Fun Facts #4

Did you know that?

Discovery of Uranium

Uranium was discovered in 1789 by Martin Klaproth, a German chemist, who isolated an oxide of uranium while analyzing pitchblende samples from the Joachimsal silver mines in the former Kingdom of Bohemia located in the present day Czech Republic.

Discovery of Uranium Fissionability

It took until 1938 to discover that uranium could be split to release energy, that is fission. This was accomplished by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman.

Discovery of Uranium Radioactivity

Henri Antoine Becquerel discovered that uranium was radioactive in 1896.

Replies to Tun Dr Mahathir from UPM student

Various response has been made regarding Tun Mahathir's view on nuclear power. A student (Muhammed Daniel) from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) has reply on Tun Mahathir's view on nuclear energy. Below are his comment:-

Dr Mahathir,

As a student studying physics at UPM who grew up to admire your Vision 2020, I am very disappointed that such a good leader for Malaysia and developing countries has swallowed the unscientific anti-nuclear propaganda pushed by the green environmental movement. I have become convinced for some time that a Nuclear Malaysia is the way to achieve vision 2020 and beyond. However, I could not see a clear way forward. Last week I attended a public lecture at UKM by one of the founders of South Korea‘s peaceful nuclear program, Professor Dr Jong H. Kim. I came away from the talk convinced that South Korea’s 50 yeary peaceful nuclear program is the very best example for Malaysia to follow.

According to Prof Kim, “In the 1950’s we were a devastated and torn nation, we were destroyed by the war between North and South Korea.” Today, Korea is the 13th largest economy in the world, 6th biggest nuclear power producer in the world with $20 000 US per capita income. Not bad for a country who came 177th after the war in terms of economic power. In 56 years, they’ve not only managed to rise from the ashes of war but became a major player in the world economy.

How did they do it? Was it through efficient policy making? Help from the super-powers after the war perhaps? The key, according to Prof Jong was nuclear power.

This was due to the fact that economic growth is directly proportional to nuclear development. How so? More electricity enables more factories to be opened and a higher standard of living for the population. This in return generates diverse science and high technology driven sectors coupled with a comfortable living environment for the masses. The world we live in today is highly dependent upon electricity. We only have to imagine what our lives would be without electricity if there was a blackout for only a few hours. Long term security and resource availability is one of this century’s greatest concerns considering oil reserves in Malaysia will deplete within 20 years time (41 years for the world’s oil reserves) while the world’s coal supply is expected to deplete within the next 155 years. For uranium the picture is better with 233 years left if the current trend of world energy consumption persists. We have to remember that used uranium can be enriched to plutonium. If we combine this into the equation nuclear power can last a whole lot longer, up to 2000 years according to reputable estimates.

During the 1970’s, 77% of Korea’s power was from coal. In the 80’s, 10 years after the opening of Korea’s first nuclear power plant, Kori-1, nuclear power amounted to 9% of the total power produced. This figure shot up to 49% of power generated by nuclear in the 1990’s. Now here’s where it gets very interesting. During the 1950’s after the war, Korea’s GDP per capita was a meagre $876 US. Since the beginning of the nuclear power era in Korea during the 70’s, the figure rose to $1597 per capita. In 2007, the GDP was at an astonishing $20 000 per capita! Prof Kim merrily told the astounded audience that this was because Korea had 20 nuclear power plants. Each nuclear power plant essentially contributed to an increase of $1000 US per capita of GDP.

Where does Malaysia fit into all this, I began to wonder? Prof. Jong later shifted his lecture to the Malaysian aspect of it by describing the difference between our GDP and per capita income. Despite the fact Malaysia’s GDP is 1/5 of Korea’s, an interesting point to note is that our per capita income now stands at $15 000 compared to Korea’s $20 000 US. Not too bad, considering we got this far without having nuclear power. Imagine what Malaysia could do if we had nuclear power!

To put the case hands down for nuclear power, Dr Jong showed a final slide comparing the land in square miles required to build various alternative forms of energy. Top of the list for land requirement was biofuel. The land size of corn required to meet energy demands was bigger than Korea itself! Then came hydroelectric power which floods huge areas of land. Next, came generation of power through wind with 40-70 square miles of land required. Fourth place was photovoltaic cells i.e solar power with 40 square miles and last but not least nuclear power with 0.4 square miles of land required. It struck me yet again that the greenies are crazy. From these land use figures, nuclear is by far the most environment friendly source of power.

