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!

REPROCESSING AND NUCLEAR WASTE

The Composition of Spent Fuel Rods

When questions about safety and cost are put to rest, the question always remains what are you goin to do with the waste. Yet the whle question is premised wrong. More than 97% of the material in spent fuel rod can be successfully recycled. After sitting in a reactor for five years, only 3% of a fuel rod's potential energy has been tapped. It is important to remember the incredible density of nuclear energy. Recycling procedures generally reduce the volume of material by 70% and that includes the disposal container.

96% of a fuel rod is uranium-238, the non-fissionable isotope. Basically it is there for packing material. It serves no purpose except to hold the fissionable isotope, U-235. The natural uranium is only mildly radioactive and poses no danger. It can be handled safely with gloves. For regulatory purposes, however it has been classified as low level waste. This means it can be safely disposed by burning it in the ground.

Enriched uranium is 4 percent U-235, as opposed to 0.7 percent in the natural ore. After five years in a reactor, U-235 is back down to approximately 1%. This 1% can be recycled. Meanwhile about 1% of the U-238 has been transmuted into plutonium, which is also fissionable. But plutonium can be blended with U-235 to form MOX fuel, which can be used as fuel in most reactors. This means both the uranium and plutonium waste can be recycled for energy.

The remaining 3% is fission products and actinides that are produces in the reactor. These are highly radioactive and must be handled remotely. But many are also valuable medical and industrial isotopes. Nuclear medicine is an $8 billion industry. It is a prime technology in treating cancer. The problem in dealing with spent fuel rods of course is their intense radioactivity. However six feet of water or four feet of lead can block all radiation. There has bee no incident anywhere in the world where a person has been injured or killed by exposure to spent fuel.

Nuclear waste is not a flaw in nuclear technology. The real problem is reprocessing is not being done with used nuclear fuel.

Nuclear proliferation

Reprocessing is not done was due to the driven concern that isolating plutonium would lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However reprocessing and proliferation were 2 sides of the same coin. At the same time history has shown that if nuclear weapons are going to proliferate, stealing plutonium from reprocessing operations will not be the likely route. Nuclear technology is no longer a secret and most countries have their own scientists.

 

Why Radiation Fears Are Often Exaggerated??

What is it about nuclear energy that makes people particularly fearful?

There has been a lot of research on this. Nuclear radiation ticks all the boxes for increasing the fear factor. It is invisible, an unknowable quantity. People don't feel in control of it, and they don't understand it. They feel it is imposed upon them and that it is unnatural. It has the dread quality of causing cancer and birth defects.

Nuclear power has been staggeringly safe, but that doesn't stop people being anxious about it, just as airplanes and trains are an amazingly safe way to travel but people still worry far more about plane crashes than car crashes.

People are calling the release of radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan a "catastrophe". Is this justified?

This is indeed a really serious event, but it has to be put in the context of the earthquake and tsunami which led to it and which has been the direct cause of massive suffering, which is still continuing. Obviously there are threats from the nuclear power station, but they are limited and they are quantifiable.

It's not a Chernobyl. Though the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl was a terrible event for many people, the lasting effects were nothing like as bad as expected.

Many governments are suspending their nuclear power projects in response to the events in Japan. Is it sensible to make these decisions in the aftermath of a disaster?

This is a tricky one. The Fukushima power station was hit by an unimaginable force. One is always surprised by these events, but one of the things you learn when you study risk is that surprising things happen. We have to expect the unexpected.

Of course, political decisions are made on the basis of how people feel. That's a politician's job perhaps, not just to respond to objective measurements of risk but to what people want. But it's good to try and keep a perspective on what the risks are for all viable alternatives, including the risk of relying on unsavoury regimes for our sources of energy.

Does this mean that fear itself is part of the problem?

One of the biggest risks from radiation is the psychological damage it causes. After events like the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, and the Chernobyl accident, there was substantial psychological trauma, even among people who were not affected, because there is such a fear of radiation and its long-term consequences.

