rely heavily on fossil fuel?
If yes is the answer, tell me where can we get more of them if it is soooo clear that the world is running out of fossil fuel?
Are you willing to pay a staggering price of RM8/litre for your vehicle in the near future? Can our country survive this outbreak?
Changed your mind just yet? Now you think that we need something else to replace fossil fuel, yes?
My question is, what is it?
Solar, wind, nuclear, biofuel?
My answer will be all of them....
However, another question that I would like to ask is.....out of all renewable energy, which one is the most suitable for this country......??
Any way any how, we still have to choose at least one of them.....
No surprise here, my answer will be nuclear........it will be our nation new economic bubble....As private investors struggle to find new profitable sectors to invest in a sinking economy while governments subsidise energy investments, it is possible that the foundations of a new bubble are being lay down on our watch, only to burst at the end of the next economic boom.
Renewable energy is the next bubble.....bye bye internet bubble....your time is up.....
 |
| Lets blow the green energy bubble....and burst it! |
Saturday, October 30, 2010
NUCLEAR WASTE.....HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY MANAGE THEM?
Hello fellow addicts,
Thx for the comments..We are overwhelmed by the responses we get from you....By judgement, i acknowledge that one of your main concern about nuclear is on how do we manage the waste.....
Yeah, can we?How?
Honestly, ive done plenty of researches in regards to this matter....
Here are my thoughts.....I think there are 4 main components to be considered if we are to manage nuclear waste successfully...
TIME
Avoid a rush to judgment or pathways that lock in technological choices that may turn out to be the wrong ones. Spent fuel can be stored safely, securely, and cheaply for decades in dry casks, leaving all options open for the future, and allowing time for the economic, technical, and political issues on all paths to be more fully explored.
Hence, we should focus first on safe, secure, and politically sustainable approaches to interim storage of spent fuel. These will be needed no matter what long-term options we choose for spent fuel management; if properly implemented, they will address the immediate needs of the nuclear industry and provide the confidence needed for construction of new reactors.
LOCATION
We will need a permanent geologic waste repository no matter what nuclear fuel cycle options we pursue.
Realistically, even if, decades from now, Malaysia decides to begin reprocessing and recycling spent nuclear fuel, it seems unlikely that all of the commercial spent nuclear fuel already generated will be reprocessed. One way or another, it is very likely that a repository will be accepting large quantities of unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel, and future repositories should be designed with the flexibility to handle either spent nuclear fuel or reprocessing wastes – to avoid prematurely locking in to one path.
In considering approaches to a future repository (or repositories), Malaysia should again draw on the experience of other countries and consider the possibilities of chemically reducing sites such as the granite locations chosen in Finland and Sweden, or the clay sites being considered in several other countries.
At geologically simpler sites, there will be more prospect for
making the safety case in ways that affected publics can understand, increasing the prospects for building public trust.
Yes, public trust....which is indeed my third point of view.
PUBLIC TRUST
First, the key to success in managing spent fuel and nuclear waste is to regain public trust and achieve public acceptance of the necessary facilities. This will require processes that are voluntary, open, democratic, and focused on building trust.
Fundamentally, this is more a political and institutional question than a technical one. If we succeeded in building public trust and gaining support for siting spent fuel and nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities, but never developed any technology beyond what is available today, we would have a reasonably successful nuclear waste management program.
But if we fail in rebuilding public trust, we will have paralysis, escalating costs, major uncertainty over new reactor construction, and accumulating risks, even if we succeed in developing a range of new nuclear technologies.
MOSTI, TNB and even students like me in particular plays an integral part in gaining public trust. As any approach will take decades to implement, political sustainability is key, which requires building long-term bipartisan consensus; without bipartisan support, the probability of failure is high.
One of my suggestion would be to begin with a fundamental principle, enacted in law: no rakyat would be forced to accept a repository it did not want. They then established nuclear waste organizations that undertook careful, open, and transparent processes that considered a number of different potential sites, made sure everyone in each community had the opportunity to be fully informed and to offer their views, and focused on building trust – in particular, by building a reputation for delivering on commitments made to each community, step-by-step. The rakyat will then receive benefits for being considered, and more for accepting a repository – but we have to make certain to build public trust before talking about how much the rakyat might receive.
Well, it is just a suggestion..I believe that by doing this in a slow manner, we will gain support and everyone will be happy.
