Nuclear Safety

Do you think it is safe to build a nuclear power plant in Malaysia?


First of all, think about radiation. We were exposed to radiation regularly in our daily life.
Below is some information about common sources of radiation the we were exposed to.

So, nuclear suppose not a big deal since we are already exposed to great amount almost to 3 milisievert (msV) per year! Beside, the nuclear containment itself is already safe as it has the condition of being protected against any types or consequences of failure, damage,error, accident, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. Even an airplane crash still couldn't leak the nuclear fuel from bursting out!

Next is a the position of the building site that next to the ocean. Will it affect the fish?

The answer is yes, it will affect the fish because the water discharge from the cooling system is 25 ⁰C warmer and it will effect the ecosystem. But anyway, the was the past generation of Nuclear Power Plant(NPP) cooling system layout. 

The next generation of NPP cooling system layout is the Closed Cooling System. The closed cycle cooling system would reuse the same water over and over. Once the water is cycled through the cooling system, it would be sent to a cooling tower where it would cool off and be used again. Some water is lost through evaporation in the closed cooling system, so the cooling system would still have to intake some water. The closed cooling system would cut water usage by up to ninety-five percent (95%) and significantly reduce damage to the ecosystem.

1 of NPP illustration take from "The Simpson"

Then, this topic goes further to the exclusion area boundaries. Most of our people, or the issues being brought is the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) issues. As being told before, nuclear power is safe and green. It doesn't affect the nature with it's low level radiation, no CO2 emission, an alternative for the renewable, last long cycle and much more. So, why we need to worry? How about the factory that being build near to the housing area that they are suppose to be 10 km further from it? The factory itself is already emits too much of CO2 with its dark smoke and the people don't mind? Or because it was a food factory, so people doest need to worry? Here we want to remind again, nuclear power plant emits no CO2 or any other greenhouse gases! It doesn't matter wither its near to your house or not, it is totally GREEN. Beside, doesn't it looks cool when 1 of the nuclear reactor just near to your house since it is near to our country like we seen in "The Simpsons"? Haha.. 

This topic could go on further and further but i would like to end it for now because it will make this post too long and reader are lazy to read long post. We will make a new post to continues this topic if its get any hit. Here's is some word that being quoted that we think it is interesting:

"Existing nuclear plants are cash cows for utilities. Although fairly expensive to build, nuclear plants are much less expensive to operate than oil or gas plants and slightly less expensive to run than coal-burners. Also, they're non-polluting." said by Forrest J. Remick, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering.

Myths & Facts About Nuclear

                                               

Myth: Nuclear energy isn’t safe.
Fact: After more than a half-century of commercial nuclear energy production in the United States, including more than 3,500 reactor years of operation, there have been no radiation-related health effects linked to their operation. Studies by the National Cancer Institute, The United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the National Research Council’s BEIR VII study group and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements all show that U.S. nuclear power plants effectively protect the public’s health and safety. Nuclear plants also are safe for workers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than at a fast food restaurant or a grocery store or in real estate. For more information, see the NEI fact sheet Radiation Safety: Synopses of Major Studies on Exposures to the Public and Workers.

Myth: Chernobyl could happen in the United States.
Fact: By design, it is physically impossible for any U.S. commercial nuclear energy plant to run out of control and explode like the Chernobyl RBMK reactor design did. Unlike the Chernobyl reactor, all U.S. reactors are designed to be self-limiting. During power operations, when the temperature within the reactor reaches a predetermined level, the fission process is naturally suppressed so the power level cannot spike under any circumstances. The Chernobyl RBMK reactor is banned in the United States.

Myth: A nuclear power plant can explode.
Fact: It is physically impossible for a U.S. commercial reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon. The concentration of uranium-235 within the reactor fuel is far too low to be explosive and all U.S. commercial reactors are self-limiting. During power operations, when the temperature within the reactor reaches a predetermined level, the fission process is naturally suppressed so the power level cannot spike under any circumstances. No one could intentionally or unintentionally alter a commercial nuclear reactor, its controls or its fuel to make it explode like a nuclear bomb.

