nuclear matters

Media links

2011-09-18T09:22:00.003+08:00

Nuclear technology, or nuclear power to be more exact, has been the subject of concern, both to those who see it as a viable source of energy and to those who see it as a potential menace. Two such debates have taken place recently, one using the television as media, the other using radio as the media. Below are the links, respectively.
With Dr Helen Caldicott of Australia on nuclear addiction in Asia - AlJazeera 101 East programme. The programme starts with a coverage of nuclear power in Indonesia.

With Mr Gurmit Singh of Malaysia on nuclear power programme in Malaysia in Current Affairs, BFM 89.9 fm business radio station. The programme is conducted in BFM89.9 studio in response to the government's decision on nuclear power programme in Malaysia.
Do leave your comments at the linked site or here.

Full acceptance -an impossibility

2011-05-17T19:26:00.001+08:00

After several decades of service in producing electricity nuclear energy is still nowhere near becoming a darling of the public. Public acceptance has become a permanent must do, must have program for nuclear power activities; both in countries with and without nuclear in their electricity mix.
Why, one may wonder, is that so. Has not the contribution be seen, or has it not been made visible enough? Even in countries with nuclear power program, the percentage of opposition are sizeable. We can't expect everyone to be of the same view - hence they will always be the three groups: the yes, no, and may be groups. The question for newcomer countries therefore is: what is the percentage abundance of each of the group in the population thst is safe for making a concrete decision to go nuclear.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.9

Alternative Energy

2010-06-15T06:55:00.001+08:00

Finally, nuclear power is officially mentioned as one of the energy mix for Malaysia in the Tenth Malaysia Plan (10MP), which was presented in the Parliament, Thursday, 10 June. It is interesting to note that, rightly so, it is branded as an 'alternative' source of energy, different from the more frequently mentioned 'renewable' energy.
In fact there ought to be another class, which I call 'replenishable' energy source to which bio fuel, biomass, refused derived fuel (RDF), and other bio-based fuel should be categorized. They are generally regarded as renewable, which in the true sense of the word, they are not. Solar, hydro, wind, wave, and geothermal are truly renewable.

Cultural factors in nuclear power program..

2010-06-08T20:50:00.001+08:00

That nuclear power is a safe and viable energy source seems to gain the agreement of many. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have been mentioned less and less as reasons for not going nuclear. So as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the 65th anniversary is just a month away. At least that part is gaining acceptance. Even current President of the Malaysian Nature Society, that share the same abbreviation MNS with the Malaysian Nuclear Society, admitted that nuclear energy is a way to go. That he said after being briefed and learnt a bit more on the technology he began to see its merit.
The government decision to introduce nuclear power program was debated in the parliament yesterday. The argument against nuclear power this time took a different dimension. The question is can we, Malaysians, handle it since some of the even mundane projects ended up disastrously. Ignoring the success stories like Petronas Twin Towers, KL Tower, SMART Tunnel, Penang bridge, the collapsed stadium in Terengganu was mentioned as a case in point. That I believe, was a case of over generalizing an exception.
Where there is no will, there is no way...

Step ahead for nuclear power program...

2010-05-22T19:20:00.000+08:00

With the 2021 announcement it can be said that part of the battle to convince the government on the need to act now for nuclear power program in Malaysia has been won - if we can call it a 'battle;' afterall who is at war?
It is now time to move ahead. Yes, a lot more news from around the world we want to share and pass on to each other. It is also comforting, especially so in the not so distant past. But now is time to move ahead. Perhaps sharing ideas on the next best action, brainstorming in the web as it were, could be efforts better spent.

Nuclear power for Malaysia..

2010-05-11T06:41:00.002+08:00

The public want to participate, they want to be heard, and they responded. The Letters section of the New Straits Times, Monday, 10 May carries both the pros, cons, and the yes but with conditions opinions. This posting carries the response from the Malaysian Nuclear Society (click image to read).

The Never Ending Debate...

