TNB is looking to start 1st nuclear plant by 2025

JOHOR BARU: The nation’s largest power supplier Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) is looking towards starting its first nuclear power plant by 2025 once it gets the go-ahead from the government.

TNB nuclear energy head Dr Mohd Zamzam Jaafar said that the country had to prepare for a nuclear future as present energy sources faced uncertainty amid volatile prices and scant resources.

He noted that by 2019, current gas resources would have dwindled and the country would need to double its import of coal, making nuclear energy technology the best option forward.

To ensure reliable and reasonably priced electricity, the proven base-load nuclear option must not be precluded.

“We will be working with the Korea Electric Power Corporation on a nuclear pre-feasibility study,” he said adding that other countries which had forged ahead with nuclear power plants included France, South Korea, Canada, Germany, US, Japan and China.

Although possible locations for the nuclear power plants had yet to be disclosed, Dr Zamzam said that it was possible the country might have four plants, similar to nuclear energy driven countries like South Korea.

Dr Zamzam added that the cost of a nuclear plant will vary according to the design with the Chinese design for a 1,000 MW plant costing US2billion (RM6.9bil), while a Russian design would cost 2 billion Euros (RM9.9bil). A US design would cost approximately US$4bil (RM13.9bil).

The cost for research and feasibility could be around RM2mil, he said.

He was speaking at a media briefing on conventional and alternative energy technologies in Terengganu recently.

At present, TNB’s power generation is a mix of gas at 50 percent, coal at 35 percent, hydro at 14 percent and oil, more than one percent.

Dr Zamzam noted that nuclear power was also more competitively priced in terms of electricity compared to other energy resources and the threat of radiation risk was minimal.

Nuclear power plants have low radiation exposure, he said adding that most plants had a target radiation level of 0.05 millisievert (mSv) per year, the same radiation a person would be exposed to in a single x-ray mass examination.

Dr Zamzam also said nuclear power plants use less land compared to hydro plants and were more stable compared to alternatives like wind and solar energy.

He noted that with uncertain future supply and volatile fossil fuel prices, nuclear power could be viewed as a proven insurance base load power generation option, resulting in a more stable electricity tariff.

source:the star news paper

The sixth fuel: Nuclear energy for Malaysia

Article Highlights

• Even after the Fukushima accident, Malaysia's current government leaders are much more receptive to nuclear energy than their predecessors were.
• There is no question that Malaysia needs new sources of energy to meet future demands without relying heavily on imports.
• We believe that Malaysia can meet its future energy needs with renewable energy sources instead of nuclear power.

Should Malaysia go nuclear to meet its future energy demands? 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.

A history of successful energy policy. 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.

The need for 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.

The dangers of a nuclear Malaysia. Even before the Fukushima accident, anti-nuclear lobbyists in Malaysia raised concerns about the potential for an accident like the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Going nuclear is highly risky for any country, and would be especially problematic for Malaysia -- a nation less capable of coping with a nuclear accident than countries such as Japan and Russia.

A better choice. Despite all the criticisms and concerns expressed by the general public as well as by activist groups, the Malaysian government has not been able to provide any assurances that nuclear power will be safe and environmentally friendly. If government officials persist in going nuclear without providing satisfactory assurances, they will likely face unwelcome political repercussions.

Malaysia is also exploring other renewable energy options including biomass, biogas, mini-hydropower systems, solar photovoltaics, and generating electricity from municipal waste. The total generating potential for these renewable resources is more than 9,000 megawatts.

The problem with nuclear energy, compared with all other sources of electricity, is that when things do go wrong, the consequences are far, far worse. Fortunately, Malaysia has safer choices available. By focusing on improvements in efficiency -- and investing in renewable energy sources such as in solar, wind, and hydropower -- Malaysia can continue to meet its growing energy demands well into the future.

reference: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/the-sixth-fuel-nuclear-energy-malaysia

Advantage And Disadvantages Of Nuclear Power Plant

What are the Advantages of Nuclear Energy?