Myth: The threat of a nuclear meltdown is high.
Fact: The probability of fuel melting, or core damage, in a U.S. commercial nuclear reactor is very low. Because of the lessons learned and additional precautions taken after the accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station 33 years ago, risk assessments performed for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that an accident that could cause core damage in the current U.S. fleet of 104 reactors could occur approximately once in 1,000 years. The risk of core damage for an individual plant is approximately once in 100,000 years. For a new nuclear reactor, the risk of core damage is less likely—once in a million years—because of enhanced safety features. Core damage does not mean radioactivity would be released from a plant, nor does it mean that anyone would be harmed. Every nuclear plant has an extremely strong containment building that encloses the reactor and multiple safety features designed to mitigate the consequences of a core damage event. Half of the fuel in the Three Mile Island reactor melted and the rest was severely damaged, but no one in or outside the plant was harmed. The potential for a nuclear plant to have a core damage accident resulting in significant release of radiation is low—once in 10,000 years for the operating plant fleet.
Note: To protect the health and safety of the public, every U.S. nuclear plant is required to have emergency plans, procedures and notification systems at the ready should a core damage event occur. Every plant is required to regularly perform emergency drills graded by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and each must maintain high levels of performance and emergency preparedness to continue operations.

Myth: Nuclear power plants are likely targets for terrorism.
Fact: With protective measures similar to high-security military installations, U.S. nuclear plants are among the most highly protected facilities in the nation’s industrial infrastructure. It is because of their fortifications and multiple layers of security that nuclear plants present a strong deterrent to potential threats.

Myth: A nuclear power plant cannot withstand a terrorist attack.
Fact: With protective measures similar to high-security military installations, U.S. nuclear plants are among the most highly protected facilities in the nation’s industrial infrastructure. Nuclear power plants are protected 24/7 by professional security personnel armed with automatic weapons prepared to repel ground and airborne terrorist attacks. It is because of their fortifications and multiple layers of security that nuclear plants are far less likely to be targets of terrorism than the thousands of far more vulnerable potential targets across the nation. Anti-terrorism measures are regularly tested and closely coordinated with local, state and federal authorities.

Myth: A nuclear power plant cannot withstand the impact of a jetliner.
Fact: Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, sophisticated computer modeling by some of the world’s leading structural engineers showed that nuclear power facilities that contain radioactive material can withstand a jetliner impact without releasing radiation. Likewise, all new nuclear power plants are required to withstand the direct impact of a fully fueled commercial jetliner.

Myth: Nuclear plants are vulnerable to cyber attacks.
Fact: There has never been a successful cyber attack at any U.S. nuclear plant. Unlike industries for which two-way data flow is critical (e.g. banking), nuclear power plants do not require incoming data flow. None of a plant’s safety and control systems are connected to the Internet. Any additional computers utilized in a nuclear plants are strictly controlled with their content, use and possession monitored by security personnel. Nuclear plants are protected from grid instability and are able to safely shut down in a variety of ways without computer controls under any condition including a total loss of off-site power.

Myth: Nuclear energy leads to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Fact: The technology to make highly concentrated uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons is completely independent of nuclear power plant technology. It is impossible to make a nuclear weapon with the low-enriched uranium contained in commercial nuclear reactor fuel. If every commercial nuclear energy plant and all the supporting technology around the world were dismantled and none were ever built again, the proliferation of nuclear weapons would still be a threat.
Note: Nuclear energy plants reduce the threat of nuclear weapons by using warhead material as fuel and rendering it useless for weaponry. To date, the U.S.-Russia Megatons to Megawatts program has consumed more than 400 metric tons, more than the equivalent of 17,000 nuclear warheads. Strict protocols administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are used to control fuel enrichment, fabrication and reprocessing facilities. The international community, through the United Nations Security Council, can take action against nations that are not complying with safeguards commitments to the IAEA.

