5 myths about nuclear power plants….
Myth 1 : It's A Nuclear Bomb Waiting To Happen
First it’s a big NOOOOOOOO!!! with today’s safety standards there is a higher chance of one dying with your television exploding. Nuclear power plants are built to control nuclear scattering using control rods and unlike a bombs intention were extensive neutron scattering is desired.
A nuclear plant is designed is explicitly designed NOT to be a bomb.
Anti nuclear activist throughout times have generated negative remarks and speculations regarding nuclear power this could be maybe due to ignorance in some way. They have generated a lot of hysteria by comparing nuclear power plant s to nuclear weapons.
Many don’t realize that the fuel burned in a natural gas power plant in a year if were made into a fuel-air explosive could be as detrimental but there is no stereotype surrounding gas plants. Thus no- one’s scared of natural plants blowing up, and significantly less effort has been put into designing them to be safe
Even in the utterly worst case scenario, if every one of the technicians at the least safe nuclear power plant in production conspired to make it fail in the most spectacular possible way - it still wouldn't blow up like a nuclear bomb. At absolute worst, it would melt down.
Myth 2: Nuclear Power Plants Can Dangerously Melt Down
Theoretically a in an certain obsolete nuclear power plant designs a meltdown would only happen if control of nuclear reaction or neutron scattering was lost completely. The inside of the power plant would melt and there would be just a radioactive mess to clean up.
Some of these obsolete plants are still in commission in the United States. Even though a meltdown is extremely unlikely, more extensively in today’s modern Generation 3 power plants, the radiation would be simply contained in the event of a meltdown.
In Reasonably modern nuclear power plant designs this simply can't happen. If control stops, or coolant is cut off, or any other drastic failure occurs, a modern nuclear power plant will simply shut itself off.
In the testing of the Integral Fast Reactor, a test reactor that is representative of next-generation reactor designs; two drastic coolant failures were simulated in the same day. They unplugged the coolant pumps. They disconnected the turbines so the power couldn't be turned into electricity. In both cases, the reactor just safely stopped, ready to be turned back on when the problem was fixed. Thus, in whatever worst case scenario nothing drastic like an atomic explosion is going to happen in your backyard even though you have Homer Simpson at the control room…..
First it’s a big NOOOOOOOO!!! with today’s safety standards there is a higher chance of one dying with your television exploding. Nuclear power plants are built to control nuclear scattering using control rods and unlike a bombs intention were extensive neutron scattering is desired.
A nuclear plant is designed is explicitly designed NOT to be a bomb.
Anti nuclear activist throughout times have generated negative remarks and speculations regarding nuclear power this could be maybe due to ignorance in some way. They have generated a lot of hysteria by comparing nuclear power plant s to nuclear weapons.
Many don’t realize that the fuel burned in a natural gas power plant in a year if were made into a fuel-air explosive could be as detrimental but there is no stereotype surrounding gas plants. Thus no- one’s scared of natural plants blowing up, and significantly less effort has been put into designing them to be safe
Even in the utterly worst case scenario, if every one of the technicians at the least safe nuclear power plant in production conspired to make it fail in the most spectacular possible way - it still wouldn't blow up like a nuclear bomb. At absolute worst, it would melt down.
Myth 2: Nuclear Power Plants Can Dangerously Melt Down
Theoretically a in an certain obsolete nuclear power plant designs a meltdown would only happen if control of nuclear reaction or neutron scattering was lost completely. The inside of the power plant would melt and there would be just a radioactive mess to clean up.
Some of these obsolete plants are still in commission in the United States. Even though a meltdown is extremely unlikely, more extensively in today’s modern Generation 3 power plants, the radiation would be simply contained in the event of a meltdown.
In Reasonably modern nuclear power plant designs this simply can't happen. If control stops, or coolant is cut off, or any other drastic failure occurs, a modern nuclear power plant will simply shut itself off.
In the testing of the Integral Fast Reactor, a test reactor that is representative of next-generation reactor designs; two drastic coolant failures were simulated in the same day. They unplugged the coolant pumps. They disconnected the turbines so the power couldn't be turned into electricity. In both cases, the reactor just safely stopped, ready to be turned back on when the problem was fixed. Thus, in whatever worst case scenario nothing drastic like an atomic explosion is going to happen in your backyard even though you have Homer Simpson at the control room…..