• Nuclear reactions release a million times more energy, as compared to hydro or wind energy. Hence, a large amount of electricity can be generated. 
• The biggest advantage of nuclear energy is that there is no release of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, chlorofluorocarbon) during nuclear reaction. The greenhouse gases are a major threat in the current scenario, as they cause global warming and climate change. As there is no emission of these gases during nuclear reaction, there is very little effect on the environment.
• Nuclear reactors make use of uranium as fuel. Fission reaction of a small amount of uranium generates large amount of energy. Currently, the high reserves of uranium found on Earth, are expected to last for another 100 years.
• High amount of energy can be generated from a single nuclear power plant. Also,nuclear fuel is inexpensive and easier to transport.

What are the Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy?

• Nuclear energy can be used for production and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons make use of fission, fusion or combination of both reactions for destructive purposes. They are a major threat to the world as they can cause a large-scale devastation.
• Requires large capital cost. Around 15-20 years are required to develop a single plant. Hence, it is not very feasible to build a nuclear power plant. The nuclear reactors will work only as long as uranium is available. Its extinction can again result in a grave problem.
• The waste produced after fission reactions contains unstable elements and is highly radioactive. It is very dangerous to the environment as well as human health, and remains for thousands of years. It needs professional handling and should be kept isolated from the living environment. The radioactivity of these elements reduces over a period of time, after decaying. Hence, they have to be carefully stored. It is very difficult to store radioactive elements for a long period.

The Chernobyl disaster that occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 in Ukraine, was the worst nuclear power plant disaster. One of the nuclear reactors of the plant exploded,releasing high amount of radiation in the environment. It resulted in thousands of casualties, mostly due to exposure to harmful radiation. One cannot deny the possibility of repetition of such disasters in future.

How Nuclear Energy Work

Nuclear Fission refers to either a nuclear reaction or a radioactive decay process in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts (lighter nuclei), often producing free neutrons and photons (in the form of gamma rays), and releasing a very large amount of energy, even by the energetic standards of radioactive decay. The two nuclei produced are most often of comparable but slightly different sizes, typically with a mass ratio of products of about 3 to 2, for common fissile isotopes.Most fissions are binary fissions (producing two charged fragments), but occasionally (2 to 4 times per 1000 events), three positively charged fragments are produced, in a ternary fission. The smallest of these fragments in ternary processes ranges in size from a proton to an argon nucleus.

Fission of heavy elements is an exothermic reaction which can release large amounts of energy both as electromagnetic radiation and as kinetic energy of the fragments (heating the bulk material where fission takes place). In order for fission to produce energy, the total binding energy of the resulting elements must be greater than that of the starting element. Fission is a form of nuclear transmutation because the resulting fragments are not the same element as the original atom.

 Splitting the Uranium Atom: 

Uranium is the principle element used in nuclear reactors and in certain types of atomic bombs. The specific isotope used is U-235. When a stray neutron strikes a U-235 nucleus, it is at first absorbed into it. This creates U-236. U-236 is unstable and this causes the atom to fission. The fissioning of U-236 can produce over twenty different products. However, the products' masses always add up to 236. The following two equations are examples of the different products that can be produced when U-235 fissions:

U-235 + 1 neutron 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY 

U-235 + 1 neutron 2 neutrons + 92Sr + 140Xe + ENERGY

In each of the above reactions, 1 neutron splits the atom. When the atom is split, 1 additional neutron is released. This is how a chain reaction works. If more U-235 is present, those 2 neutrons can cause 2 more atoms to split. Each of those atoms releases 1 more neutron bringing the total neutrons to 4. Those 4 neutrons can strike 4 more U-235 atoms, releasing even more neutrons. The chain reaction will continue until all the U-235 fuel is spent. This is roughly what happens in an atomic bomb. It is called a runaway nuclear reaction.

In this animation, one can see how the fissioning of each U-235 atom (red) releases more neutrons (green) that go on to fission more U-235 atoms, thus producing a chain reaction.

Where Does the Energy Come From?

In the section above we described what happens when an U-235 atom fissions. We gave the following equation as an example:

U-235 + 1 neutron 2 neutrons + 92Kr + 142Ba + ENERGY

You might have been wondering, "Where does the energy come from?". The mass seems to be the same on both sides of the reaction:

235 + 1 = 2 + 92 + 142 = 236 = U-236

reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission

                http://reactor.engr.wisc.edu/tour/fission.htm

IAEA Issues Guidelines For Lynas

KUANTAN, Nov 30 (Bernama) - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued guidelines to be adhered to by Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to enable the plant to process rare earth. International Trade and Industry Ministry secretary-general Datuk Dr Rebecca Fatima Sta Maria said the guidelines are to ensure the health and safety of workers and residents in the vicinity before the plant operates.