Myth: Terrorists can use commercial reactor fuel to make nuclear weapons.
Fact: It is impossible to make a nuclear weapon with the low-enriched uranium contained in commercial nuclear reactor fuel. Only through extremely complex and expensive reprocessing could the plutonium in used nuclear fuel be isolated for use in a nuclear weapon. This requires a very large industrial complex that would take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to construct—far beyond the capability of any terrorist organization.

Myth: Reprocessing used nuclear fuel will lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Fact: Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel can be designed to prevent the isolation of plutonium therefore posing no threat of proliferation. It is impossible to make a nuclear weapon with the low-enriched uranium contained in commercial nuclear reactor fuel.

Myth: Transporting radioactive materials exposes the public to unacceptable risk.
Fact: Since the 1960s, there have been more than 3,000 shipments of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste on U.S. roads, highways and railways totaling more than 1.7 million miles. There have been nine accidents, four on highways and five on railways. Because the shipping containers are so strong, there were no injuries, leaks, exposures or environmental damage. The typical high-integrity fuel shipping container can withstand a direct hit by a high-speed locomotive, an 80-mile-an-hour crash into an immovable concrete barrier, immersion in a 1,475-degree Fahrenheit fire, a direct hit by a projectile 30 times more powerful than an anti-tank weapon, immersion in 600 feet of water, and more.

Myth: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is too “cozy” with the nuclear industry.
Fact: The commercial nuclear industry is arguably the most strictly regulated industry in the nation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is an independent, safety-focused, transparent regulatory agency that inspects and monitors all U.S. nuclear power plants. The NRC’s five commissioners are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The majority of the agency’s funding is drawn from nuclear energy industry user fees as mandated and administered by Congress. The NRC can impose warnings, fines and special inspections; order plants to shutdown; and modify, suspend or revoke a  plant’s operating license. Each year, the NRC utilizes an average of 3,800 person-hours of inspection effort for each reactor, including at least two full-time resident inspectors with unlimited access to their assigned facility. Specialist teams also conduct inspections throughout the year. If a plant’s performance declines, additional inspections are utilized. All NRC inspection reports, hearing information, performance ratings, enforcement orders and license information for every nuclear facility are posted on its website and open to the public. The NRC has strict ethics rules to prevent conflicts of interest between its personnel and members of the nuclear industry and can impose corrective and/or punitive actions if they occur.

Myth: Nuclear plant license renewal is a “rubber stamp” by the NRC.
Fact: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s license renewal process takes an average of two years to complete and costs the owners of the facility between $10 million and $20 million. The application for license renewal (ranging from several thousand to tens of thousands of pages of required information for one reactor) involves at least 60,000 person-hours of preparation by the company that owns the facility. The public is encouraged to participate in the process through public meetings and public comment periods on rules, renewal guidance and other documents. In addition, parties and members of the public have an opportunity to request a formal adjudicatory hearing if they believe they would be adversely affected by the renewal. The NRC must determine that a plant can continue to operate safely throughout the extended period of operation to issue the license renewal. A license renewal does not guarantee that a nuclear plant can operate for the extended 20-year period. The plant must continue to meet regulatory safety standards, or the NRC can order it to shut down and can modify or revoke the unit’s license.
Note: The original 40-year term for nuclear power plant licenses was not based on an expected operating life span, but was selected by Congress for the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 because this was the typical amortization period for an electric power plant at that time.
 
Myth: An inadvertent criticality (sustained chain reaction) occurred in a damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactor.
Fact: There is no evidence a criticality occurred in any of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors since the accident in March 2011. A criticality is a sustained chain reaction of fission within the nuclear fuel that generates large amounts of heat and radiation. Spontaneous fission of uranium atoms occurs naturally within the fuel of all reactors and produces small amounts of heat and radiation. Conditions within the damaged reactors at Fukushima do not support criticality. The control rods that absorb neutrons necessary to support a chain reaction are commingled with the fuel thereby minimizing the possibility of a criticality. Operators also can mix boron, a highly effective neutron absorber, in cooling water circulated through the damaged reactors.
Myth: Nations operate and maintain their nuclear energy facilities the same.
Fact: There are distinct differences between nations’ nuclear energy industries. For example. the United States has a single, independent federal regulator, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while Japan has four regulating bodies with overlapping responsibilities. The U.S. nuclear energy sector implemented an  industrywide safety culture program to assess and improve organizational prioritization of safety issues, and all U.S. nuclear energy companies fund an industry watchdog organization, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, to maximized safety performance and achieve operational excellence above and beyond NRC requirements. The Japanese nuclear industry has no similar entities. There also are significant differences in plant maintenance, emergency preparedness, reactor operator training and licensing, and plant command and control protocols.