KEEP OPTIONS OPEN
Technology has no boundaries. The same can be applied to nuclear. We might not be able to build our own power plant just yet...but money can buy this...
MOSTI , TNB and other entities should focus on nuclear energy R&D programs. While building a nuclear power plant with our own sweat is a far fetch operation, R&D in nuclear operation is not..
Why not? We have the government support for a start.. We have enough experts(nuclear field) to venture into nuclear R&D.
Here are a few suggestions:
In the end, to effectively manage nuclear waste, we have to work hand in hand with each other.
I believe the government should support R&D in broad areas such as these, but should not attempt to lay out a specific R&D plan, leaving that to R&D program managers and our nuclear experts.
I also believe that these four main points is very important to ensure that we can successfully manage a nuclear power plant, let alone managing nuclear waste...only time will tell...ONE NUCLEAR FOR ONE MALAYSIA
Thx for the comments..We are overwhelmed by the responses we get from you....By judgement, i acknowledge that one of your main concern about nuclear is on how do we manage the waste.....
Yeah, can we?How?
Honestly, ive done plenty of researches in regards to this matter....
Here are my thoughts.....I think there are 4 main components to be considered if we are to manage nuclear waste successfully...
TIME
Avoid a rush to judgment or pathways that lock in technological choices that may turn out to be the wrong ones. Spent fuel can be stored safely, securely, and cheaply for decades in dry casks, leaving all options open for the future, and allowing time for the economic, technical, and political issues on all paths to be more fully explored.
Hence, we should focus first on safe, secure, and politically sustainable approaches to interim storage of spent fuel. These will be needed no matter what long-term options we choose for spent fuel management; if properly implemented, they will address the immediate needs of the nuclear industry and provide the confidence needed for construction of new reactors.
LOCATION
We will need a permanent geologic waste repository no matter what nuclear fuel cycle options we pursue.
Realistically, even if, decades from now, Malaysia decides to begin reprocessing and recycling spent nuclear fuel, it seems unlikely that all of the commercial spent nuclear fuel already generated will be reprocessed. One way or another, it is very likely that a repository will be accepting large quantities of unreprocessed spent nuclear fuel, and future repositories should be designed with the flexibility to handle either spent nuclear fuel or reprocessing wastes – to avoid prematurely locking in to one path.
In considering approaches to a future repository (or repositories), Malaysia should again draw on the experience of other countries and consider the possibilities of chemically reducing sites such as the granite locations chosen in Finland and Sweden, or the clay sites being considered in several other countries.
At geologically simpler sites, there will be more prospect for
making the safety case in ways that affected publics can understand, increasing the prospects for building public trust.
Yes, public trust....which is indeed my third point of view.
PUBLIC TRUST
First, the key to success in managing spent fuel and nuclear waste is to regain public trust and achieve public acceptance of the necessary facilities. This will require processes that are voluntary, open, democratic, and focused on building trust.
Fundamentally, this is more a political and institutional question than a technical one. If we succeeded in building public trust and gaining support for siting spent fuel and nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities, but never developed any technology beyond what is available today, we would have a reasonably successful nuclear waste management program.
But if we fail in rebuilding public trust, we will have paralysis, escalating costs, major uncertainty over new reactor construction, and accumulating risks, even if we succeed in developing a range of new nuclear technologies.
MOSTI, TNB and even students like me in particular plays an integral part in gaining public trust. As any approach will take decades to implement, political sustainability is key, which requires building long-term bipartisan consensus; without bipartisan support, the probability of failure is high.
One of my suggestion would be to begin with a fundamental principle, enacted in law: no rakyat would be forced to accept a repository it did not want. They then established nuclear waste organizations that undertook careful, open, and transparent processes that considered a number of different potential sites, made sure everyone in each community had the opportunity to be fully informed and to offer their views, and focused on building trust – in particular, by building a reputation for delivering on commitments made to each community, step-by-step. The rakyat will then receive benefits for being considered, and more for accepting a repository – but we have to make certain to build public trust before talking about how much the rakyat might receive.
Well, it is just a suggestion..I believe that by doing this in a slow manner, we will gain support and everyone will be happy.
KEEP OPTIONS OPEN
Technology has no boundaries. The same can be applied to nuclear. We might not be able to build our own power plant just yet...but money can buy this...
MOSTI , TNB and other entities should focus on nuclear energy R&D programs. While building a nuclear power plant with our own sweat is a far fetch operation, R&D in nuclear operation is not..