"I also wish to clarify that Lynas' application to start operation is being studied by our supervising officers in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." Sta Maria said this after visiting the plant site accompanied by Atomic Energy Licensing Board director-general Datuk Dr Raja Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan and Lynas Malaysia managing director Datuk Mashal Ahmad here Wednesday.

She dismissed claims that the plant at Gebeng industrial area would start pre-operation in January next year as mere rumours. Meanwhile, Raja Abdul Aziz said that Lynas has sent documents when applying for pre-operational licence four weeks ago and it is being studied by the appointed panel before a decision is made seven months later. He said it is to ensure that the three rare earth materials processed by the plant do not cause radiation to the public.

" Two local scientists including nuclear specialist had confirmed that chemical

plant project, Lynas in Gebeng, Kuantan is safe. "

reference:  http://www.hmetro.com.my/articles/2pakarsahkanselamat/Article/

                http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=630928

DID YOU KNOW

One fuel pellet the size of a pencil's eraser can produces about the same amount of energy as burning 1 ton of coal, 150 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

Industrial Talk by Adjunt Professor, Dato’ Ir. Dr. Lee Yee Cheong on "Rare Earth Industries: Moving Malaysia's Economy Forward".

Date: 9 March 2012 (Friday)

Time: 3 - 5 pm

Venue: Main Lecture Theatre (DK1), COIT, UNITEN

Academician Dato’ Ir. Dr. Lee Yee Cheong, DPMP, KMN, AO, F.A.Sc. studied in the University of Adelaide under the Colombo Plan, graduating with first class honours degree of B.E.(Electrical) in 1961. He served with LLN (until 1980) and Ewbank Preece (until 2002). He is the Chairman of ISTIC UNESCO, Chairman of IEPRe UNITEN and an Adjunct Professor for the Department of Electrical Power Engineering of UNITEN. He was an Advisor to the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Malaysia, a Director of UMW Holdings Bhd and Commissioner of Energy Commission Malaysia .

NUCLEAR SURVEY RESULT

A survey was posted at ours facebook to know how far the public accept nuclear as a source of energy. Ten questions were set for this survey.


Q1) Data had been collected from 10 respondents. 50% from the respondents do support nuclear and about  50% says they do not agree with nuclear.

Q2) in this part the question is multiple answer so they can choose more than 1 answers:
70% said the main concern about nuclear power is radioactive, 60% said safety,50% said environment,the last  40% is from the waste of the nuclear.

Q3)We could see that most of the respondent are more concern on radioactive could make people fall to sick if the nuclear power plant as a premier source

Q4) base on the survey most of the respondent said that not safe at all if nuclear power plant are build near to residential area .

Q5 and Q6 is about the history of nuclear power plant incident and 70% of the respondent agree that the incident can be avoid if their follow all the procedure of safety.

Q7 until Q10 we asked the respondent if nuclear power is feasible in Malaysia.Most of them agree to have nuclear power plant in Malaysia provided that Malaysia has got they very own expertise and the government  must educate the public if they want to build nuclear power plant by education,also by using media electronics as a medium to educate the public.

survey template :Click here to take survey

WHY LYNAS CHOOSE MALAYSIA??

Lynas Corporation, Ltd. is an Australian rare earths mining company, listed on the Australian Securities Exchange as a S&P/ASX 200 company. It has two major operations: a mining and concentration plant at Mount Weld, Western Australia, and a refining facility now under construction at Kuantan, Malaysia 

Malaysia’s proximity to market, access to high quality chemicals, utilities and engineering skills’ coupled with Its transparent regulatory framework make it an ideal location

- Excellent Industrial Infrastructure
Unlike Malaysia, Australia lacks many benefits of comprehensive industrial infrastructure all in a single location i.e. industrial land, plentiful water supplies, natural gas pipelines, stable electricity, and existing manufacturers of chemical reagents used by the LAMP


- Excellent Knowledge Infrastructure
Large chemical industry on Malaysia’s east coast allows Lynas to tap into the local expertise for the 350 high skilled jobs created in LAMP for Malaysian employees. These include chemical engineers, trade skills and service industries that are already readily available on the east coast.