Myth: Some U.S. nuclear plants do not meet NRC fire protection safety standards.
Fact: All 104 U.S. nuclear energy facilities comply with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission fire protection standards under Appendix R or a specific license condition of the NRC’s codified fire protection  regulation, or the National Fire Protection Association fire protection standard (NFPA 805) that was approved by the NRC in 2004. NRC resident inspectors perform quarterly and annual inspections at every facility. Every three years, NRC engineers perform a comprehensive review of the physical aspects of fire protection program implementation, and all of the underlying analysis of fire protection requirements. If any deficiencies are identified at any time, licensees must respond as directed by the NRC. NEI’s Myths & Facts: Fire Protection details the fire protection program
Note: In a half-century of commercial nuclear energy plant operations, only one fire in 1975, at Unit 1 of the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama, affected plant safety systems. The worst fire ever at a U.S. nuclear power plant injured no one, released no radiation to the environment, and resulted in fundamental improvements in fire protection measures and regulatory requirements being instituted at all U.S. nuclear power plants.

The "Nuclear" in "Nuclear Radiation"

­L­e­t's start at the beginning and understand where the word "nuclear" in "nuclear radiation" comes from. Here is something you should already feel comfortable with. Everything is made of atoms. Atoms bind together into molecules. So a water molecule is made from two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom bound together into a single unit. Because we learn about atoms and molecules in elementary school, we understand and feel comfortable with them. In nature, any atom you find will be one of 92 types of atoms, also known as elements. So every substance on Earth, metal, plastics, hair, clothing, leaves, glass is made up of combinations of the 92 atoms that are found in nature. The Periodic Table of Elements you see in chemistry class is a list of the elements found in nature plus a number of man-made elements.

Inside every atom are three subatomic particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. Protons and neutrons bind together to form the nucleus of the atom, while the electrons surround and orbit the nucleus. Protons and electrons have opposite charges and therefore attract one another (electrons are negative and protons are positive, and opposite charges attract), and in most cases the number of electrons and protons are the same for an atom (making the atom neutral in charge). The neutrons are neutral. Their purpose in the nucleus is to bind protons together. Because the protons all have the same charge and would naturally repel one another, the neutrons act as "glue" to hold the protons tightly together in the nucleus.

The number of protons in the nucleus determines the behavior of an atom. For example, if you combine 13 protons with 14 neutrons to create a nucleus and then spin 13 electrons around that nucleus, what you have is an aluminum atom. If you group millions of aluminum atoms together you get a substance that is aluminum -- you can form aluminum cans, aluminum foil and aluminum siding out of it. All aluminum that you find in nature is called aluminum-27. The "27" is the atomic mass number -- the sum of the number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus. If you take an atom of aluminum and put it in a bottle and come back in several million years, it will still be an atom of aluminum. Aluminum-27 is therefore called a stable atom. Up to about 100 years ago, it was thought that all atoms were stable like this.

Many atoms come in different forms. For example, copper has two stable forms: copper-63 (making up about 70 percent of all natural copper) and copper-65 (making up about 30 percent). The two forms are called isotopes. Atoms of both isotopes of copper have 29 protons, but a copper-63 atom has 34 neutrons while a copper-65 atom has 36 neutrons. Both isotopes act and look the same, and both are stable.