Would you be happy to live next to a nuclear power station?

I have been trying to think how I would feel if I were in Japan right now. Would I be rushing out of Tokyo or not? I would love to say that I would be a plucky Brit and sit there with my stiff upper lip. But it is very difficult to know how you would react, especially as people respond to the feelings of those around them. But yes, I would be happy to live next to a nuclear power station, if only they weren't such big ugly things.

NUCLEAR ENERGY SAVE EARTH

How Nuclear Energy Helps Globally??

In our atmosphere today,In the Earth’s atmosphere, the warming effect of “greenhouse gases” is an

undisputed phenomenon. Without it the globe would be covered in ice. For

thousand of years, a fairly constant level of greenhouse gases created the

moderate environment in which civilization evolved. Over one third of human

induced greenhouse gases come from the burning of fossil fuel to generate

electricity, run factories, power vehicles and heat homes. In the next 50 years,

the global population will use more energy than the total consumed in all

previous history. Humanity faces a future of radical change- either in the way we

produce energy or in the health of our planet. Fossil resources- coal, oil and

natural gas- are being consumed so fast as to be largely exhausted during the

21st Century. Nuclear Power Plants do not emit greenhouse gases. New reactor design,

radiation safety and transportation and improved, more efficient mining, is placing

nuclear energy back in the scene.

GLOBAL POPULATION GROWING FAST!!

We live in a world that is just beginning to consume energy; China and India are

wining to Europe and America in the race of for “per capita” energy consumption.

Of today’s 6 and a half billion people, they represent about one third of the global

population. In the next 50 years – as world population expands to 9 billions

today’s vast unmet human needs could multiply severely. According to studies

and projections made by International Organizations, humanity will consume

more energy than any record in previous history. Economic development is

imperative not only to alleviate human misery but also to create conditions

necessary to stabilize global population. In much of the developing world a

surging drive to meet these needs is generating an enormous rise in the use of

energy. By 2050, global energy consumption will double.

Humanity cannot go backwards. A burgeoning world population will require vast

amount of energy to provide fresh water, energize factories, homes and

transportation and support infrastructures for nutrition, education and health care.

Meeting these needs will require energy from “all sources”. But the world’s

energy “mix” must quickly evolve- away from indiscriminate use of fossil fuel.

Reducing consumption of fossil fuel will preserve the environment- and

irreplaceable resources- for future generations. Conceivably, tomorrow’s megacities

could function with few direct emissions- by using electricity, electrically

charged batteries and fuel cells using electrically hydrogen. But electricity is only

a way of distributing energy. The key is to generate vastly expanded supplies of

electricity cleanly.

Nuclear power- like wind, hydro and solar energy- can generate electricity with

no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. The critical difference is

that Nuclear Energy is the only option to produce vastly expanded supplies of

clean electricity on a global scale. Far from being competitors, nuclear power and

new renewables’ are urgently needed as partners if the world’s immense clean

energy needs are to be met. Keep in mind that the sun not always shines and

that wind not always blows.

Electricity is of paramount importance for economic development. Industries and

all world communities require electricity for daily needs. On the other hand,

hydroelectric energy requires of the flooding of vast extensions of land and the

displacement of large amount of people; the best places are already taken.

These hydroelectric also depend on climate changes: a couple of years of

drought and the energetic matrix based on water would be unbalanced.

START ON NUCLEAR ENERGY NOW TO SAVE EARTH!!

Nuclear Energy Safety Video

This video demonstrates how Nuclear Energy is Safe and How Vital it is to our Planet. Up to date, no nuclear explosion has occurred due to a nuclear power plant. In fact, all related incidents have been due to human error. Hence, watch this video to see how this energy can be harnessed in a safe manner.

Why Do We Need Nuclear Energy in Our Modern World?