- Excellent Government Infrastructure
Malaysia has clear legal framework and regulations, and Lynas is in line with government’s goals to attract foreign direct investment, to bring higher technology industries to Malaysia to move forward with the Economic Transformation goals of the country.

WHAT IS RARE EARTHS?

1) Where do they come from?

Rare Earths are not found as free metals in the earth’s crust, rather within a mixed ‘cocktail’ of Rare Earth elements that need to be separated for their individual or combined commercial use. Despite their name, Rare Earths are relatively abundant in the earths crust, however are often of low quality and rarely presented in economic concentration.

China currently supplies approximately 95% of the global Rare Earths market. More than 70% of the supply of light Rare Earths are supplied from one mine in China. Mt Weld, with its very high grade contains light Rare Earths and is also high in Europium, a heavy Rare Earth.

2) What are they?
Rare Earths are a moderately abundant group of 15 metallic elements known as the Lanthanide series (atomic numbers 57 through to 71) plus Yttrium (39). Although Scandium (atomic number 21) is not a Rare Earth element, it is commonly included with the Lanthanides because of its similar properties.

The 15 lanthanides are represented by the single square of lanthanum in the main part of the periodic table and listed in a separate sub group below the main groupings.

They range in crustal abundance from cerium, the most abundant, at 60 parts per million, which is in fact more abundant than nickel or copper, to thulium and lutetium, the least abundant Rare Earth element at about 0.5 parts per million.

WHAT DO THEY DO?

1) Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Global warming due to green house gas emissions is a concern for us all. Rare Earths already play a vital role in the reduction of green house gas emissions.

Many scientists believe that global warming is caused by a human-driven increase in greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. Our society is becoming more aware of the part we have to play in addressing global warming. Governments of today are now legislating higher environmental and lower emission standards in both domestic and industrial settings.Rare Earths are playing a pivotal role in greenhouse gas reduction through their unique application in automotive catalytic converters, hybrid vehicles, and energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs.

2) Enabling Digital Technology

The digital era is gathering pace; broadband access, digital television, digital cameras, and digital music are around us at home and on the move – Rare Earths are enablers of this technology and its miniaturisation.

New materials and novel applications of them enable companies to produce more efficient, higher performance materials which meet the demand for faster, smaller and lighter products.

3) Improving Energy Efficiency

Increased population and economic growth leads to greater demand of the world’s energy, which means increased use of our limited fossil fuel reserves. Rare Earths are already playing a vital role in conservation of these reserves, and are likely to play an even larger role in taking us forward to the hydrogen economy.

The world’s fossil fuels are limited, however with the billions of dollars invested in the global oil and gas infrastructure it is important we use these reserves efficiently.

Rare Earths are supporting the uptake of energy efficient initiatives through their unique physical and chemical properties, which allow them to; protect the environment by lowering energy consumption; and improve lifestyles through energy efficient alternatives that save money without sacrificing comfort and reliability.

WHAT ARE THEIR PRICES?

The first point to note about Rare Earths prices is that there is significant variance in the relative market value for selected Rare Earths oxides. Secondly, the price of Rare Earths depends on the purity level, which is largely set by the specifications for each application.

The table below shows the average annual price for a 'standard 99% purity of individual elements and for the generic composite of Rare earths equivalent to the Rare Earths distribution at Mt Weld. Prices are quoted in US$/kg on an FOB China basis. Note that higher purity oxides and other value added properties will attract higher prices than those shown.

FOB China Prices

   Source : Metal Pages

Note: Mt Weld distribution totals 98.9%, the balance is made up of Gadolinium, Holmium, Erbium and Yttrium oxides. Regular pricing information is not available for these metals.

The table below shows the domestic Chinese price (the price inside China) for Rare Earths in US$/kg; the domestic price is related to the FOB price and can be calculated by taking FOB price less VAT, less export taxes (which range for 15% to 25%), the export quota cost; there may be some timing differences between the movements of internal and external China prices. The average price shown is based on the Mt Weld distribution.

China Domestic Prices

   Source : Metal Pages

for more info:wikipedia,facebook-lynasmalaysia,

What people really think about nuclear energy???