Myth 3: Uranium Is Running Out
According to Greenpeace, uranium reserves are relatively limited. Besides that, other activist groups claimed that the significant increase in nuclear generation would reduce realible supples from 50 to 12 years
But on the contrary to those facts , there are 600 times more uranium in the ground than gold and there is as much uranium as tin. There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years.
Geological estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years’ supply at current demand . Modern day reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium. So how about that for a being piece of mind.
Uranium is just not like any other fuel, it generated more fuel when burnt. Even existing warheads can be converted to usable fuel as a pledge to peace. Also uranium and plutonium in radioactive waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, which for instance former UK chief scientist Sir David King estimates could supply 60 per cent of Britain’s electricity to 2060, Nuclear is truly renewable in my opinion.
According to Greenpeace, uranium reserves are relatively limited. Besides that, other activist groups claimed that the significant increase in nuclear generation would reduce realible supples from 50 to 12 years
But on the contrary to those facts , there are 600 times more uranium in the ground than gold and there is as much uranium as tin. There has been no major new uranium exploration for 20 years, but at current consumption levels, known uranium reserves are predicted to last for 85 years.
Geological estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that at least six times more uranium is extractable – enough for 500 years’ supply at current demand . Modern day reactors can use thorium as a fuel and convert it into uranium – and there is three times more thorium in the ground than uranium. So how about that for a being piece of mind.
Uranium is just not like any other fuel, it generated more fuel when burnt. Even existing warheads can be converted to usable fuel as a pledge to peace. Also uranium and plutonium in radioactive waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, which for instance former UK chief scientist Sir David King estimates could supply 60 per cent of Britain’s electricity to 2060, Nuclear is truly renewable in my opinion.
Myth 4 : Leukemia Rates Are Higher Near Reactors
Childhood leukemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. ‘Leukemia clusters’ are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes.
The major increase in UK childhood leukemia rates occurred before the Second World War. The very small (one per cent) annual increase seen now is probably due to better diagnosis. Moreover leukemia is also diagnose to be caused by a viral infections too.
A continues pool of infections at a certain geographic scattering could possibly be due to recent influx of immigrants - which hints of a virus. Thus the margin of one getting leukemia are divided evenly everywhere any anywhere. It is purely by chance that a leukemia ‘cluster’ will occur near a nuclear installation, a national park or a rollercoaster ride.
Childhood leukemia rates are no higher near nuclear power plants than they are near organic farms. ‘Leukemia clusters’ are geographic areas where the rates of childhood leukemia appear to be higher than normal, but the definition is controversial because it ignores the fact that leukemia is actually several very different (and unrelated) diseases with different causes.
The major increase in UK childhood leukemia rates occurred before the Second World War. The very small (one per cent) annual increase seen now is probably due to better diagnosis. Moreover leukemia is also diagnose to be caused by a viral infections too.
A continues pool of infections at a certain geographic scattering could possibly be due to recent influx of immigrants - which hints of a virus. Thus the margin of one getting leukemia are divided evenly everywhere any anywhere. It is purely by chance that a leukemia ‘cluster’ will occur near a nuclear installation, a national park or a rollercoaster ride.
Myth 5 : Nuclear Power Is Expensive
With any power generation technology, the cost of electricity depends upon the investment in construction (including interest on capital loans), fuel, management and operation. Like wind, solar and hydroelectric dams, the principal costs of nuclear lie in construction.
Acquisition of uranium accounts for only about 10 per cent of the price of total costs, so nuclear power is not as vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of fuel as gas and oil generation.
The nuclear power plant for Malaysia with its new designs will be pre-approved for operational safety, modular to lower construction costs, produce 90 per cent less volume of waste and incorporate decommissioning and waste management costs.
With any power generation technology, the cost of electricity depends upon the investment in construction (including interest on capital loans), fuel, management and operation. Like wind, solar and hydroelectric dams, the principal costs of nuclear lie in construction.
Acquisition of uranium accounts for only about 10 per cent of the price of total costs, so nuclear power is not as vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of fuel as gas and oil generation.
The nuclear power plant for Malaysia with its new designs will be pre-approved for operational safety, modular to lower construction costs, produce 90 per cent less volume of waste and incorporate decommissioning and waste management costs.
The coal industry will never tell you the truth about this.
Here’s a brilliant concept to remember - The ONLY time coal can be considered clean coal is when its left in the ground untouched, because it’s full of carbon that’s being kept out of the air.
Coal in the ground is its only proven form of carbon sequestration. It has worked for thousands of years. The minute you start to mine it, move it and especially burn it in any way it becomes dirty, polluting and a global warming enemy
Here’s a brilliant concept to remember - The ONLY time coal can be considered clean coal is when its left in the ground untouched, because it’s full of carbon that’s being kept out of the air.