The part that was not understood until about 100 years ago is that certain elements have isotopes that are radioactive. In some elements, all of the isotopes are radioactive. Hydrogen is a good example of an element with multiple isotopes, one of which is radioactive. Normal hydrogen, or hydrogen-1, has one proton and no neutrons (because there is only one proton in the nucleus, there is no need for the binding effects of neutrons). There is another isotope, hydrogen-2 (also known as deuterium), that has one proton and one neutron. Deuterium is very rare in nature (making up about 0.015 percent of all hydrogen), and although it acts like hydrogen-1 (for example, you can make water out of it) it turns out it is different enough from hydrogen-1 in that it is toxic in high concentrations. The deuterium isotope of hydrogen is stable. A third isotope, hydrogen-3 (also known as tritium), has one proton and two neutrons. It turns out this isotope is unstable. That is, if you have a container full of tritium and come back in a million years, you will find that it has all turned into helium-3 (two protons, one neutron), which is stable. The process by which it turns into helium is called radioactive decay.

Certain elements are naturally radioactive in all of their isotopes. Uranium is the best example of such an element and is the heaviest naturally occurring radioactive element. There are eight other naturally radioactive elements: polonium, astatine, radon, francium, radium, actinium, thorium and protactinium. All other man-made elements heavier than uranium are radioactive as well.

In this figure, the yellow particles are orbital electrons, the blue particles are neutrons and the red particles are protons.

How Nuclear Medicine Works

In hos­pitals or on TV, you've probably seen patients undergoing radiation therapy for cancer, and doctors ordering PET scans to diagnose patients. These are part of the medical specialty called nuclear medicine. Nuclear medicine uses radioactive substances to image the body and treat disease. It looks at both the physiology functioning and the anatomy of the body in establishing diagnosis and treatment.

In this post, we will explain some of the techniques and terms used in nuclear medicine. You'll learn how radiation helps doctors see deeper inside the human body than they ever could.

Imaging in Nuclear Medicine

One problem with the human body is that it is opaque, and looking inside is generally painful. In the past, exploratory surgery was one common way to look inside the body, but today doctors can use a huge array of non-invasive techniques. Some of these techniques include things like X-rays, MRI scanners, CAT scans, ultrasound and so on. Each of these techniques has advantages and disadvantages that make them useful for different conditions and different parts of the body.

Nuclear medicine imaging techniques give doctors another way to look inside the human body. The techniques combine the use of computers, detectors, and radioactive substances. These techniques include:

• Positron emission tomography (PET)
• Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)
• Cardiovascular imaging
• Bone scanning

All of these techniques use different properties of radioactive elements to create an image.

Nuclear medicine imaging is useful for detecting:

• tumors
• aneurysms (weak spots in blood vessel walls)
• irregular or inadequate blood flow to various tissues
• blood cell disorders and inadequate functioning of organs, such as thyroid and pulmonary function deficiencies.

The use of any specific test, or combination of tests, depends upon the patient's symptoms and the disease being diagnosed.

Nuclear medicine red blood cell (bleeding) scan

 Red blood cells of the patient have been marked with a radioactive substance that the camera can see. When the tagged cells are injected into the patient's blood stream, they get carried away. If there is a spot of active bleeding inside the patient, the cells will leak out and collect at the point of leakage. 9 images of a patient's belly were taken, with about 10 minutes time between each image. The increasing vertical black line in the left lower part of the image (arrow), which gets denser over time, represents active bleeding at the beginning of the large bowel. 

SHOULD WE GO NUCLEAR?

Should Malaysia Go For Nuclear

Why should Malaysia opt the the sixth fuel-NUCLEAR??That question has been the focus of heated political debate in Malaysia for the past eight years. Mahathir Mohamad, who served as prime minister from 1981 to 2003, was firmly committed to a non-nuclear Malaysia. But since his departure, his successors have made some moves toward nuclear energy production. In December 2010, for example, Peter Chin, the country's energy minister, announced plans to build two 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants by 2022. A month later, Prime Minister Najib Razak announced the establishment of the Malaysian Nuclear Power Corporation, which will lead the planning process.

The Fukushima nuclear accident, however, has raised new doubts about whether Malaysia is ready for nuclear power. Malaysian experts disagree over the need for nuclear power plants, and their potential impact on public safety and the environment. There is little doubt that Malaysia must develop new energy sources to meet its future energy demands without relying on costly foreign imports. But these demands can be met with renewable energy instead.