Why not? We have the government support for a start.. We have enough experts(nuclear field) to venture into nuclear R&D.
Here are a few suggestions:
- Improved approaches to permanent disposal of spent fuel and nuclear wastes, including not only different mined repository concepts but concepts for deep borehole disposal as well .
- An in-depth global assessment of the quantity of uranium likely to be available at different costs as technology and geologic understanding advance in the future.
- Advanced technologies and procedures for international safeguards.
In the end, to effectively manage nuclear waste, we have to work hand in hand with each other.
I believe the government should support R&D in broad areas such as these, but should not attempt to lay out a specific R&D plan, leaving that to R&D program managers and our nuclear experts.
I also believe that these four main points is very important to ensure that we can successfully manage a nuclear power plant, let alone managing nuclear waste...only time will tell...ONE NUCLEAR FOR ONE MALAYSIA
Friday, October 8, 2010
TERRORIST ATTACK ON NPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 |
| Zionists are not terrorists?Give me a break.... |
- a nuclear power plant containment structure consists of a 1 meter thick wall of heavy reinforced concrete.
- if the plane hits other sites around it,other than the containment structure, the reactor will automatically stop thanks to the technological advancement upgrade.
- if the plane hits the side of the wall, it will probably bounces off the wall and hardly damage the containment external structure at all.
- if it hits the top of the containment structure,it will not directly damage the vital structures of the core of the reactor because they are located much lower....and it will stop automatically.
- if it hits the lower part of the containment structure,which is not easy because there are a lot of buildings around a nuclear power plant;it will need to get through not only the very thick external wall of the containment, but also several reinforced concrete walls before reaching the reactor itself....
- logically, the probability for a plane to hit the containment structure is very small if compared to the WTC incident.
- even in the case the worse happens, the main danger for civilains around the site would be the iodine radioactivity release. But a counter-poison exists to prevents the effects of radioactive iodine in a human body. It consists of absorbing a non-radioactive iodine pills. By the way, populations living near a nuclear power plant(US, France, Finland and many others) already have iodine pills distributed in advance.
NUCLEAR RADIATION: WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Radiation and radioactivity
Radiation-Particles emitted in atomic or nuclear processes(neutrons,gammas–photons of nucleus origin, x-rays–photons of atomic origin,beta-particles–electrons or positrons, alpha-particles–helium nuclei, heavy charged particles
Radioactivity-A specific type of nuclear processes in which a nucleus spontaneously decay, emitting radiation in the process.
Lets assume that you are living close to a nuclear power plant or working in a nuclear power plant...how much of radiation will go into your body?Here is a chart
- Occupational radiation protection.
- Medical radiation protection.
- Public radiation protection.
3 factors are then implemented into the 3 categories above. It is called the ALARA(as low as reasonably achievable) factors.
- Time- Reducing the time of an exposure reduces the effective doseproportionally. An example of reducing radiation doses by reducing the time of exposures might be improving operator training to reduce the time they take to handle a source.
- Distance- Increasing distance reduces dose due to the inverse square law. Distance can be as simple as handling a source with forcepsrather than fingers.
- Shielding- The effectiveness of a material as a radiation shield is related to its cross section for scattering and absorption, and to a first approximation is proportional to the total mass of material per unit area interposed along the line of sight between the radiation source and the region to be protected.
I hope that one can see that various preventive measures are taken to ensure that the radiation from a nuclear power plant will not harm the public. In my next post, I will discuss about a hypothetical terrorists attack on a nuclear power plant.....insya-Allah...
 |
| My guess is that Homer gets more radiation from his donuts than from a nuclear power plant. Yeah, for those who not know, Homer works in a nuclear power plant. |
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
What is xenon?
During class, Mr.Syamsul's lecture was very much about control rods...Then, he introduced a chapter on Xenon Transients Effect. Although this chapter was not fully covered, I still feel that this particular chapter is very important..
So what is Xenon?
The discovery of Xenon can be considered as an 'accidental discovery'.It all happened in Hanford,US(1944) by Enrico Fermi as he fired up the first nuclear reactor. By the way, Enrico Fermi was a well known Italian-American physicist who has also won a nobel prize. Shortly after the reactor went critical, power stalled and the reactor shut down. A few hours later, the reactor unexpectedly started up again all by itself. This was the result of poisoning brought on by Xenon-135 (Xe). The word 'poison' is used because during that time, physicists and scientists sees xenon as a very dangerous component in a nuclear reactor. Later on, 'poison' is used to describe a substance that has a strong ability to absorb neutrons. In a way, control rods is also a 'poison'(non-burnable).