          

Living in the 21st century definitely has its advantages. Definitely life is easier as we can live in a more controlled environment since everything from air conditioning to freeze dried food is the result of modern life. We can also communicate instantly and live in luxury due to modern technology. However, many people don't realize the importance of electricity in our world. Almost everything that we do in our daily activities depends on electricity. Thus, without electricity, none of the modern luxuries such as air conditioning, internet, TV, modern banking as well all other necessities that we enjoy today would be possible. In fact, without electricity, world economy would undergo catastrophic break down, as production of goods will stop completely. Moreover, even basic necessities like internet would become impossible to utilize without sufficient amounts of electricity. However, the problem is the fact that electricity production depends on burning of fossil fuels. Almost 74 percent of the electricity production in the world is created through the burning of coal, oil or natural gas.

In order to produce electricity, fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas are first burned in a combustion chamber in a thermal power plant. The burning process of the fossil fuels releases a lot of heat, which is then transferred to the primary coolant. Thus, the coolant takes the heat away from the combustion chamber and then the coolant is passed through a heat exchanger in order to create steam. Usually, water is utilized as a coolant in order to make the power plant system work easily and efficiently. Once steam is created from the heat, it is passed through a turbine. As the steam creates momentum on the blades of the turbine, electricity is created and this electricity is passed on to the general electrical distribution grid. The leftover steam is then cycled through a secondary cooling cycle and a condenser, which cools down the steam to turn it back into cold water again. Cooling tower is also used to release heat as well as combustion byproducts.

The main problem with this process is that great amounts of carbon dioxide from the burning process is released into the atmosphere. This is a major problem, since large amounts of carbon dioxide increase the carbon footprint and more importantly, it is one of the main causes of global warming. This has become a very important issue, as global warming is not only endangering us today, but it is also endangering our future generations as well. Moreover, there are several studies to suggest that thermal power plants which burn oil and coal are one of the major causes of carbon dioxide emission in our world. Moreover, large amounts of sulfur as well as other harmful pollution chemicals are also emitted into the environment. Of course, another major issue is the fact that fossil fuels are destined to run out in the next 40 to 60 years. Thus, for the reasons of preventing global warming, as well as for allowing the production of electricity to continue even when fossil fuels run out; nuclear energy production seems to be the only viable answer. Otherwise, either we will have a world overrun by global warming or we will have a world without electricity when we run out of usable fossil fuels.

Even though renewable energy options such as solar power and wind energy exist, they account for only a small fraction for the world's energy needs. As stated above, electricity is something that is vital to the survival of our civilization. With nuclear energy, it is possible to create enough electricity to meet the world's energy demands.

In essence, a nuclear power plant uses the same principle of electric production as thermal power plants; but instead of burning fossil fuel, heat is generated from the fission reaction itself. Due to this, there is no burning process involved and due to this, no carbon dioxide or sulfur products are vented into the atmosphere. Instead the only venting that takes place is water vapor. Thus, from an environmental protection point of view, using nuclear power plants will actually lowers our carbon footprint in the atmosphere. Moreover, the dependency on fossil fuels will decrease and electricity can be created cheaply and efficiently.

Of course, nuclear energy also comes with several problems, as it is a special process that needs to be monitored and also controlled very carefully. If monitoring is not done, it can lead to several incidents such as the Chernobyl incident. However, it has been a proven fact that it has been almost always human error which have lead to nuclear incidents. In fact it was a gross human error and management negligence that lead to the Chernobyl incident. Thus, it needs to be understood that if it is used properly, nuclear energy can be harnessed to create almost limitless amounts of electricity to meet the global demand. Another important point that needs to be remembered is the fact that there is no possibility of a nuclear explosion ever occurring in a nuclear power plant due to its nuclear dynamics. Up to now, none of the nuclear incidents that took place had any nuclear explosion occurring. Usually, most of the nuclear incidents that took place was a steam explosion or some other similar calamity.

