NUCLEAR POWER VS COAL POWER

Hi.What we have learned so far about the nuclear energy in the class,we do not see any cons for nuclear power. Therefore I will tell you the advantage of nuclear power.Nuclear power is the cheapest ways to produce electric power. The generation cost ($/kWh) is definitely less than the other technologies of electricity generation . We cannot do comparison between nuclear power and hydraulic power. Everybody can build a nuclear reactor to anywhere they want. However,coal fired plant must be built close to coal mines and a dam can only be built to a very specific place at a river basin.

The cost of generation includes capital cost. The capital cost = interest paid for the load + operaton + maintance cost + the fuel cost

Nuclear power plants use small amount of land. The other alternatives need more land than NPP.For example,solar or wind need many times more land to generate similar power.The exhaust gases from fossile fired plants contain CO2. Currently,there is no way to get rid of CO2. This gas is main contributer of temperature increase in our life. Coal consist of sulphur and when burned, SO2 is produced. This gas causes acid rains. The cost of electricity will increase although of the sulphor can be scrubed from the coal while or after the combustion.We must remember,if the burners operate at high temperatures, like in gas turbines and diesel engines, nitrogen oxides will be generated. This gas is causes of the ozone depletion in the atmosphere.The other info is,the ash from a fossile fired plant accumulates around the power plant as ash mountains.Ash contains toxic elements just like cadmium and radioactive elements (uranium and thorium).

Nuclear power produced very little amount of highly radioactive waste. The toxicidity of this waste dissapear with time.Nuclear enery gives energy independence to a nation. The nation that do not dependent to foreign energy resouces have free hand in diplomacy considering the strings attached to gas and petroleum sales in the international markets.

Tun Mahathir’s View about Nuclear Power Plant for Malaysia

Former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has his own views on using nuclear energy to generate power. Here’sare his opinion regarding taken from his blog:-

 

NUCLEAR POWER

1. With the price of oil going up higher and higher, many in this country are thinking about power generation. At one time the Malaysian Government had decided on a four fuel policy for the generation of electric power. We wanted power plants to use either fuel oil, gas, coal or hydro power. We had excluded the use of nuclear power.

2. Why did we reject nuclear power?

3. I am not a nuclear scientist but I believe I know enough of the dangers of using nuclear (fissionable) material.

4. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed, the scientists who invented the bombs thought that the destructive effect would be only from the huge explosion due to fissionable material. So did their victims – the Japanese.

5. As a result the Japanese entered the destroyed cities to carry out rescue work and to clean up.

6. It was only later that they realised that the residual radiation would cause a variety of radiation sickness and diseases. The radiation remained harmful for a long period after explosion. Even today there are people who had entered the bombed area in those days who are dying of a variety of diseases, including cancer, contracted through exposure to radiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

7. I think we all know about the Chernobyl disaster in Russia. Despite thousands of tons of concrete being poured into the site, the power plant is still emitting dangerous radiation.

8. Besides this we should know that radioactive material used as fuel for power generation remain radioactive and dangerous to health after the fuel has been exhausted. The waste cannot be disposed anywhere, not by burial in the ground nor dumping in the sea. It can be reprocessed by certain countries only. This requires the dangerous material to be transported in special lead containers and carried by special ships. Most ports do not allow such ships to be berthed at their facilities. Reprocessing means that the nuclear material again becomes active and harmful to health.

9. The fact is that we do not know enough about radioactive nuclear material. Once it is processed it remains a source of danger forever.

10. We have some experience dealing with radioactive material. In Perak we have a site where we had buried by-products of tin mining (amang) which had been processed to become radioactive and which was used to colour television. We had poured tons of cement on the buried material. More than one square mile of the burial site is barred to humans. The site is still radioactive and dangerous.

11. If we have a nuclear plant, besides not being able to get rid of nuclear waste, we may have accidents which can endanger people living even far away because of the material being carried by water (ground water) and wind.

12. I think the authorities should rethink the idea of nuclear power plants. Scientists do not know enough about dealing with nuclear waste. They do not know enough about nuclear accidents and how to deal with them.