Xenon-135 is one of the most common and troublesome poisons found in nuclear reactors. It is a radioactive isotope of Xenon which is predominately formed by the beta-decay of Iodine-135. The iodine is a common byproduct of the fission of Uranium-235. When the Uranium splits, it releases several neutrons and also two smaller daughter elements; among them Iodine-135
So, if xenon is dangerous.....what shall be done?
One is by neutron absorption..The other way is by beta-decay..
When Xe-135 captures a neutron, it becomes Xe-136, a stable isotope which does not absorb neutrons. This process is referred to as the burn up or burn out of Xenon, where the poisonous Xenon is removed.
I will explain in a Malay "kedai kopi" way, Xenon ni bagaikan hidup segan, mati tak mahu... Xenon wujud dalam reactor tapi kerja dia ialah untuk makan neutron jee.....Bile dia dah makan, dia mati....Kiranya, dah puas hidup laa...Jadik, kita tak boleh anggap xenon tu 100% bahaya sebab xenon boleh mengurangkan populasi neutron dalam sesebuah reactor...Kawalan populasi penting sebab kalau overpopulation, reactor boleh menjana kuasa yang terlebih dan menyebabkan reactor meltdown.....Hopefully, writing in dual languanges can increase one's understanding.
The other way is by beta-decay.Xe-135 has a half life of about 9 hours. I-135 has a half life of about 6.5 hours. This time differential is one of the factors that makes Xenon such a problem for nuclear reactors. Since Xenon takes longer to decay than the Iodine takes to build in the Xenon, then there is a natural tendency for Xenon levels to increase in a reactor when not at equilibrium... Malay i go again....jadi, kalau xenon dah terlampau banyak, ini yang akan mendatangkan bahaya terutamanya selepas reactor ditutup atas sebab-sebab tertentu seperti power yang dijana menjadi terlampau tinggi.....Xenon yang terlampau banyak akan menyebabkan apabila operasi reactor dimulakan semula, power akan menjadi lebih tinggi dari semasa reactor ditutup......Apabila power jadik terlampau tinggi secara tiba-tiba, keselamatan akan sukar dikawal dan faham-fahamlah sendiri apa yang akan jadik selepas tu.....Chernobyl? remember?It all happened because operators tried to restart the reactor too soon after a shutdown.
There is a lot of articles/blogs which say that when a reactor reaches super criticallity, control rods will do all the work in keeping the reactor safe.... Control rods cannot do all that by itself. That is why i think that xenon plays an important part in keeping any reactor safe......
ONE NUCLEAR FOR ONE MALAYSIA
So what is Xenon?
The discovery of Xenon can be considered as an 'accidental discovery'.It all happened in Hanford,US(1944) by Enrico Fermi as he fired up the first nuclear reactor. By the way, Enrico Fermi was a well known Italian-American physicist who has also won a nobel prize. Shortly after the reactor went critical, power stalled and the reactor shut down. A few hours later, the reactor unexpectedly started up again all by itself. This was the result of poisoning brought on by Xenon-135 (Xe). The word 'poison' is used because during that time, physicists and scientists sees xenon as a very dangerous component in a nuclear reactor. Later on, 'poison' is used to describe a substance that has a strong ability to absorb neutrons. In a way, control rods is also a 'poison'(non-burnable).
Xenon-135 is one of the most common and troublesome poisons found in nuclear reactors. It is a radioactive isotope of Xenon which is predominately formed by the beta-decay of Iodine-135. The iodine is a common byproduct of the fission of Uranium-235. When the Uranium splits, it releases several neutrons and also two smaller daughter elements; among them Iodine-135
So, if xenon is dangerous.....what shall be done?
One is by neutron absorption..The other way is by beta-decay..
When Xe-135 captures a neutron, it becomes Xe-136, a stable isotope which does not absorb neutrons. This process is referred to as the burn up or burn out of Xenon, where the poisonous Xenon is removed.