What Impact has Fukushima had on public opinion?

The Fukushima accident has had an impact on public opinion. However, though it is very difficult to assess this impact in the long-term, it can already be said that the results of opinion polls carried out throughout Europe after the event show that it is very country specific. In some countries, like Germany and Switzerland, opposition to nuclear has risen sharply, while in others where new build plans are under way, like the United Kingdom (UK) or France, a majority of the population still backs the use of nuclear power. The opinion poll carried out by Ipsos MORI in May 2011 shows that in nine (Belgium, France, Germany, UK, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden) out of the 27 Member States less than one fifth of those opposed to nuclear have been influenced by the accident. Furthermore, in a number of countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and France, after a dip just after the accident, public acceptance of nuclear has recovered.

Before the accident occured, public acceptance had been increasing and the latest Eurobarometer on

Radioactive Waste published in July 2008, even showed that there were almost as many citizens in favour

of nuclear energy (44%) as against it (45%).  This was due mainly to the fact that people were more

concerned with climate change and security of supply issues. It also showed a huge gap between views

expressed in countries with an anti-nuclear culture such as Austria, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal, and those

in countries where support for nuclear is strong like Hungary (63%), Sweden (62%), the Czech Republic

(64%) and Lithuania (64%). Moreover, when it is not making headlines, nuclear energy is not people’s main

preoccupation. It is a “back-of-the-mind” issue, which implies that people’s attitudes can change quickly and

are heavily influenced by the way the questions are phrased. 

Despite the accident in Japan, nuclear’s credentials remain unaffected. Nuclear power is a base-load low carbon source of energy and can contribute to the fight against climate change. It is also a competitive

source of energy and can help reduce energy dependency.

Therefore, whatever opinion polls reveal, it is vital that politicians take the lead and implement bold decisions regarding the energy mix. Developments in Finland or the United Kingdom demonstrate that if the political decision to include nuclear in the energy mix is taken and information is communicated in an open, inclusive and democratic way, people tend to become more favourable to nuclear power.

Experienced nuclear countries

In France, UK, Spain, Finland and Sweden nuclear policies are diverse.  Countries such as Finland, UK and France have clearly opted for nuclear power as a means to secure their energy supply and ensure energy independence. Public opinion usually supports nuclear in these countries. Sweden and Spain pursued other options.

France is the world’s largest nuclear power generator on a per capita basis and ranks second in total

installed nuclear capacity behind the United States. France has 58 nuclear reactors that produce 74% of

the total electricity. There is currently one nuclear reactor, a European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), under

construction at Flamanville, which is scheduled to come into operation in 2016 and one reactor planned at

Penly. After Fukushima, the French government reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear new build.

 After the Japanese accident, an opinion poll carried out by BVA/Win-Gallup International revealed that a

majority of citizens are still in favour of nuclear (58%). However, the same poll carried out before Fukushima

found that 66% were favourable to nuclear before Fukushima. So public acceptance has decreased.

France

Explanation:

Public support for nuclear power has always been quite strong in France. The French state is centralised

and the decision in the 1970’s to choose nuclear power in order to reduce energy dependency was applied

to the whole territory. 58 nuclear reactors are operational on French territory, which means that nearly every

French citizen lives close to a nuclear power plant. School and industry trips are organised to visit nuclear

power plants (NPPs). People are, therefore, better informed about nuclear power and, consequently, less

resistant to it. 

The government and the nuclear companies (Areva, EDF) have carried out various pro-nuclear campaigns

to foster public acceptance. Furthermore, the nuclear reactors have always been operated safely. Even if

the French still believe that nuclear activities are risky (55% think that the risk of severe nuclear accidents is

high), they do trust national authorities with controlling and ensuring the safe operation of nuclear reactors.

Finland has chosen to expand its nuclear power capacity. Finland has two NPPs, each with two reactors, and in 2010 nuclear energy accounted for 28% of total electricity production. In 2002, the Finnish government gave permission for the building of a new NPP unit, Olkiluoto 3, which will be the fifth reactor in the country and is scheduled to start commercial operation in 2014. In April 2010, the Finnish government gave its “preliminary permission” to the Finnish companies, TVO and Fennovoima, to build two more nuclear reactors (sixth and seventh reactors); a decision that was ratified by the Finnish Parliament in July 2011. Public opinion is in favour of nuclear, since 61% of the Finns polled in the Eurobarometer on Radioactive Waste declared that they were in favour of nuclear energy. 