However, proper precautions will need to be taken and newer technologies will need to be implemented, so that public safety can be maintained. Unlike the technology of the 1960's, the newer technology involving nuclear power plants involve better safety measures such as passive, inherent safety measures. Hence, even with a natural disaster like Fukuskima incident, the nuclear power plant will safely shut itself off and cool off without any external help. Especially, gas cooled nuclear reactors are very promising in this regard. Thus, keeping these in mind, a new public perspective needs to be brought forward that nuclear energy can meet our electricity demands in safe and reliable manner, especially if it is implemented properly. Of course, various school programs need to be implemented so that proper understanding of nuclear energy can be gained at a relatively young age. If used properly, nuclear energy can be a solution to our modern needs, but this level of understanding must be present.

Should I worry about nuclear power?

Nuclear power stations are not atomic bombs waiting to go off, and are not prone to "meltdowns".
There is a lot of U-238 in there slowing things down - you need a high concentration of U-235 to make a bomb.
If the reactor gets too hot, the control rods are lowered in and it cools down.
If that doesn't work, there are sets of emergency control rods that automatically drop in and shut the reactor down completely.


With reactors in the UK, the computers will shut the reactor down automatically if things get out of hand (unless engineers intervene within a set time). At Chernobyl, in Ukraine, they did not have such a sophisticated system, indeed they over-rode the automatic systems they did have. When they got it wrong, the reactor overheated, melted and the excessive pressure blew out the containment system before they could stop it. Then, with the coolant gone, there was a serious fire. Many people lost their lives trying to sort out the mess. A quick web search will tell you more about this, including companies who operate tours of the site.


If something does go wrong in a really big way, much of the world could be affected - some radioactive dust (called "fallout") from the Chernobyl accident landed in the UK. That's travelled a long way.
With AGR reactors (the most common type in Britain) there are additional safety systems, such as flooding the reactor with nitrogen and/or water to absorb all the neutrons - although the water option means that reactor can never be restarted.
So should I worry? I think the answer is "so long as things are being done properly, I don't need to worry too much. The bit that does worry me is the small amount of high-level nuclear waste from power stations. Although there's not much of it, it's very, very dangerous and we have no way to deal with it apart from bury it and wait for a few thousand years...


There are many different opinions about nuclear power, and it strikes me that most of the people who protest about it don't have any idea what they're talking about. But please make up your own mind, find out as much as you can, and if someone tries to get you to believe their opinion ask yourself "what's in it for them?"

HANDLING NUCLEAR WASTE????

People are wondering where the nuclear waste go or how to dispose of them properly so that it is perfectly safe for us the living creature and the environment?

So, this time, we'll discuss mainly on disposing the nuclear waste correctly.

Nuclear waste generated from a nuclear reactor is classified as HIGH LEVEL WASTE, and there are proper procedure to dispose them .About 27 tonnes of used fuel or three cubic metres per year of vitrified waste for a typical large nuclear reactor.They can be effectively and economically isolated, and have been handled and stored safely since the production of nuclear power began.Storage is mostly in ponds at reactor sites, or occasionally at a central site.  Some 90% of the world's used fuel is stored thus and some of it has been there for decades.  The ponds are usually about seven metres deep, to allow three metres of water over the used fuel to fully shield it.  The water also cools it.  Some storage is in dry casks or vaults with air circulation and the fuel is surrounded by concrete.

If the used fuel is reprocessed, as it is in UK, French, Japanese, and German reactors, HLW comprises highly-radioactive fission products and some transuranic elements with long-lived radioactivity. 

These are separated from the used fuel, enabling the uranium and plutonium to be recycled. The remaining HLW generates a considerable amount of heat and requires cooling. It is vitrified into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, encapsulated into heavy stainless steel cylinders about 1.3 metres high, and stored for eventual disposal deep underground. This material has no conceivable future use and is unequivocally waste. The hulls and end-fittings of the reprocessed fuel assemblies are compacted, to reduce volume, and usually incorporated into cement prior to disposal as ILW.