 In any debate over Malaysian energy policies, three important documents are always used as points of reference. The first was Malaysia's 1979 National Energy Policy, the objective of which was to ensure an adequate, secure, and cost-effective supply of energy -- as well as to promote energy efficiency while discouraging wasteful and unproductive patterns of energy consumption. The second key document was the 1981 four-fuel diversification policy, which was formulated to reduce over-dependence on a single fuel source by developing four types of energy: hydropower, oil, natural gas, and coal. Finally, the third reference point was the five-fuel diversification policy introduced in 2000, which included renewable energy (except hydropower) as a fifth energy source.

These three policies have worked well to fulfill the energy demands of the country, and have received widespread support. But now that nuclear power is being considered as Malaysia's sixth fuel, there is no longer general agreement on energy policy. Three main groups have emerged: one that strongly favors the development of nuclear energy, another that supports nuclear energy but is concerned about safety and environmental effects, and a third group that rejects any moves toward nuclear power in Malaysia.

WE NEED NUCLEAR. Proponents of nuclear power point to the current energy situation in Malaysia as evidence that new energy sources must be developed. Government officials believe that Malaysia's current energy sources will not be sustainable beyond 2020, and that the depletion of the nation's fossil-fuel resources is a threat to national security.

Analysts predict that escalating global oil prices will force Malaysia to become a net oil importer in the years to come. Malaysia uses oil mainly in the transportation sector, and relies on natural gas and coal (along with hydropower) to generate electricity. However, government officials have expressed concern that the cost of coal and gas is likely to soar in the coming decades, as supply fails to keep up with demand. Malaysia's coal imports, which held steady for many years, have grown rapidly in the past two years. Natural gas is currently the largest energy source for the country, but national gas fields may be depleted by 2027, which would leave the country unable to meet petrochemical industry demand and commitments for exports of liquefied natural gas.

Because of these gathering storms, there is no doubt that Malaysia urgently needs new sources of energy to assuage its future energy demands, and nuclear energy seems a very attractive alternative -- particularly since the neighboring countries of Vietnam and Thailand have already announced plans to bring their first nuclear plants online by 2020, and Indonesia intends to construct a plant on Java Island by 2015. Nevertheless, for Malaysia, the prudent management of current energy resources -- to ensure that they are sustainable over the long term -- deserves serious consideration as an alternative to nuclear energy.

Nuclear and Conventional Power Plants Difference

 

 

 

Nuclear power plant technology is created by humans, not by some creatures from Mars =P
Most of people think that nuclear power plant is definitely a different thing compare to conventional power plant. They believe that the concept and design of a nuclear power plant is very complex especially on how the power plants generate electricity.

 

Both of the power plant types do have almost similar concept on how they produce electricity. Steam is produced then it will turn the turbine. The energy from the turbine will be converted to electricity by the generator.

Next, the steam is being cooled by the condenser and the whole process will start again. Maybe the diagrams below will help you to imagine about the concepts.

Schematic of a Nuclear Power Plant

These are the similarities:

· Steam Generator: Both generate steam. (Red Circle)
· Turbine: Both plants have turbines. (Yellow Circle)
· Generator: Both plants need generators to produce electricity. (Green Circle)
· Condenser: Both plants need to remove excess heat. (Brown Circle)

The big difference between a conventional power plant and a nuclear power plant is that the nuclear power plant generates heat through the nuclear reactor while the conventional power plant burns fossil fuel (coal/oil/gas) at the boiler in order to get heat to produce steam. (Orange Circle).

From the diagram below, you will understand the difference. It is just the different way of producing heat to generate steam, either from nuclear reactor or fossil-fueled boiler.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chernobyl life in the dead zone

This video shows the current situation in Chernobyl and its wild life. It has the radioactive level of 400 "hiroshima" incident and it is not a safe place to stay for another few hundred years.Nuclear plant incident can be very dangerous and incurable,but what are the chances for it to happen?Discuss and leave your opinion in the comment section below!