2010-05-06T02:55:00.000+08:00

The announcement by Energy, Green Technology, and Water Minister that Malaysia is earnestly planning to have its first nuclear power plant operating in 2021 (see previous posting), as expected, initiates the usual response from those opposing the idea of having nuclear power plant in the country. This newsreport seems to be the starter.
Normally this type of response is the first that we see or read; as if it is programmed to automatically react, like reflect actions, to that kind of announcement.
Chernobyl has never been left out as an exemplary danger we would be facing. It is pictured as a certainty. That lessons have been learned and nuclear reactors are getting safer do not seem to make sense. That other countries have been operating tens of nuclear reactors safely seems to be conveniently forgotten.
Japan, the country that experienced first hand the effects of the bombs, not once, but twice, is not shying away from it. It is now 30 percent nuclear electricity. The Repbulic of Korea is 40 percent nuclear electricity. The world is 14 percent nuclear electricity. These facts are conveniently forgotten as well.

Nuclear power is green technology...

2010-05-05T07:28:00.002+08:00

There has been nothing much to say other than yes we may, no we might not; hence the relative quiet and abandon of this site, you might say.
But the latest announcement by the Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister that Malaysia will have its first nuclear power plant by 2021 yesterday is interesting. It came from a Green Technology Minister, a tacit recognition that nuclear power is green indeed, and the year is closer than what was orginally floated around, 2025.
Other details such as site, rated power (small, large), type (PWR, BWR, CANDU), and vendor have not yet been announced. Let's wait a bit more...
The news, however, made way to only two local newsprint media, Star Online and Business Times section of the New Strats Time. The news is also carried by a web-based World Nuclear News.

The Commonality of the 'Pros' and 'Cons'...

2009-06-29T04:07:00.003+08:00

The debate on whether Malaysia should consider nuclear energy took place recently; not in the cyberworld or the electronic media, but in the conventional print media. The opposing views are there, represented by their respective presidents the Malaysian Nuclear Society and the Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility projected their views on Is nuclear energy the answer? to Malaysia's energy mix.
But rather than emphasizing differences, the title of this writing suggests to look at the meeting points.
It was to one of the responses of the media and a follow-up to recent statements made by the PM on the need to introduce nuclear energy in the energy mix of Malaysia, and that cooperation with the Republic of Korea should be a welcome possibility.
It took place at the appropriate moment. The International Nuclear Conference 2009 INC'09 and the accompanying exhibition is to begin 29 June at the Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur.

Statement to Capitalize on

2009-06-08T05:29:00.002+08:00

The position of nuclear power in the country seems to be bobbling up and down, from the point of vew of the public. But if there is one on the up side, this statement from the prime minister while in Jeju on green technologies should be capitalized on. Rarely that 'green' and 'nuclear' be taken together in positive sense.

Gentle Reminder

2009-05-28T06:52:00.003+08:00

Home news on nuclear energy has been so quiet for quite a while. It received energy to emerge out of the sea of issues that are the probable cause of it being drowned out when former prime minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir, wrote about nuclear power in his blog.
It was not supportive, neither it was very negative as to discount nuclear energy altogether. To me, it was a reminder that the introduction of nuclear energy must be made cautiously, after having all things considered. That is fair, and that I believe it is the practice in many projects.
There are over 400 nuclear power reactors now operating in the world, supplying over 16 percent of the global electricity need.
Chernobyl is today 23 years old. There have been progress made in reactor safety since then and there is no more accidents of that scale in recent times.
These are considerations; and to me they are positive considerations. Things do not stay where they were. Fossil fuels are depleting, the environment is crying for cleaner air, and the world needs energy to progress. The number of nuclear reactors being commissioned, in construction, and being planned that is in the increasing trend is indicative that it now has solid track record as viable energy source.

What Nuclear?

2008-12-13T10:34:00.001+08:00

With the escalating down of oil price, would the call for nuclear power be as effective? So much was tied to the price of oil, instead of its dwindling supplies, when making arguments about the need for nuclear.

What's Next

2008-10-06T04:40:00.014+08:00

This Bernama link reporting Malaysia becoming a member of the IAEA Board of Governors probably is the latest news related to nuclear for Malaysia. On the local scene new developments are yet to take place. Item 101 in the budget 2009 speech stating the need to explore nuclear energy to ensure long-term energy security for the nation and the formulation of a comprehensive National Energy Plan is still probably among the latest and significant development in this regard that is known in the public domain.