I will explain in a Malay "kedai kopi" way, Xenon ni bagaikan hidup segan, mati tak mahu... Xenon wujud dalam reactor tapi kerja dia ialah untuk makan neutron jee.....Bile dia dah makan, dia mati....Kiranya, dah puas hidup laa...Jadik, kita tak boleh anggap xenon tu 100% bahaya sebab xenon boleh mengurangkan populasi neutron dalam sesebuah reactor...Kawalan populasi penting sebab kalau overpopulation, reactor boleh menjana kuasa yang terlebih dan menyebabkan reactor meltdown.....Hopefully, writing in dual languanges can increase one's understanding.
The other way is by beta-decay.Xe-135 has a half life of about 9 hours. I-135 has a half life of about 6.5 hours. This time differential is one of the factors that makes Xenon such a problem for nuclear reactors. Since Xenon takes longer to decay than the Iodine takes to build in the Xenon, then there is a natural tendency for Xenon levels to increase in a reactor when not at equilibrium... Malay i go again....jadi, kalau xenon dah terlampau banyak, ini yang akan mendatangkan bahaya terutamanya selepas reactor ditutup atas sebab-sebab tertentu seperti power yang dijana menjadi terlampau tinggi.....Xenon yang terlampau banyak akan menyebabkan apabila operasi reactor dimulakan semula, power akan menjadi lebih tinggi dari semasa reactor ditutup......Apabila power jadik terlampau tinggi secara tiba-tiba, keselamatan akan sukar dikawal dan faham-fahamlah sendiri apa yang akan jadik selepas tu.....Chernobyl? remember?It all happened because operators tried to restart the reactor too soon after a shutdown.
There is a lot of articles/blogs which say that when a reactor reaches super criticallity, control rods will do all the work in keeping the reactor safe.... Control rods cannot do all that by itself. That is why i think that xenon plays an important part in keeping any reactor safe......
ONE NUCLEAR FOR ONE MALAYSIA
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Things YOU should fear instead of a nuclear power plant
NUCLEAR BOMB
Contrary to popular belief, the reactors inside a nuclear power facility are not nuclear bombs, and even if a meltdown does occur, the result will not be anything like the blast destruction capability of warheads. Reactors are built fairly deep underground to allow quite a bit of natural radiation shielding against a disaster. 
- Sad to say, this has been going on for years now. Finding the right solution for the future of mother earth has been exploited by the global giants of profitability. I can only imagine if these two can co-exist and work hand in hand.... It would be so much better if it is renewble&nuclear VS coal&fuel.....ahhhhh...
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPON
Still the world keeps quiet about it. So much for your anti-terrorist propaganda America.
GLOBAL WARMING
Its happening and its happening really fast. The primary cause of global warming is Carbon Dioxide emissions. CO2 is being pumped into our atmosphere at an insane pace; 8 billion tons of CO2 entered the air last year. The rest, you do your math...
COAL AND FUEL POWER PLANTS
Currently in the world 40% of all CO2 emissions are caused by power plants. These are burning coal, natural gas and diesel fuel. Some power plants burn garbage. Some burn methane made from garbage.
LIVERPOOL GOING DOWN
Another defeat. By Blackpool??You have to be kidding me.. Whatever it is, in Hodgson I trust...YNWA
TERRY 'THE DOUCHE' JONES
Im not saying he is scary coz I would beat him with a single punch... Im just think that it is scary that the world we live in today are full of idiots like him....Btw, go shave man...that Hulk Hogan moustache of yours is the ONLY scary thing bout you....
LADY GAGA
I would rather die from a nuclear bomb than to see her face to face...This is scary....very...very...scary...
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Chernobyl:The Chronology
 | |
| the power plant before the disaster |
- 1977: The first reactor of the power plant went online.
- 1978: The second reactor went online.
- 1981: The third went online.
- 1983: Unit no. 4 of the Chernobyl power plant comes on stream.
- 26 April 1986, 1:23:00: A test of the cooling system begins in unit no. 4 of the Chernobyl power plant
- 26 April 1986, 1:23:40: The emergency shutdown fails.
- 26 April 1986, 1:23:44: The reactor in unit no. 4 runs out of control and explodes.
- 26 April 1986: In the town of Pripyat, 3 km away, there are 45 000 people, including 16 000 children. On 26 April 1986 they are enjoying the first warm Sunday of the spring.
- 26 April to 4 May 1986: Most of the radiation is released in the first ten days. At first, northerly and northwesterly winds predominate. At the end of April the wind switches to the south and southeast. There are frequent but local showers. This results in a very varied regional and local distribution of the radiation.
- 27 April to 5 May 1986: About 1800 helicopter flights deposit around 5000 tonnes of extinguishing materials such as sand and lead onto the burning reactor.