Explanation

In Finland, the debate on nuclear started in 2001. Consultations took place and the decision to build a new

reactor was taken by the Finnish parliament. Although there was no referendum, citizens were very well

informed about the issue and an open public debate took place. The Finns are pragmatic. that the best solution to address both climate change and security of supply issues (over-dependence upon

Russia) was to use nuclear power. Furthermore, the arguments against nuclear power (i.e. that dismantling

is too expensive and that waste cannot be effectively managed) were proven wrong: the nuclear industry

pays for the dismantling of NPPs at the end of their life-time (enough money has already been set aside)

and a final repository in the Finnish bedrock has been selected in an open and democratic way to dispose of

the waste produced by the reactors already in operation.

The UK has 18 nuclear reactors generating 16% of its electricity. The UK’s nuclear fleet is nearing the end of

its lifetime. Therefore, the UK government has decided to replace the ageing NPPs by a new fleet to ensure

continued security of supply and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 

According to an opinion poll conducted by Ipsos MORI6 and published in December 2010, 70% of UK

citizens supported a balanced energy mix that includes nuclear power. The same opinion poll published in August 2011 shows that this number has slightly decreased to 68%. However, after a dip in July 2011 (from

47% in December 2010 to 36% in July) support for nuclear new build has recovered and is now even higher

(50% in December 2011) than what it was before the accident

Explanation:

Oil reserves are dwindling in the North Sea. As a result, oil prices are rising and the UK’s security of energy supply is being threatened. People consider that nuclear power is a means of addressing this issue. The energy debate that has been going on in the UK since May 2005 has helped inform people about the issue and increase public acceptance. UK citizens are also more concerned with environmental issues and especially  climate change. They are also aware that renewables alone are not sufficient to tackle energy and environmental issues.

CONCLUSION:

It is pointless to oppose nuclear energy and other sources of energy such as renewables. Nuclear must

be part of the energy mix. The nuclear energy expansion will continue to gather momentum if there is the

political will to promote it.

Public opinion evolves quicker than it is usually assumed (e.g.: UK, Finland). Like with many “back-of-the mind”issues, people’s attitudes towards nuclear energy are relatively unfixed and heavily influenced by

recent news and by the way the questions are put. “There is little reason to believe that if the technical,

environmental and economic case for nuclear energy is strong enough, popular opposition would act as an

insuperable barrier.” (Malcolm Grimston, Associate Fellow with the Sustainable Development Programme, Chatham House, London.)

The accident at Fukushima led, understandably, to a temporary decrease in public confidence in nuclear

energy in some countries. This might result in extra short-term costs for new build programmes. However,

public support has generally held up well and these factors should not decisively effect nuclear energy’s contribution to Europe’s energy mix. When it comes to making energy choices, the inescapable benefits of

nuclear energy will continue to speak for themselves.

Governmental campaigns, energy policy reviews and public debates play a major role in shaping public

opinion. Those events relayed via the media are a means of better informing European citizens and information is key to gaining public acceptance. Governments and policymakers should be encouraged to undertake such action.

taken from:foratom.org

Do you know?

Malaysia Nuclear Agency (Nuclear Malaysia) formerly known as Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT) is strategically located near higher learning institutions, besides its close proximity to the Government Administration Centre, Putrajaya, and the Multimedia Super Corridor, Cyberjaya, has stimulated Nuclear Malaysia to meet its aspirations.
The rebranding followed mass restructuring of its organisation departments, human resource, and the re-alignment of its core business towards establishing nuclear power in Malaysia as an alternative form of renewable energy.

more information here: http://www.nuclearmalaysia.gov.my/

Nuclear Power And Public Acceptance

Korea, described by the great Indian poet, Tagore, as the Land of the Morning Calm, is a land blessed with natural beauty and a splendid cultural heritage of 5000 years. Beauty and culture aside, the country is not blessed with natural energy resources. It has only limited coal deposits and the coal is comparatively low grade. In addition, every drop of oil must be imported. Furthermore, because of its geopolitical situation, the country has
long suffered from mightier neighbours. Thus, its history has seen much pain. These past difficulties, coupled with a complete lack of natural energy resources, were reflected in the nation's once backward economic development.