13. Until we do, it is far better if Malaysia avoids using nuclear power for electrical generation.

The Way of the Nuclear

Advances in technology has conspired to award us with the outstanding influence of renewable energy. No doubt, this renewable energy, which many claim to be the savior of mankind to face energy woes, is a very interesting prospect to secure energy security!

Renewable energy has the uncanny fact to be as its name says, renewable! Which means it is a resource which is undepletable! As a bonus, its operation is friendly to the environment with no adverse side-effects.

However, is it practical for renewable energy to replace all other forms of energy production as a whole? Lets take a look at the table below:

From the table, we can examine that renewable energy sources (green) uses massive amounts of resources! Imagine constructing 100 km square of land area just to produce 1 MWe for 1 year when the same 1MWe can be produced by just 30 tonnes of uranium? From here, it is just not feasible to sustain the earth’s resources by pooling all our investments in renewable energy. Although renewable energy has very good prospects for future use and when the technology allows it, right now, it is not able to compete competitively with nuclear energy.

Furthermore, the resources used from developing extensive renewable energy projects can be used to alleviate current world crises such as famine, homeless citizens and no jobs.

Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Series – Episode 2, Capital Cost

In building a nuclear power plant, one of the main problems is the high capital cost. Reactors in power plant are expensive to build. Even though in future, the returns can be very high, it taken years, even decades to recoup the initial cost. This also makes it very hard to find investors that willing to wait for a long time for the returns of their investment [1]. The capital cost of a power plant contributes to about 70% to 80% of the cost of electricity [2]. Hence it is really important to make sure that the capital cost of the power plant is competitive.

Delays during the construction of nuclear power plant can contribute to cost overrun. This is because during construction, power plant produces did not electricity. Hence, delays means longer construction time and longer construction time means higher finance charges. In the UK and US, several utilities companies bankrupted because of the cost overrun [3].

Next episode, Operating Cost

 

[1] Indiviglio, Daniel (February 1, 2011). “Why Are New U.S. Nuclear Reactor Projects Fizzling?”. The Atlantic.

[2] Yangbo Du; John E. Parsons (May 2009) (PDF). Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved 2012-03-01.

[3] Christian Parenti (April 18, 2011). “Nuclear Dead End: It’s the Economics, Stupid”. The Nation.

Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Series – Episode 1, Introduction

One of the most discuss subject in the nuclear energy matter is the cost. The cost in producing the nuclear energy can be divided into various parts. The big chunk of the cost of producing nuclear energy depends on the economics of the nuclear power plant. While the capital cost and the construction cost of the nuclear power plant can be high, other cost such as the fuel cost can be relatively small compare to the conventional power plant. In this series, we will discuss the details of the economics of nuclear power plant.

In the coming post, we will discuss the highest cost in building a nuclear power plant, capital cost. Stay tuned =) ~

The History of Nuclear Energy – The Very First Nuclear Power Plant

The very first civilian nuclear power station in the world to produce electricity and also Russia’s first nuclear power plant was the 6 MW Obninsk Nuclear Power Station built in 1954. The Obninsk Nuclear Power Station was built in the city of Obninsk, about 110km from Moscow. The station was also known as APS-1 Obninsk (Atomic Power Station 1 Obninsk).

The single reactor unit was named AM-1 which is Russian for Atom Mirny, or “peaceful atom”. This reactor was a forerunner of the RBMK reactors which was used in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant incident.

Started its operation in June 1954, Obninsk Power Station remained the only nuclear power station in the Soviet Union for around 10 years, and was decommissioned on 29 April 2002.

The very first nuclear power station built had a total capacity of 6MW. In comparison, nuclear reactors today are able to produce up to 1315MW of energy!

Nuclear power plants world-wide

As of 15 September 2011 there are 433 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 367 GW are in operation in 31 countries . 65 plants with an installed capacity of 63 GW are still under construction .