Nuclear Energy 2023...

2008-09-20T18:32:00.005+08:00

Every now and then statements are made on the possibility of nuclear energy taking part in the task of electricity generation in Malaysia. It has been the last option for many many years. As current resources are dwindling, it is becoming more imperative that nuclear energy should be introduced.
The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) has spoken positively about it. Both the prime minister and his deputy also have spoken about it in the same tone. It was included in the budget speech for 2009 that the country is exploring its use. Today, the Minister responsible for energy said that the country will use nuclear for electricity production by 2023 as global supplies of natural gas and coal deplete (The Star, page 29, 20 September 2009). There is a sense of urgency in the tone of the speech: "...the increase in coal price had been exceptional and we need to act now."
He is reported to have also said that the Government was left with no choice but to use nuclear energy as it was the better alternative (compared to other sources).
It was reported that the price of coal in June was USD70 (RM242) per tonne. Today it triples that figure, hovering between USD140 (RM485) and USD180 (RN623) per tonne.
The rising cost of oil makes the cost of transportation to also increase. Certainly this contributes to the increasing cost of coal, which is transported from the source to the power stations.
2023 is exactly 15 years from today, the magic figure that is estimated to be the duration needed to put everything in place for the introduction of nuclear energy.
In the meantime, the Malaysian Nuclear Society (MNS), together with the Mlaysian Nuclear Agency is organizing an International Nuclear Conference, 29 June - 01 July 2009 in Kuala Lumpur with the theme "Strengthening Partnership in Nuclear Energy." More details on the conference, which is dubbed as INC'09, could be found at http://online.nuclearmalaysia.gov.my/sems/inc09.

What's In It for Malaysia...

2008-08-11T22:54:00.008+08:00

Is it to be remembered? Isn't it something that will serve us well when forgotten? Yes, but it just simply wouldn't go away. Commemorated or not, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is known to be associated with nuclear, even by those regarded to be too young to remember or to know what happened more than 60 years ago.
We should not simply left them with that story on Hiroshima and Nagasaki without also giving them another face of nuclear tecgnology. Thus, the event was commemorated once again, like previous years by many quarters. One was by the Malaysian Nuclear Society (MNS), but not for rekindling that destructive image.
A one-day seminar on the applications of the technology was held at USIM, Bandar Baru Nilai, Wednesday, 6 August. It was attended by more than 300 participants, predominant among them were the would be scientists and researchers - students from the nearby local universities and school children. They are the ones who should know that there are many peaceful uses of the technology, and that its use for destruction is an immoral act and contrary to the reason for pursuing and equipping oneself with knowledge. They were reminded of that.
The bomb was first written about in Malaysia, to my recollection, in a 1952-publication entitled Almanak Melayu, 1952. The promise of the atoms to benefit mankind when properly used was mentioned. Even though descriptions of the fission process may not be that accurate, the efforts to share information and educate general readers on the technology, as early as 1952, is laudable.

Nuclear Insights

2008-07-11T12:27:00.005+08:00

In the meantime, a new book touching on the development of nuclear science and technology research and development in the country was published. Here is what others say about it:

"I have great interest for your philosophy of research and being scientist. I appreciate much your describing details of your association with TRCRE after I left for IAEA." --- Dr. Sueo Machi, FNCA Coordinator, Japan.

"Your review and commentary on your R&D experiences interwoven with your thoughts on current issues as well as your ideas for positioning for the future will find resonance with your readers and assist them as they pursue their various quests and journeys across the R&D landscape." --- Dr. John F. Easey, ANSTO, Australia.

Would you like to say something about it as well?

In Malaysia it is available at Pustaka Mukmin, Kuala Lumpur; Mehraj Bookstore, Kuala Lumpur; Nufair Street Bookstore, Kuala Lumpur; Universiti Malaya Bookstore, Kuala Lumpur; INTAN Bookstore, Kuala Lumpur; and from this site or from the Malaysian Nuclear Society (MNS).

Nuclear Option...