- 27 April 1986: The inhabitants of the Pripyat power plant settlement are evacuated.
- 28 April 1986, 21:00: The Soviet news agency Tass announces that there has been an accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station and that there have been casualties. An investigative committee is established.
- 28 April 1986, 23:00: A Danish nuclear research laboratory announces that an MCA (maximum credible accident) has occurred in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor.
- 29 April 1986: The MCA at Chernobyl is first reported in German newscasts.
- Up to 5 May 1986: Over the ten days following the accident, 130 000 people are evacuated from a 30-km zone around the reactor.
- 6 May 1986: The release of radiation stops.
- 15 to 16 May 1986: New fires break out and more radiation is released.
- 23 May 1986: A Soviet government committee orders the distribution of iodine preparations. At this point, such prophylaxis is of no medical value. Radioactive iodine is only active for ten days, and will already have accumulated in the thyroid glands of the inhabitants of the contaminated territories.
- 15 November 1986: The concrete "sarcophagus" enclosing the destroyed reactor is completed.
 |
| the concrete sarcaphogus built to contain radiation |
From 1986 to 1990
- 22 December 1988: Soviet scientists announce that the sarcophagus now enclosing the reactor was designed for a lifetime of only 20 to 30 years.
- 1989: Start of the second resettlement phase. About 100 000 people have to leave their villages in the severely contaminated territories of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.
- 20 April 1989: The Soviet government halts construction work on the fifth and sixth units of the Chernobyl nuclear power station.
- From 1990: Collaboration between Western scientists and experts from Belarus, Ukraine and Russia begins. A delegation of German scientists visits the Chernobyl nuclear power station and the affected regions.
- 12 October 1991: After a fire breaks out in the second Chernobyl reactor, this unit too has to be shut down for good.
- January to March 1993: Establishment of a thyroid centre in Gomel by the Otto Hug Strahleninstitut, Munich. Gomel is a large city with a population of 500 000 in the most severely contaminated region of Belarus.
- 11 November 1996: Cases of thyroid cancer among children in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are up by roughly 200 per cent compared to the 1980s. The WHO estimates that around 4 million people in these three countries have been affected by the nuclear disaster. Roughly one million are undergoing medical treatment for consequential health impairments.
- November 1997: An international conference considers the condition of the sarcophagus. USD 350 million is pledged for stabilisation measures.
- 20 September 1999: Nobody is allowed to live permanently within 15 km of the power plant site. And yet, in the early 1990s, elderly people began to re-occupy their houses in the said zone. According to the authorities, there have been some 1500, two thirds of them women. About 50 people again took up residence in Chernobyl itself. This resettlement is being tolerated by the authorities.
 |
| the entrance signboard of Pripyat |
From 2000 until today
- 13 January 2000: The Ukrainian Government commissions an overall concept: parts of the Chernobyl area are to be re-cultivated.
- 5 July 2000: A second international pledging conference grants Ukraine USD 715 million to build a second "shelter".
- 12 December 2000: The Chernobyl reactor complex is shut down.
- April 2001: At an international conference, "Fifteen Years After the Chernobyl Accident - Lessons Learned" in Kiev, experts, UN organisations and the IAEA reach a minimal consensus in the evaluation of health effects. A direct link between the accident and thyroid cancer among children is recognised internationally. Indications for other consequences are being observed, however with limited resources.
- October 2001: After visiting the affected regions, a delegation of national and international experts sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) calls for a new approach in aid programmes. They recommend a developmental approach, shifting the emphasis from "help for victims" towards helping people to help themselves.
- March 2002: The German TV documentary "Tschernobyl - Der Millionensarg" triggers a debate on how much fuel still remains in the reactor beneath the sarcophagus. The movie claims that the new «sarcophagus» is unnecessary because there is hardly any remaining radioactive material.
- June 2002: Launch of the website www.chernobyl.info
- June 2003: The International Chernobyl Research and Information Network (ICRIN) was launched by the UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Chernobyl in Geneva on 27 June 2003. The objective of the international network is to make Chernobyl research results systematically accessible both to the affected population and to the authorities and decision-makers, and also to identify gaps in existing research findings.
The chernobyl.info website serves as an information platform for ICRIN members and the public at large. The activities and addresses of scientific institutions and organisations can be accessed in a database on the chernobyl.info website.