As of end 2009 the total electricity production since 1951 amounts to 64,600 billion kWh. The cumulative operating experience amounted to 14,570 years by August 2011

 

 

Nuclear power plants world-wide, in operation and under construction

Number of reactors in operation, worldwide, 2011-09-15 (IAEA 2011, modified)

 

Nuclear power plants under construction, 2011-09-15 (IAEA 2011, modified)

Number of nuclear reactors worldwide by age as of 2011-09-15 (IAEA 2011)

The History of Nuclear Energy – The Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station

Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station

Previously, The Nuclear Edition posted an article on the world’s first nuclear power plant, the Obninsk Nuclear Power Station. In this latest article on The History of Nuclear Energy, we will be writing about the first nuclear power plant to be used commercially, the Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station.

At the behest of Prime Minister Winston Curchill in 1952, designing work for Calder Hall Power Station was started by Christopher Hinton. The Industrial Group of the Atomic Energy Authority established the design team for this particular project. In a relatively short construction and commissioning time, nuclear power was transmitted to the UK’s National Grid in August 1956, after work started only 3 years prior.

At its peak of operation, the Calder Hall Power Station generated 196 MW of electricity, as much as four times its power generation when it was first opened. The equipments used in the Calder Hall Power Station included eight 3000 rpm turbines and four hyperbolic concrete cooling towers measuring 90 meters high.

Initially Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station’s primary objective was to produce weapons-grade plutonium and not electricity generation. The UK government announced in April 1995 that all production of plutonium for weapons had ceased.

Storage pond for spent nuclear fuel

Having run for 47 years, the Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station was decommissioned in March 2003, by which time it was the oldest Magnox station in the world.

According to the British Nuclear Group, Calder Hall generated enough power to run a three-bar radiator for 2.85 million years in its 47 years of operation!

A Year After Fukushima Meltdown, Is Nuke Power Any Safer?

When nuclear disaster hit the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) Fukushima reactors a little more than a year ago,people start questioning again does nuclear energy is suitable to become the power source to the humanity. It is still safe to use nuclear energy anymore?.

After more than one year of the tragedy, I can say that it is nuclear energy is still safe. In fact, the safety technology of the nuclear reactor have improved since the tragedy.

Below is an interesting article from Kenneth Rapoza, a contributor at Forbes (www.forbes.com), discussing how the technology of nuclear reactor have improved and become safer after a year of the Fukushima tragedy.

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake rocked Japan, sending a wall of water into the country that caused a nuclear disaster at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) Fukushima reactors.  Nuclear power projects around the world were halted over safety concerns. Everyone from China to India to Europe was asking whether an earthquake could level a power plant and cause radioactive leaks hazardous to humans.  Japan avoided a Chernobyl-like disaster.  Has safety improvements been made at nuclear reactors since Fukushima became a household word worldwide?

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), they have.

Nuclear power plants are safer than they were a year ago as the nuclear industry, regulators and governments learned and acted on the lessons of the TEPCO nightmare. But safety must never be taken for granted, said Yukiya Amano, Director General of the IAEA in a press release on Friday.

Amano said the industry and civil society need to be vigilant and that the industry needs to make constant upgrades to power plant technology and safety in order to ensure that the benefits of nuclear power are used safely.  Nuclear power does not burn fossil fuels and is considered a clean, and potent source of energy. The biggest problem with nuclear energy is waste, no small matter. And radiation leaks when accidents occur at power plants like TEPCO.  Oil spills can destroy wildlife and beaches. But radiation poisoning is a massive public health matter.

“Nuclear safety is stronger than it was a year ago,” Amano attests. “Fukushima was a very serious accident, but we know what went wrong and we have a clear course of action to tackle those causes – not only in Japan, but anywhere in the world.  Now we have to keep up the momentum. Complacency can kill.”

Kenneth Rapoza, http://www.forbes.com (9 March 2012)

Nuclear Energy: Misunderstood Power Source

Nuclear energy is one of the potential power source that is clean,safe and efficient. But, people always misunderstood about nuclear energy, saying it is unsafe and not clean. The video above explained about the misconception in nuclear power and the advantages by using nuclear power as an alternative to replace fossil fuel.