2008-07-08T13:27:00.010+08:00

The sound level on talks about nuclear power program for the country gained more decibel recently; again due in large part to the escalating price of oil. Opinions, statements, letter to editors in national mainstream media abound. The links to some of them below will be updated from time to time:

1. thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/15/
focus/21511974&sec=focus

Coincidentally, the tide of sentiment on nuclear energy in the country follows global trend. As the world is undergoing what is termed as 'nuclear renaissance' the country too began to see nuclear as more than just the last option. Even though there is no official decisions on that yet but voices for it have come from sources who have not spoken about it before.
In the 1970s-1980s the country looked at the possibility of having nuclear energy in her energy mix. Hence a nuclear research institute was established as a starting point to that long journey. Along the way, not even midway, the country discovered oil and is now a nett oil exporter. Soon, the push for nuclear energy dwindled and dispersed. This decline in interest also coincided with the same decline in interest globally but the reasons were Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
If oil was the reason for it to lose steam, it seems that the same is the source for it to gain steam again, but this time due to the impending depletion of that natural resource.

No Coal...

2008-04-05T11:54:00.010+08:00

The decision of the Sabah State government last week to do away with the proposed RM 1.2 billion, 300 MW coal-fired plant, near Lahad Datu, Silam was a positive one. It is significant because the major consideration was environmental preservation, which is rarely the main motivator for a decision of that nature. It is said that the plant is a potential environmental threat to the pristine Danum Valley and Darvel Bay. The utility company was asked to look for other more environmental-friendly way of generating the needed electricity.
Coal is one of the dirtier fossil plant. It is known to emit sulphur dioxide, the cause of acid rain, soot particle, and a contributor to global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide. Coal-fired plant is only about 30% fuel efficient, the rest is wasted and some go to pollute the environment.
As Sabah and Sarawak develop following the pace of development in Peninsular Malaysia the need for energy there is expected to increase. Bakun hydro potential in Sarawak, which is also tagged to be the energy source for the Peninsular through a submarine cable, has also been mentioned as the potential source for energy in that region. Perhaps the total potential of Bakun could be dedicated and reserved to fulfill the requirement of Sabah and Sarawak without any transmission to the Peninsular. Then we can do away with the 1000 km long or so submarine cable as well.

Time Out

2008-03-20T10:24:00.002+08:00

Until things back on track there would be less noise and talk on nuclear energy. The new government has just been formed as it picks up speed the view on nuclear energy would be known.. could it be even more friendlier towards nuclear power?

Energy and Advanced Technology

2008-03-05T22:07:00.004+08:00

Energy should not be the sole consideration for embarking on a nuclear power program. The spin-offs effect should also be a motivator. This aspect is not so obvious in other types of power plant. This is also an aspect that has not been adequately communicated to the public. It adds to the justification to have such a program beyond just fulfilling energy needs, which is open for debate, and may not be strong enough to carry the push to have such a program alone.
The stringent demand for exactness, precision, and use of materials with special properties demand special capability and knowledge. Such capability, developed for the nuclear industry, would diffuse to other areas resulting in the overall uplifting of the quality and capability in the industry as a whole.

Human Error

2008-03-02T19:58:00.007+08:00

To err is human. Frequently we hear this saying whenever something bad happens as a result of human action. Many nuclear accidents, and incidents, are the result of human error. The same is attributed to the safe automatic shutdown of nuclear reactors in Florida recently. It caused considerable loss and inconvenience to say the least to users and consumers, and the utility company itself, but the nuclear reactors behaved as expected and did not cause any accident.
Nonetheless some may regard that as nuclear accidents and regard safety issues as endemic to nuclear reactors. Unless the cause is made clear and explained to the public that misunderstanding may indeed take root in the mind of the public and nuclear energy will be regarded as unsafe.
Human error cannot be avoided, but measures that are put in place through advancement in engineering and technology minimize its effect on the system. Even so, it is best that the safety system is not challenged. Hence administrative means must be put in place to minimize that possibility. However, put everything in place, technical and administrative control, engineered safety features, and everything, without safety culture, those measures will not be effective.
Still, regrettably, any 'nuclear accidents' are taken by the public as technological flaw or weakness, not due to human infallibility. Road accidents happen every second and yet vehicles, as it should be, have never been branded as flawed. It is the driver that is at fault. Shouldn't the same be the case for nuclear reactors too?