More information is available here. - August 2003: The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) said it would give Ukraine USD 85 million this year to cover the gaping hole in reactor 4. The construction of the new shelter will start in 2004.
More information about the shelter construction available at: http://www.ebrd.com - 27 April 2004: On 27 April 2004 in New York, over 600 invited guests from numerous countries attended the first public viewing of the film "Chernobyl Heart" since it won this year's Academy Award for the best documentary two months ago.
At the same occasion, Jan Egeland, the UN's Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, handed over responsibility for the Chernobyl portfolio to Mark Malloch Brown, head of the UN Development Programme (UNDP).
"To help mitigate the long-term effects of the tragedy", Jan Egeland explained the shift of focal point, "the United Nations is now emphasizing long-term community redevelopment and empowerment in which the affected populations play a key role". - 12 May 2005: At a pledging meeting on May 12 in London the European Commission announced an additional €49 million to the international Chernobyl Shelter Fund (CSF). The project is estimated to cost $1,091 million and will be completed by 2009. More information: http://www.ebrd.com
- 3 August 2005: An international donor conference pledges USD 7 million (EUR 5.8 million) to Ukraine for the processing of nuclear waste from the closed down Chernobyl power plant. The requisite plant is to be built within the next three years. There are also plans for building a storage site for this nuclear waste.
- 30 August 2005: The latest radiation measurements in the area immediately surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant indicate that the levels of radioactive contamination are falling. Ukraine’s authorities are therefore opening some of the evacuation zone of 2,800 square kilometres, from where all inhabitants were relocated after the 1986 nuclear accident, for partial resettlement. However, those who return will lose the welfare benefits they have been entitled to so far.
- 6 September 2005: The study "Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts" came to the conclusion that the health effects have been "far smaller than expected" (Chernobyl Forum Report 2005). Information about the report: http://www.iaea.org. The new report is criticised as "quite inappropriate" by radiation scientists and Chernobyl relief organisations. The report is accused of playing down the true dimension of the catastrophe. Some statements of the study are challenged as "demonstrably false". Experts are also concerned that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, may have had "too great an influence" on the study.
 | ||
| This will not happen to us again |
 |
| Pripyat:today |
ONE NUCLEAR FOR ONE MALAYSIA
Tuesday Class re-cap!!!
OOOOpppppsss....i did it again...i know we are late with our posts but we will make it up for you addicts!
So, what have I learn during my Tuesday class? Frankly, the topics covered is kinda hard to digest but here is what I understand from my class that day.The focus of that day was on the moderator of a nuclear reactor.
Let me explain to you what is a moderator..
Slower moving neutrons are more effective at keeping the chain reaction going by causing more uranium nuclei to break apart.
A moderator reduces the speed of fast neutrons. What will happen if over moderated happens??Reactors are usually designed to operate in an under moderated condition so that the moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity is negative.
Mr.Syukri and Mr.Shamsul will kill me if I am wrong with this.....here we go....
So, what have I learn during my Tuesday class? Frankly, the topics covered is kinda hard to digest but here is what I understand from my class that day.The focus of that day was on the moderator of a nuclear reactor.
Let me explain to you what is a moderator..
- part of a nuclear reactor
- reduces the speed of fast neutron; thereby turning them into thermal neutrons capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction involving uranium-235
- Commonly used moderators include regular (light) water (roughly 75% of the world's reactors), solid graphite heavy water (5% of reactors). Beryllium has also been used in some experimental types, and hydrocarbons have been suggested as another possibility.
Slower moving neutrons are more effective at keeping the chain reaction going by causing more uranium nuclei to break apart.
A moderator reduces the speed of fast neutrons. What will happen if over moderated happens??Reactors are usually designed to operate in an under moderated condition so that the moderator temperature coefficient of reactivity is negative.
- over-moderated reactors will suffer under a simple thermal expansion.
- number of density of atoms is reduced due to moderator expansion.
- neutron mean free path and leakage will increase.
- thermal absorption goes down.
- the additional heat raises the temperature in the cooling circuit and more steam is produced.
- more steam means less cooling and less neutron absorption, and the problem gets worse.
Mr.Syukri and Mr.Shamsul will kill me if I am wrong with this.....here we go....
- The process of Doppler broadening of resonance provides the needed feedback.
- The process is "prompt"....so it responds to the fuel temperature.
- Moderator effects is a delayed effect.....because heat is transferred from fuel to the coolant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)