Beginning in the early 1960s, however, the Government executed a series of successful 5-year Economic and Social Development Plans designed to achieve national prosperity. The country's dramatic economic growth over the past 3 decades has been accompanied by rapid electricity demand growth of more than 15% per year, with a clear understanding of nuclear power generation". Responses from local inhabitants who have visited the centre include those saying that  " as long as it is operated safely, the nuclear power plant helps promote the development of the local community". Such comments help to underscore the importance of nuclear activities to further public understanding and acceptance, using an information service centre as a base.
In addition, the APIL guides assist visitors by explaining in plain language the contents of exhibits about nuclear power generation which would otherwise be hard to digest. Also, personal computers are provided to give children an opportunity to learn about energy while  "playing" on the machine. And in the natural forest surrounding the service centre, benches and small lodges are installed to provide visitors a place for refreshment and relaxation. These activities represent an attempt to create the image of  " an open and familiar power station" where visitors can be both informed and amused.

HOW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WORKS??

TWO TYPE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR


1)PWR(pressurize water reactor)

constitute a large majority of all western nuclear power plants and are one of three types of light water reactor (LWR), the other types being boiling water reactors (BWRs) and supercritical water reactors(SCWRs). In a PWR, the primary coolant (water) is pumped under high pressure to the reactor core where it is heated by the energy generated by the fission of atoms. The heated water then flows to a steam generator where it transfers its thermal energy to a secondary system where steam is generated and flows to turbines which, in turn, spins an electric generator. In contrast to a boiling water reactor, pressure in the primary coolant loop prevents the water from boiling within the reactor. All LWRs use ordinary light water as both coolant and neutron moderator.

PWRs were originally designed to serve as nuclear propulsion for nuclear submarines and were used in the original design of the second commercial power plant at Shippingport Atomic Power Station.

PWRs currently operating in the United States are considered Generation II reactors. Russia's VVER reactors are similar to U.S. PWRs. France operates many PWRs to generate the bulk of its electricity.

Two things are characteristic for the pressurized water reactor (PWR) when compared with other reactor types: coolant loop separation from the steam system and pressure inside the primary coolant loop. In a PWR, there are two separate coolant loops (primary and secondary), which are both filled with demineralized/deionized water. A boiling water reactor, by contrast, has only one coolant loop, while more exotic designs such asbreeder reactors use substances other than water for coolant and moderator (e.g. sodium in its liquid state as coolant or graphite as a moderator). The pressure in the primary coolant loop is typically 15–16 megapascals(150–160 bar), which is notably higher than in other nuclear reactors, and nearly twice that of a boiling water reactor (BWR). As an effect of this, only localized boiling occurs and steam will recondense promptly in the bulk fluid. By contrast, in a boiling water reactor the primary coolant is designed to boil

 

                                                      PWR(pressurize water reactor)

2) BWR (Boiling water reactor)

The boiling water reactor (BWR) is a type of light water nuclear reactor used for the generation of electrical power. It is the second most common type of electricity-generating nuclear reactor after the pressurized water reactor (PWR), also a type of light water nuclear reactor. The main difference between a BWR and PWR is that in a BWR, the reactor core heats water, which turns to steam and then drives a steam turbine. In a PWR, the reactor core heats water, which does not boil. This hot water then exchanges heat with a lower pressure water system, which turns to steam and drives the turbine. The BWR was developed by the Idaho National Laboratory and General Electric in the mid-1950s. The main present manufacturer is GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which specializes in the design and construction of this type of reactor.

The BWR uses demineralized water as a coolant and neutron moderator. Heat is produced by nuclear fission in the reactor core, and this causes the cooling water to boil, producing steam. The steam is directly used to drive a turbine, after which it is cooled in a condenser and converted back to liquid water. This water is then returned to the reactor core, completing the loop. The cooling water is maintained at about 75 atm(7.6 MPa, 1000–1100 psi) so that it boils in the core at about 285 °C (550 °F). In comparison, there is no significant boiling allowed in a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) because of the high pressure maintained in its primary loop—approximately 158 atm (16 MPa, 2300 psi). Prior to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the core damage frequency of the reactor was estimated to be between 10−4 and 10−7 (i.e., one core damage accident per every 10,000 to 10,000,000 reactor years).