Big Decision

2008-02-26T22:06:00.004+08:00

Deciding to go nuclear is a big move. Once decided there should not be any retraction or it would be difficult to be re-activated in the future. Hence, it is a big decision.
Sufficient preparation must be in-place even for making this decision so that any reaction, hostile or just adverse, can be handled effectively and convincingly. Groups unsympathetic to the cause may take difference posture. Public acceptance, once again, becomes one of the main decisive factors. Fact and figures can persuade the public especially if these can be made to touch the heart and appeal to emotions. After all acceptance is an emotive act.
Comfort level of the public must be raised with respect to the issues of radioactive waste, nuclear safety, and fuel supply assurance and security, among others. Already the thinking public is questioning about the availability of fuel to supply the 'nuclear renaissance.'
Also, 'nuclear renaissance' should not just be manifested in the numbers of nuclear power reactors being put to grid, constructed, or planned, but also in other aspects of nuclear electricity generation. Waste, safety, proliferation, and access to technology as well as sufficient level of self-dependency must be considered and explained to the general public, especially the voting public.

Bulk Power

2008-02-21T19:47:00.003+08:00

Talk about powering industrial plants, the massive electricity guzzler like steel mills, smelters, magnetic levitation trains and all of their kinds, can renewable energy like solar, wind, and waves deliver their needs? Probably not. Bulk, consistent, and continuously available power generating plant, like nuclear plant, is the answer.
Yes, all electricity is alike. The one supplied by solar can equally run the TV sets as electricity generated by a nuclear power plant. The appliances or users do not know what plant generates the electricity, and they don't have to. But we ought to segment the end-users and end-use of electricity so that we can come up with what would be a good mix or composition. Bulk power generated by central power plants for industrial uses and renewable energy for 'soft' users such as office buildings and households.
Not a single energy source can supply total global needs alone, but each can handle specific requirements. That is what balancing the energy mix is all about.

Backburner

2008-02-17T05:56:00.002+08:00

Election is just around the corner. The parliament was dissolved last Wednesday, 13 Feb, and voting is scheduled to be on Saturday, 8 March. Until the new government is set-up and installed, the nuclear power/ energy question perhaps will for a while take the backseat...

Imagine...

2008-01-31T08:27:00.001+08:00

Imagine most the people, living in future, having own energy, generating electricity too.
It may seem like pipe dreams, but wasn't it like that before? It was the firewood, and the cow dung.
Everyone collected their own. Everyone used their own. Others running low on logs, may buy your own.
Surely we can't live by cow dung, and firewood alone. But the concept can be used with other energy forms. Then everyone is back having own energy, and generating electricity too, distributed generation way. Renewable like solar, can operate that way.
Currently electricity generated centrally. Economy of scale dictates so. Technology isn't there to make plants smaller. Centralized generation is the way to go.
Imagine solar using that concept. Localized climate change may well arise. There's no sunlight, reaching the ground. And no rain too, wetting the ground. Development not possible, on the space above. For acres and acres it's just panels. Certainly, this source should not operate in centralized way.
We have to change our mindset too. Not all plants should be centralized. Some ought to be distributed or decentralized. Think of the moon and the stars. For nuclear, the choice is obvious.

Non-Power Applications? No Big Deal...

2008-01-02T23:24:00.000+08:00

It's no big deal in saving millions of RM by using non-destructive testings in industrial plants troubleshooting and repair; it's no big deal in enhancing the quality of health care by supplying radio-pharmaceuticals to nuclear medicine centers; it's no big deal in helping farmers increase the yield of their produce by developing better plant varieties; it's no big deal in helping SMEs enhance the quality of their products through the use of radiation processing; it's no big deal in adding values to local resources; it's no big deal in preserving pristine environment through reduction of harmful chemicals usage by using nuclear techniques.
Yes, the list of the applications of nuclear technology other than for energy production can go on; but they are no big deal.
Only occasionally these benign applications get to the pages of the print or electronic media. They deemed to be of no public interest except with the presence of public figure in specially organized activities; and that helps. Promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear technology need to have more coverage so as to dissuade the public into thinking that nuclear is for destruction only. As the public accepts that nuclear technology brings benefits in many areas they would be more conditioned and better prepared to see that it is applicable for power generations as well.
The use of nuclear technology in non-power applications in Malaysia are now quite well-developed. Sufficient exposure of these developments can create better understanding of the technology and shape positive public opinion.