During the question time I asked how nuclear energy affected the monthly household electricity bill in Korea. Prof Kim said the electricity bill was greatly reduced and stabilised. For example, in 1950 prior to Korea’s nuclear age, their electric power output was 0.33TW hour and later rocketed up to 403 TW hour. A greater than 1000 fold increase in electric power output! Korea is not at the mercy of the oil and gas supply and demand equation because they rely upon heavy elements such as plutonium and uranium. This enabled the price of electricity to be scaled down due to its huge power output.

The important question of nuclear waste was also raised. “Korea initially had problems finding a suitable place for it. In the end we simply asked any regions of Korea which wanted to have the nuclear waste facility to submit their entries. Four areas submitted their entries where the winner went to the area with an 80% resident approval for building the nuclear waste management facility.

The safety aspect of nuclear power raised important questions from the audience. Prof Kim’s response was straightforward, “The technical aspect of it has long gone been solved. It is relatively safe. If it wasn’t safe why would Korea build not only one but 20 nuclear power plants? What’s left for other countries is only the political will power to do so. We in Korea believe that in order to achieve something, we must have a strong will power to do so. We had a strong will considering our nation is now divided into two. It left a great impact on us to improve ourselves. If a plane was to be questioned on every single detail of it’s security, surely it won’t fly. The same goes with nuclear,” he assured us with a smile.

A professor from UPM asked whether the acceptance of nuclear power in the South was because of North Korea’s involvement in using nuclear for military purposes. “Not at all, I’ll show this satellite photo at night showing the difference between the South and North Korea,” he simply said. Indeed the difference was startling. The south was dazzling with countless dots of lights around the country while the North was pitch black with an exception of one dot. Yes, literally ONE dot. That one dot apparently Prof Kim joked belonged to the residential area of its “dictator”. Nevertheless, it clearly states the difference between a country that used nuclear for peaceful purposes and a country that used it for military purposes.

If South Korea can be recognised not only as a major economic power, but a major nuclear power producer isn’t it time we make more of a name for ourselves than merely rubber, palm oil, and the Petronas Twin Towers? Our Asian neighbours have done it. Vision 2020 is only 11 years away. What are we waiting for?

Muhammed Daniel

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's are 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 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!

Sources: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk

http://www.engineering-timelines.com

Germany Goes Nuclear Free

The Kruemmel nuclear power plant in Geesthacht. Germany

Germany has voted to shut down all nuclear power reactors by 2022, making it the first major industrial nation to completely reject the technology since the Fukishima disaster in Japan. They will be powered by renewables, putting massive pressure on infrastructure development in Europe’s biggest economy. While other nations, including Britain and France, plan to build more nuclear reactors, Germany will have to scale up wind and solar power in order to keep the lights on and meet climate change targets. The decision to reject nuclear came after the fall out from the Fukishima disaster and protests on the streets against nuclear.

Germany is Europe's leader in wind energy, and is one of the world's leaders in solar technology.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was forced to do a u-turn on nuclear, having previously said the technology was safe, in order to retain public and political support. Despite the fact that Germany gets 23 per cent of its power from its 17 nuclear reactors, nine of which are currently running at full capacity, she claimed that wind and solar energy could meet the shortfall. The announcement is a shot in the arm for the renewables industry as it will provide certainty and funding. "This is more than consensus for a nuclear exit, this is consensus for a switch to renewable energy," she said. "We want to remain an industrial nation and sustain growth. But we want to organise that growth so that we guarantee quality of life for coming generations as well.”

But industry is angry at her change of heart, claiming it could raise energy costs across Europe because of demand on gas and existing renewables. In particular manufacturers, the source of Germany's wealth and status have warned the decision will increase energy costs and could lead to electricity shortages.


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany

The Way of the Nuclear, or The Way of Renewables?

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.

So now, nuclear energy or renewable energy?


note: Picture taken from;
http://www.clipartof.com/portfolio/a-papantoniou/illustration/collection-of-green-energy-icons-of-renewable-energy-solar-power-biofuel-water-factory-wind-turbine-green-home-electricity-recycling-and-environment-21602.html

Why is nuclear energy bad for the world?

Nuclear energy produces long-lived radioactive waste. There is also a possibility of accidents that would release radioactive material into the environment. Exposure to the Radioactive Material Can Be Deadly, Causing Health Problems and Cancer: Through the history of nuclear disasters we have had a living lab to see the numbers of deaths caused by nuclear power plants along with infertility, health problems, and deadly cancers among people in communities even far away from the original site.

Picture taken from chernobyl, ukraine accident

http://photos.merinews.com/upload/imageGallery/bigImage/1184934019747_1184928362112_Chernobyl.jpg