 

BWR (Boiling water reactor)

In this video,talks about how an nuclear energy works.Then,have briefly explain about how BWR (Boiling water reactor) and PWR(pressurize water reactor),works.....find out how the both reactor works and enjoy it!!!!

References :
YOU TUBE,Pressurized_water_reactor,Boiling_water_reactor(WIKIPEDIA)

COLD COMFORT FOR FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED

Japanese prime minister Yoshihiko Noda announced the status of the reactors during a meeting to discuss progress on the accident, saying that the achievement is considered as achieving 'convergence' with Tepco's roadmap for mitigating the accident. In other words, the recognition of cold shutdown formally brings to a close the 'accident' phase of events at the plant triggered by the 11 March tsunami.

Reactors are usually considered to be in cold shutdown when core temperatures inside the reactor are lower than 100°C. This condition was actually met by all of the Fukushima reactors over two months ago. However, in the case of the damaged reactors, the status also required radioactive releases to be brought under control, with operator Tepco not able to declare cold shutdown until releases were brought to a minimal level.Tepco's roadmap had scheduled the achievement of cold shutdown by the end of 2011, although the stricken units were reported to be close to cold shutdown as long ago as October.

All of the reactors that melted down at the Fukushima nuclear plant are now officially in "cold shutdown".

The truth is, this announcement is far more symbolic than it is practical. For another few years at least, it seems likely that the reactors will have to be actively pumped with water while their radioactive fuel slowly decays away. Meanwhile, residents who once lived near the plant will have to wait while the land around it is decontaminated — a process that involves the laborious removal of millions of cubic meters of topsoil.

REFERENCES

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204336104577096281099680526.html

http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-reaches-cold-shutdown-1.9674

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577033522244084162.

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE

People enjoy the sea by the Kanupp nuclear power plant near Karachi. Photograph: James L Stanfield/National Geographic/Getty

The growth of the nuclear power option is impeded in many countries by public concerns over the safety and environmental consequences of producing electricity by means of nuclear reactors. Historically, the main components of this public concern have been the potential for serious nuclear reactor accidents, the day-to-day operational safety of nuclear reactors, the association in the public's mind between nuclear power and

nuclear weapons, and the question of what to do with radioactive waste. Scientists and engineers working on the technical aspects of nuclear reactor operation and radioactive waste disposal have developed an international consensus that the reactors can be operated safely and the waste can be permanently managed in a manner that protects the environment and public health. However, this view is not necessarily shared by the general public.

This paper examines the nature and causes of public concerns about the development and implementation of the plans and technologies for nuclear power, the need for public understanding and acceptance of such plans and technologies, and the means for potentially achieving it.

National programs for interaction between the nuclear industry and the public vary, and there is no universal formula because social and political systems and levels of existing public understanding and acceptance vary from country to country. However, in some ways, the fundamental principles for achieving public understanding and acceptance of nuclear power may be the same for all technologies and in all countries, since they deal with basic human nature. It is these principles and the experience of applying them to nuclear power that are discussed in this paper.

Why is Public Acceptance Necessary?

Most national programs for nuclear power started with an examination of the economic, technical and scientific questions that must be answered in order to develop confidence that nuclear reactors can be constructed and operated safely and efficiently. There has been active international cooperation in this area, and the scientists and engineers who have addressed these questions have generally concluded that acceptable methods for operating nuclear power stations exist and are widely followed.

However, the same effort has not been devoted to the socio-political problems surrounding nuclear energy, not least because they were unanticipated and are still for the most part not well understood. Public concern has been expressed in most countries about the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, and this public concern has in many cases led to postponement or failure to start or expand nuclear power programs, and in some cases even caused a retrenchment of existing programs.

Therefore, it can be concluded that establishing scientific confidence that nuclear power plants can be safely operated does not by itself eliminate the public concern about them. Many countries, utilities and industry associations have implemented public interaction programs, the intent of which is to develop the degree of public understanding necessary to allow their nuclear power programs to be implemented and to expand as required. Such public interaction programs encompass activities that range from simply giving the public information to involving members of the public or special interest groups in the decision-making process.

References :
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/INSCAP/Pubund.html
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull322/32204791315.pdf