Winner Takes All

2007-12-28T10:38:00.000+08:00

Mutually exclusive. That appears sometime to be the stance unconsciously taken by the champion of any particular energy sources. That leads to arguments for and against, and which one is better, that in the end put off even those who are sitting on the fence. It is as if one energy source can satisfy the need in totality. It is just not possible. Even China is targeting only 4% nuclear by 2020, what about the remaining 96%. Coal, may be clean coal, solar, and other sources still have to chip in.
Of course, in large scale deployment of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and wave the standards and practices in the usage of conventional energy sources cannot be adopted. Footprint for footprint, definitely solar panels cannot generate the amount of energy that could be generated by say a nuclear power plant. Thus, the application of solar, if it is to make contribution to total energy requirement should follow a different path altogether. The concept of centralized generation with distribution lines fanning out of the power plant is not suitable. Distributed generation could be a workable concept, but how could that be done?

Closing The Gap

2007-12-19T04:23:00.000+08:00

Having professionals of different backgrounds and disciplines gathering in a workshop can lower mutual gaps of understanding between practitioners of the various disciplines. That was the intention of an MNS (Malaysian Nuclear Society) half a day workshop last Saturday, 15 December. Held at a hotel it was participated by a small but active groups of participants.
The speakers covered topics ranging from nuclear, to a new housing concept, new way of constructing buildings, greening of deserts using tropical trees, and technology in animal housing for livestock industry. It looked like a garden variety of topics with seemingly weak couplings between them. Leaving differences aside, an important thread tying them together stands out - that is they are all about technology, new technology, and innovation. Thus the title of the workshop "21st Century Science and Development to Achieve Vision 2020 and Beyond".
Energy technology, particularly nuclear energy should be seen in larger context. It serves the needs of everyone. It is part of a large family of technologies, even though some may dubbed nuclear as the pinnacle of all technologies. Indeed, the gathering too was able to highlight the interfaces between the various disciplines and how they can be exploited for common goods.
It was apparent that the use of nuclear technology beyond power generation is still not commonly known. The seminar was able to hammer that home.
The degree of innovation and creativity of those dedicated to advancing their respective areas of endeavor shone through at the workshop. This bodes well for nuclear energy that requires dedication, adeptness and affinity to technology. Overall, greater interaction promotes understanding; and that promote awareness and acceptance. The workshop too is untypical of MNS, or perhaps other workshops too, from several respects. The most obvious one is that the participants and speakers were dominantly from non-nuclear background.

It's A Question Of Supply And Demand

2007-12-08T09:22:00.000+08:00

If supply = demand, then it is an issue, so as when supply >> demand. Even bigger issue is when supply < demand, even if only slightly.
When supply cannot meet demand, then either reduce demand or increase supply. The better approach, however, is meeting the requirement from both sides of the equation. Increase supply while at the same time reduce demand. Efficiency and energy saving can reduce demand and rate of increase in demand. For that reason, sometimes, energy saving and enhancement in the efficiency of energy usage are seen as energy resources too. Mathematically actually it is just taking the demand variable into the supply side of the equation.

PINE is fine

2007-12-05T08:26:00.000+08:00

The Public Information on Nuclear Energy (PINE) forum last week in Kuala Lumpur went well with good deliberation by five speakers from the IAEA, FNCA, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and China.
The prime conclusion, I believe, is that public information is a necessary component of a nuclear power program. It must exist for as long as nuclear power is in the energy mix, not just during the introduction of the program. I don't know why that ought to be so. Despite the long established and strongly 'rooted' nuclear power program we see that Japan, Korea, and China have active PINE activities.
I also learned a new label at the forum - PIMFY (Please, In My Front Yard). It was used by the Korean speaker, Mr Kim, to describe the bidding process by the local councils to have the radioactive waste repository sited at their locality. As is now known the winner is Gyeong-ju. It was, as he said, a conversion from NIMBY to PIMFY. Economic benefits, which amounts to about USD 500 millions, and the relocation of KHNP headquarters to Gyeong-ju, packaged with hosting of the facility, are among the motivations. It is, I believe, logical that changes are not free, and should be accompanied with strong enough motivation.

