| Type of Power Plant | Fuel for 1,000 MWe for 1 year |
| Coal | 2 MILLION TONNES of coal |
| Fuel Oil | 1.96 BILLION GALLONS of oil |
| Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) | 87.6 BILLION SCF of gas |
| Nuclear (fission) | 30 TONNES of uranium |
| Thermonuclear (fusion) | 0.6 TONNE of tritium/hydrogen |
-Info by Malaysian Nuclear Agency (Nuclear Malaysia)-
16 comments:
Hello,
Wow, it is interesting to note the difference in the amount of raw material required in each tyoe of power plant. No doubt, nuclear fission and fusion will require the least amount of raw material, as even though the amount is little, it is highly potent. However my questions are as follows:
1) Even though the amount of uranium required in nuclear fission is only 30 tonnes, is this amount expensive? How much does it cost in relative to the other types of power generation?
2)I have read a long time ago that fusion is still not possible, in generating power. I read that it the best way, even better than fission, where the hydrogen atoms are fused together, somewhat like what happens in the sun. What is the development status of fusion as power generation source?
JASON FRANCIS
jason_spyboy@yahoo.com
it's actually true,if this sitation is goin on,depletion of fossil fuels,and non-renewable energy will be used up,but according to the statistics,i'm quiet happy that we have an alternative energy,that is nuclear energy to replace,but my question here is how long the nuclear energy can last,and how about the cost of it.
KESAVAN S/O MOHANADAS
CE083434
kesavan712554@gmail.com
wow!!!
Thermonuclear.. Juz use 0.6 tonnes of titrium a year..
How does it possible??
This raw material surely expensive aite???
Which country has used this kinds of energy??
I hevent heard of it before... Could u tell me more bout it.. I am so into it..
Thanx..
Mohd fazli ramly
mrfazli@rocketmail.com
It seems like nuclear consume less fuel in order to produce 1,000MWe for 1 year,compared to others.
Something to ponder also,the investment cost to operate a single nuclear power plant will be higher than conventional power plant.
This includes cost of research and development (R&D) on the nuclear energy itself.
Now,Malaysia eager to have their own nuclear power plant,but before that,THINK TWICE!!
name: JAFFREEN BIN JAAFAR
emel: jeff_kyo90@yahoo.com
Yes.The nuclear only require less amount in production of the energy.But is our country fully prepared to use the source to generate maximum energy?And the safety oso should be concerned during this production.Because,it may seem less but,its the 1 which give effects in a maximum quantity.
thank you for ur information.:)
kantharrajan sandaram
me083559
rajan_9849@yahoo.com
Jason Francis:
1) its not the price of uranium itself that u must see. Overall cost including the transportation cost must take into account also. Imagine the cost to transport 2 million tonnes of coal compare to 30 tonnes of uranium. :)
2) thermonuclear (fussion) are still being developed under an International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project.
kesavan Mohanadas:
From what i heard recently, uranium resource can last for >3000 years.
Mohd fazli ramly
As thermonuclear currently being developed under an International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Project, lets just discuss about nuclear fission for now.
JAFFREEN BIN JAAFAR
Yes, the initial cost to build a nuclear power plant is high. The RnD cost is also high. But Malaysia needs a larger generating capacity power plant as power demand is increasing. Fossil fuel power plant emits co2, toxic and hazardous emissions. Do you want our future generations to live in a hazardous environment where the air is polluted because of our generations act? THINK TWICE!!! (or more)..
oooo. interesting information to let us know how much is needed for each different material. many of us do not know that so much fuel oil is needed in that 1 year. wow. =/ however could you explain the difference between thermonuclear and nuclear? im not very clear on what is thermonuclear. thanks.
Lim Sze Yoong
justinsylim@hotmail.com
Ooo. Glad to see fusion is back on the scientific list. Is fusion power really possible? You're basically making a miniature sun. The amount of energy generated is very immense and harnessing it would solve the energy crisis. I would love to know more about the current progress on fusion as well seeing that the amount of fuel it uses is so minuscule.
Jan Siong Lim
jansionglim@hotmail.com
Hey there. Lets not consider thermonuclear yet because thermonuclear, which is also known as nuclear fusion is still under research and development.
Based of the data, nuclear energy proven to be the one that used up the least resources to generate that amount of fuel per year. Coal, fuel and natural gas are not renewable energy thus they might just disappear into thin air someday in the future. But there are many risks when dealing with nuclear power especially with the waste. Are we ready to face the risks? Nuclear will be our No.1 enemy if something were to go wrong!
In my opinion, we should not just focus on nuclear energy just yet. We must also consider other energy sources especially renewable energies which have many advantages too.
Thank You.
LIM CHEE KEONG (ME 083567)
eric9090@hotmail.com
IPTS,
you are right.
comparing coal and uranium is unfair. did you know that there's a wastage of 99% to mine uranium! Mining uranium is not exactly the easiest way to extract a rare material from the earth, high energy consumption and not forgetting the SCAR left on the mines...
very bad indeed.
Go Renewable Energy!!
Rajan
Ask urself what other type of energy is green out there? yes there's solar and winds but they will require a large area to built. U will find it out in part 2of this entry later. As i said before in my earlier entry, a nuclear reactor cant explode like a bomb. Technology nowdays is far more better than the old days.
To Lim Sze Yoong and Jan Siong Lim
Lets not fucus on thermonuclear first as it is still under research and development as i commented before. Once there is a commercial termonuclear reactor, we will know more about it. :)
Lim Chee Keong
Yes everything has its own risk. Malaysia nuclear power programme also includes the nuclear waste management. It will be too long if i want to write about it here. Wait for our future entry. We will write about nuclear waste in near future. Thanks for ur concern.
Adrian
Yes 99% of uranium ore mass is wasted. But did u know that uranium is abundant?
Uranium mining do left some 'damage' to the land, but look arround you..What is there before Sunway lagoon? Mines resort?
(If u are Malaysians u should know that place).Apart from that,today there's a mining technique called In-Situ Leaching which is different from the conventional mining technique that does not leave scar to the land.
:)
Thanks for every comments. We realy appreciate it.
hi everyone.
i like to read all the post by everyone and the opinion from each of us. here i have some thought to share about nuclear in malaysia.
we already know that to initiate nuclear R&D is extremely expensive. that cost didn't take to account to build the facility itself. for the facility, it is different cost.
we all already know that nuclear fusion can generate so much of energy for very long time. what if, malaysia share the energy by supplying extra energy to our neighbor country such Thailand and Singapore. the profit can cover up the cost of building nuclear power plant itself.
Muhammad Damanhuri
ME085988
damanoalberto@gmail.com
hi,
what an interesting fact..
its look like thermonuclear is far better..why we don't use thermonuclear?
(MD NAZRIN BIN MD NAZIR, nazrinnazir.90@gmail.com)
0.6 tonnes tritium ! 2 Million tonnes of coal ....! *_^
add to that the percentage of co2 that 2000 000 tonnes of Coal can coz (per year)... no wonder the poles are melting rapidly !
ananalnajjar@gmail.com - ce084206
Anan Issam Alnajjart
Post a Comment