But if used reactor fuel is not reprocessed, it will still contain all the highly radioactive isotopes, and the entire fuel assembly is treated as HLW for direct disposal. As HLW, it generates considerable heat and requires cooling. However, since it largely consists of uranium (with a little plutonium), it represents a potentially valuable resource. Hence there is an increasing reluctance to dispose of it irretrievably.Either way, after 40-50 years, the heat and radioactivity have fallen to one-thousandth of the level at removal. This provides a technical incentive to delay further action with HLW until the radioactivity has reduced to about 0.1% of its original level.

After being stored for approximately 40 years, the used fuel assemblies are ready for encapsulation or loading into casks ready for indefinite storage or permanent disposal underground.

NORM

NORM, or naturally ocurring radioactive material, is found almost everywhere. It is found in the air and in soil, and even in radioactive potassium in our own bodies. It is found in public water supplies and foods such as brazil nuts, cereal, and peanut butter.
Many people are afraid of living near nuclear power plants. People are unaware that radioactivity is natural. Foods that are rich in potassium, like fruits, beans and lentils, vegetables, and some whole grains, expose us to radiation as potassium decays. Less than 1/4 % of the potassium in foods we eat is radioactive. The food we eat exposes us to about 40 millirem of radiation each year. An x-ray technician works with x-ray machines everyday, resulting in exposure to about 500 millirem of radiation each year.


Smoking 1 and a half packs a day can result in exposure to 1300 millirem of radiation per year. Tobacco has a high concentration of polonium-210, a naturally occuring radioactive element. Flying in an airplane reduces the thickness of atmosphere shielding you from cosmic sources of radiation, including our sun and cosmic rays. You receive about 1 millirem of radiation for each 1000 miles you fly. A member of an airline crew receives about 200 millirem a year on the job.


If you live near a nuclear power plant, you'll receive about 0.009 millirem of radiation each year. If you are a nuclear power plant worker, you receive 180 millirem a year. The maximum recommended dose per person per year is 5000 millirem.

The Power of the Atom

Nuclear Power's Remarkable Energy

Nuclear energy may be the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century. It is based on physics of the atom, which is the reason a large portion of the public does not yet understand it. It is difficult to grasp how an energy source can be so powerful and still have so little impact on the environment. Yet if we were to describe the ideal energy source - low fuel requirements, no carbon emissions or other pollution, little land requirements, low cost, and large amounts of power - it would be nuclear energy.


Splitting a uranium atom yields two million times as much energy as breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond in coal. That means a few uranium fuel rods can produce the same amount of power as whole trainloads of coal. In fact, the traces of uranium in coal is about 0.03 percent of its weight which actually contoin more potential energy than the coal itself. Instead of burning coal, it would be much better to mine it for uranium.


Low energy density is an even bigger problem when we come to renewable resources. What we are calling renewables are actually energy flows in nature, with far lower density than fossil fuels. Biofuels, for example, have about 1/4 to 1/10 the density of coal because they are young coal that has not compacted and ages in the earth for millions of years. Wind and solar are limited by the density of air and energy content of sunlight, which are sunstantial over vast areas, but are relatively weak on the scales of traditional energy sources. Only geothermal energy has a high sensity and that is because it is actually nuclear power emanating from deep within the Earth. The breakdown of uranium and thorium deep in the Earth, combined with the pressure of gravity, raises the temperature at the center of the Earth to 7000 degrees Celcius, hotter than the surface of the sun. When we build a nuclear plant, we are simply borrowing some of the Earth'd natural heat and putting it in the controlles environment of a reactor. Nuclear power and geothermal power are essentially the same thing.


Energy density becomes hugely important when it comes to mining and transporting these fuels and disposing of their waste. A 1000 megawatt coal plant is fed by a 110 car freight train arriving every 30 hours, 300 times a year. In one year the plant will throw 10 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Whole mountainsare being decapitated and mile wide holes dug in the ground in Wyoming or Montana to mine this coal. When sulfur and ash are removed by scrubbing, large reservoirs of sludge are produces that are a disposal problem in themselves. Yet this effort to clean coal of its pollutants will pale beside any attempt to capture carbon dioxide, the prime waste product and store it in underground caverns. Carbon capture and sequestration will be the biggest engineering job ever attempted on the planet.