Coal in the ground is its only proven form of carbon sequestration. It has worked for thousands of years. The minute you start to mine it, move it and especially burn it in any way it becomes dirty, polluting and a global warming enemy
let me add another 2 additional myth about nuclear power plant..
ReplyDelete1) Wind and wave power are more sustainable
If, as greens say, new nuclear power cannot come on-line in time to prevent climate change, how much less impact can wind, wave and carbon capture make?
Environmentalists claim offshore wind turbines can make a significant contribution to electricity supply. Even if that were true – which it is certainly not (20) – the environmental impact disqualifies wind as ‘sustainable’. The opening up of the North Sea continental shelf to 7,000 wind turbines is, essentially, the building of a huge industrial infrastructure across a vast swathe of ecologically sensitive seabed – as ‘unsustainable’ in its own way as the opening of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration.
Wave power is still highly experimental and unproven as a method of generating electricity. Even if we allow the Severn Tidal Bore, the tidal surge that runs up and down the River Severn estuary in south-west England (and a great natural wonder of the world), to be destroyed, the cost overruns and time delays would make any problems of the nuclear industry look cheap by comparison.
2) Reactors are a terrorist target
Since 11 September 2001, several studies have examined the possibility of attacks by a large aircraft on reactor containment buildings. The US Department of Energy sponsored an independent computer-modelling study of the effects of a fully fuelled Boeing 767-400 hitting the reactor containment vessel. Under none of the possible scenarios was containment breached (21).
Only the highly specialised US ‘bunker busting’ ordnance would be capable – after several direct strikes – of penetrating the amount of reinforced concrete that surrounds reactors. And besides, terrorists have already demonstrated that they prefer large, high visibility, soft targets with maximum human casualties (as in the attacks on New York, London, Madrid and Mumbai) rather than well-guarded, isolated, low-population targets.
Any new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK will be designed with even greater protection against attack than existing plants, and with ‘passive’ safety measures that work without human intervention or computer control.
muhammad fikri bin baharudin
fiq.bahar@gmail.com
Another 2 Myths about Nuclear Power Plants...
ReplyDelete1. Nuclear is not a low-carbon option
Anti-nuclear campaigners claim that nuclear power contains ‘hidden emissions’ of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from uranium mining and reactor construction. But so do wind turbines, built from huge amounts of concrete, steel and plastic.
The OECD analysed the total lifetime releases of GHG from energy technologies and concluded that, taking into account mining of building materials, construction and energy production, nuclear is still a ‘lower carbon’ option than wind, solar or hydroelectric generation. For example, during its whole life cycle, nuclear power releases three to six grams of carbon per kiloWatthour (GC kWh) of electricity produced, compared with three to 10 GC/kWh for wind turbines, 105 GC/kWh for natural gas and 228 GC/kWh for lignite (‘dirty’ coal) (6).
Greens, exemplified by the Sustainable Development Commission, place their trust in ‘carbon capture and storage’ (CCS) to reduce the GHG emissions from coal and gas plants (7). But carbon capture is, at present, a myth. There is no functioning power station with CCS in the world – not even a demonstration plant – and if it did work, it would still greatly reduce the energy efficiency of any power station where it is installed.
2. Reactors produce too much waste
Contrary to environmentalists’ claims, Britain is not overwhelmed with radioactive waste and has no radioactive waste ‘problem’.
By 2040 there will be a total of 2,000 cubic metres of the most radioactive high-level waste (9), which would fit in a 13 x 13 x 13 metre hole – about the size of the foundations for one small wind turbine. Much of this high-level waste is actually a leftover from Britain’s atomic weapons programme. All of the UK’s intermediate and high-level radioactive waste for the past 50 years and the next 30 years would fit in just one Royal Albert Hall, an entertainment venue in London that holds 6,000 people (and which seems, for some reason, to have become the standard unit of measurement in debates about any kind of waste in the UK) (10).
The largest volume of waste from the nuclear power programme is low-level waste – concrete from outbuildings, car parks, construction materials, soil from the surroundings and so on. By 2100, there will be 473,000 cubic metres of such waste from decommissioned plants – enough to fill five Albert Halls (11).
Production of all the electricity consumed in a four-bedroom house for 70 years leaves about one teacup of high-level waste (12), and new nuclear build will not make any significant contribution to existing radioactive waste levels for 20-40 years.