Nuclear Energy Is Renewable Too

2007-12-05T07:47:00.000+08:00

Solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and even biomass, which I have reservations, are considered renewable energy resources as they are inexhaustible. Their usage do not diminish or affect future supplies. In fact, this is the reason for my objection for biomass to be categorized as renewable energy resources for it does not 'renew itself.' Instead it is just replenishable. Continued farming activities and generation of bio-waste makes it available. There must be human intervention to make it 'renewable.'
If biomass is considered as renewable despite the fact that it is just replenishable, then nuclear should also be taken as a renewable energy resource. Spent fuels can be recycled and burned in different types of nuclear reactors to produce energy.
To say nuclear as alternative energy, to bring it conceptually closer to renewable, may also introduce the generally accepted or perceived connotation of the word 'alternative,' which is a replacement. But it is not actually a replacement. It has to contribute, like any other energy resources, complement each other, to fulfill electricity demand. I believe no energy source can 'single-handedly' supply our electricity need. Hence, there is no such thing as alternative energy source. Philosophically speaking...

Option Lockout

2007-11-28T00:33:00.000+08:00

The current enthusiasm on nuclear energy is reminiscent of yesteryears, three decades ago or thereabouts. It's yesterday once more. But perhaps this time it would lead to a proclamation of nuclear energy being one of future energy-mix; or perhaps it won't. Both have finite possibility of happening, one will be more possible if the possibility of the other is less. Obviously.
The long period needed to introduce the first nuclear power plant makes timely decision important. The process is full of critical paths that are dependent on each other as could be seen when plotted on a Gantt chart. Prof. Shikama of Tohoku University quoted that for Japan, 5-7 years is the time needed to bring a nuclear power reactor to first criticality starting from the first pile in the ground. That figure is fairly consistent, he added.
Since nuclear energy cannot be put on-line in a relatively short period of time, it cannot respond to energy crunch fast enough. In real operation too it is best for base load operation, not for load following. When energy crisis becomes imminent, the time available will no longer be sufficient to introduce or even to consider nuclear energy. In that case, the fastest and familiar way to increase generation capacity would be the practical approach. Nuclear definitely does not fit the bill in such a scenario. Call it the nuclear option lockout.

Reactor In Museum

2007-11-25T22:27:00.000+08:00

The Mutsu Science Museum at Aomori Prefecture, Japan hosts more than just interesting collection of hands-on exhibits. It is also home to the decommissioned PWR used to power an experimental nuclear ship. The 36 MW thermal reactor used low enriched uranium to propel a 130 meter long 8240 ton ship. It was completed in 1972 and testing was done in 1974. However it leaked radiation. It was the cause of concern for many parties, and the media too played out the news. The reactor was decommissioned in 1992, taken out of the ship, and put in the museum.
It is entombed with radiation shield equipped with two lead glass viewing panels. It is a good approach in making use of a decommissioned reactor for educational and public awareness and information purposes.

So, Where Is The Connection?

2007-11-22T23:45:00.000+08:00

Frequently, almost automatically, whenever oil price shoots up nuclear energy is mentioned, in positive light. This is good as in that way the public can easily see the importance and the need for nuclear energy. Looking closer, however, oil contributes only 3% to national electricity generation. Globally too oil is no longer the main source for electricity generation. So, how is oil price gets strongly connected to electricity and hence nuclear energy?
It is not so straight forward as it appears, or made out to appear. To me, the linkage is in the use of oil in the transportation sector, as primary energy source, not for electricity generation. Increasing electrification of the transportation sector, e.g. electric train, would reduce its dependence on oil and increase demand for electricity. But will that necessitate the use of nuclear energy? That is what we have to study and analyse. My view could be wrong, but that is how, for now, I look at the issue.
Depletion of fossil and other non-renewable resources, climate change, polluting behavior of fossil fuel, and the capability of renewable energy to supply electricity at the scale comparable to convetional plants appear to have direct linkage to nuclear energy, and they cannot easily be watered down, in my view.