 Now compare this to nuclear technology. A nuclear reactor is refueled when a half dozen tractor trailers arrive at the plant carrying new fuel rods once every 18-24 months. The rods are only mildly radioactive and can be safely handled with gloves. They will sit in the reactor for five years, producing no pollution or carbon emissions. When removed five years later, they will look exactly the same, just like a bundle of metal pipes except now they are radioactive. A few feet of lead or water blocks all radiation, however, so they can be stored safely in pools or lead lined casks. Within three years they will lose half their radioactivity. After that, nuclear reprocessing can recycle mosy of the soent fuel rod into new fuel. Only 3 percent of the energy potential of a fuel rod is used in its first run-through.


It is this off the scale energy potential thats makes nuclear energy so hard ti understand and the subjects of so much fearful speculation. When the uranium atom splits in 2, about one billionth of its mass is completely transformed into energy. Yet because of Einstein's famous equation, E = mc², this tiny amount of matter converts into one quadrillion times as much enegy. A uranium fuel pellet the size of a thimble contains the energy equivalent of 1780 pounds of coal, 149 gallons of oil, or 17000 cubic feet of natural gas. After a fuel assembly completes its five year cycle, only six ounces of the mass will have been completely converted into energy. Yet this energy will be enough to power a city teh size of San Franvisco for those five years.

Comparison to Fossil Fuels and Renewables 

Wind, solar and other renewables have energy densities that are incomparably smaller. Therefore their land requirements are stupendously larger. While a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor is powered by a fuel assembly that would fit into an average sized living room, a 1000 megawatt hydroelectric plant requires a reservoir 250 miles square. This is the reason environmentalists began opposing dam construction in the 1960s because they took up so much space. Wind has less density and wind farms will have to cover 270 square miles to generate the same 1000 MW of reliable electricity. Burning biomass to generate electricity will require about 800000 acres of continuosly farmed grassland or forest to generate 1000MW. And any effort to harness the tides or ocean currents will face the same limitations. About 25 miles of coastline will be required to produce 1000MW.

 Solar energy radiates from nuclear reactions in the Sun, but they occur 90 million miles away and are very dilute by the time they reach the Earth. Solar energy gives us about 400 watts per square meter. Since the best technologies can convert only 25% of this to electricity, solar can give us one 100 watt bulb per average card table. This is a significant amont of energy. We should do everything we can to take advatage of it. Covering every square inch of the rooftop in the country with solar collectors could probably provide enough power to run our indoor lighting and some household appliances during daylight hours.


Solar electricity's great advantages is that it peaks during the hottest hours of the day and on summer afternoons, when customers are running their air conditioning and utility companies are straining to meet peak demand for power. Solar electricity would be ideal for meeting peak demand, now handled mostly by expensive gas turbines.


The problem arise when overenthusiastic supporters of solar and wind energy argue it can be used to meet nase loads. Solar and wind electricity is ill suited to provide base load power, which must run uninterrupted night and day as electricity from solar and wind can't be stored still. Without some way to stored large amounts of electricity, there's no way to have more than 25% of our electricity being provided by solar and wind.


For all these reasons, reducing carbon emissions will mean building nuclear plants to provide base load electricity until carbon capture and sequestration, or some other technology can be developed to capture emissions from coal plants or until some unforeseen technological development makes it possible to use sun and wind for base load. Right now these alternatives are too uncertain and expensive. Only nuclear power offers the potential for reducing our impact on the environment, resolving the problem of climate cahnge while producing large amounts of cheap, clean and reliable electricity. The potential is there. We only have to address the inreasonable fears surrounding nuclear energy.