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
No comments:
Post a Comment