Public Acceptance Dilemma

2007-11-16T22:02:00.000+08:00

"I am not going to believe you. You have vested interest in it."
"It is obvious that to you nuclear is good. Isn't it?"
Actually, most of the time you may not hear those words uttered by the audience, not even by a whisper. But, you can read them in their eyes.
In contrast, 'neutral experts' flown in by the anti-nuclear group would receive different treatment. They are believable, credible, and acceptable as exposing the real thing, the truth. They have no vested interest (other than seeing to it that nuclear is phased out). Who is going to dispute their views. Anyone in the nuclear area would have been disqualified by virtue of having the correct background and the authority to say so. That is the dilemma.
The aim of public acceptance program should not be to convert the unconverted, the hardcore. They would remain the same regardless of the argument. The objective should be to limit and curtail their ability to bring the public to their side. The focus should also be on the fence sitters, sitting between the pro and the anti groups. They should be won over. Perhaps through words of mouth, that is using others outside the nuclear fraternity as spokesperson. Those passive members of the pro group should be persuaded to say it loud. A public acceptance program should provide them the means for doing so.
Getting the positive aspects of nuclear energy sitting side by side with, if not replacing the image of the bombs, in the mind of the public I believe is the ultimate aim of any public acceptance program. Once achieved, the public would voluntarily mention those virtues when asked about nuclear, before or even without, blurting out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl.

Nuclear Renaissance

2007-11-12T01:48:00.000+08:00

Nuclear energy is set to make active appearance again within this century after a long spell of lackluster growth. The percentage contribution of nuclear energy to global electricity generation stands at around 16-17 percent since mid 1980s. Maintaining such a percentage means the its contribution is increasing in absolute terms. What has not changed much is the number of new nuclear power reactors being built, and the number of countries having nuclear energy in their energy mix.
We have yet to see the first new country introducing nuclear energy in this century. For many many years the number 30 described the number of countries having nuclear electricity. It could stay there longer, but there have been a lot of announcements. In the Asian region for example Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia among others have made the announcements. They would be the new countries.
Countries already having nuclear in their energy mix is planing to increase their nuclear contribution. China for instance is adding 2-3 units of 1000 MWe nuclear reactors every year to attain the target of 4 percent nuclear, or 40 GWe nuclear contribution by 2020.

NIMBY and BANANA

2007-11-07T12:50:00.000+08:00

The objection to have nuclear power plants in the neigbourhood was encapsulated in the acronym NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. This is not so bad because we can go to someone else backyard. The backyard of those who support nuclear unconditionally. Those in the NIMBY group support nuclear energy, but only if the nuclear power reactor is sited away form their backyards...
The BANANA group - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, or Near Anyone. This is tough. Anything means not just nuclear power plant, but could also be chemical plant, etc. I first heard of it, in a nuclear power conference; obviously 'anything' in this case refers to nuclear power plant, in Hong Kong in 2006. That probably is not new.. only new to me..

It's needed

2007-11-05T14:52:00.000+08:00

Well, with the ever increasing price of oil, let's have nuclear energy. The uncertainty of supply due to geopolitical factors plus depletion of resources can only push the price further up in the future. Oil has to serve the needs of myriads of other uses that cannot be replaced by other resources. Uranium has only one peaceful uses, viz. electrical power generation using nuclear reactor. Definitely it can further lessen the burden we place on oil for electricity generation.

Introduction

2007-11-03T21:23:00.000+08:00

This century is said to be the beginning of nuclear renaissance. Interest to use nuclear energy for electrical power generation is surging everywhere. Countries not having it yet are planning to introduce nuclear power program, whereas those already in it are increasing the percentage contribution of nuclear energy in their energy mix.

The word nuclear captures the interest of everyone. Everyone has something to say about it. I am no exception.