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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)