Donaldson Tan
A 8.9 Richter Scale earthquake hit Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. As a result, 2 reactors are damaged and yesterday there was an explosion at the nuclear power plant. Considering this, here’s a brief recap of from PM Lee Hsien Loong’s speech at the 2010 Singapore Energy Lecture.
a nuclear power plant
Globally, nuclear energy will be an important part of the solution to mankind’s energy needs, and to tackle global warming.
- It is a clean source of energy, giving off low carbon emissions
- But harnessing nuclear energy is a highly complex and long-term enterprise
- There are significant issues relating to safety and disposal of nuclear waste
- There is often strong resistance (i) From the green movement. (ii) From populations who have witnessed accidents like Chernobyl and are anxious about safety.
- But without nuclear energy, world cannot make sufficient progress in dealing with global warming
- Hence countries are expanding their nuclear energy programmes. (i) e.g. France, China, Japan, Korea. (ii) e.g. US has announced it will build more plants – the first in three decades.
In Southeast Asia, several countries have expressed their intention to build nuclear power plants.
- Developing countries will face even more challenges than developed countries.
- They must first build up their capability base, institute proper systems and standards and develop a strong safety culture before embarking on such projects.
For Singapore, our small size poses an additional challenge.
- Safety is a major concern, especially given our high urban density
- But we cannot afford to dismiss the option of nuclear energy altogether.
- We should keep up with new developments. (i) Technologies for smaller and safer reactors, with more fuel-efficient designs that reduce the amount of waste produced. (ii) Experience in other countries.
- It will be a long time before we take any decision on nuclear energy.
- But we should ready ourselves to do so.
Give Singapore the ability to exercise such an option, should it one day become necessary and feasible. Hence we have to start building up our capabilities now.
- Link up with the experts in this field.
- Train a few of our own engineers and scientists.
- Then we can critically assess developments in nuclear technology and decide on the feasibility of nuclear power deployment in the future.
Actually, in light of the explosions at the nuclear power plants in Japan (which, by the way, we still know little about), the argument for such power sources in Singapore can be considered to be marginally stronger. This is simply because Singapore is in a region free of natural disasters and thus is unlikely to face accidents such as those in Japan.
Heh, I suppose I am in the minority, being an environmentalist who does think that nuclear power is a viable intermediate option that should be seriously considered.
Jackson Tan,
You are already a minority by being an environmentalist who supports nuclear power. A typical environmentalist rejects nuclear power.
If you have less immigrants then you will use less electricity then you won’t need nuclear power plan and it will further not increase the risk of Singapore.
It only takes a small incident to trigger some problem at the Nuclear power plant… Singapore is so small.. even a 10km evacuation zone may render the whole Singapore island into a waste land……
Nuclear power is actually cleaner than fossil fuels, so it is conceivable that moderate environmentalists might support it as a short-medium term solution.
This doesn’t seem like such a bad speech. After all, he only wanted to “critically assess developments in nuclear technology and decide on the feasibility of nuclear power deployment in the future”. Not exactly expressing a commitment to building a nuclear power plant.
The problem with nuclear energy for Singapore is that there is not enough buffer land to evacuate for emergencies. If Murphy’s law hits, and it is not an earthquake or act of God but rather a more mundane power blackout that hits the nuclear energy plant and the onsite backup generators fail to operate, then the risk of meltdown increases.
It was not too many years ago that Singapore suffered a wide-spread power outage due to interrupted gas supplies from Indonesia which a few of the gencos were using. Despite the supposed redundancies, 30% of Singapore suffered a power outage.
Check out this press release from Power Seraya that happened in 2004.
http://www.powerseraya.com.sg/press/30Jun04-Singapore_Blackout_Tripped_Valve_Triggered_Gas.pdf
Can we even conceive the possibility of a meltdown? Singapore as a nation will caseas to exist.
The accidents in Singapore’s powerstation will come from complacency, and pure yes-man behaviour from the PAP.
When the reactor is melting, you can be sure that the PAP government will be the first to fly out of the country.
The people left to switch off the reactor would be the indian and chinese foreign workers, with fake degrees and probably will be the next lot of people flying out.
I do not condone nuclear energy for singapore
“Orchard Road flood once in 50 years….” that was what a Minister would say when it happens. Wonder what would a Minister say if a Nuclear Plant accident would occur in Singapore…
Take a step back and analyze this:
1. What do we want from that nuclear power plant? To understand this, we need to figure out how much we use (currently ranked 19th per-capita in the world):
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_con_percap-energy-electricity-consumption-per-capita
and why we use it. Unfortunately, I have no data for the breakdown of “why”. How much goes into heavy industry, how much to our air conditioners etc … Now, figure in a nuclear power plant – how much extra power would we get? How much of this extra power do we really need? What are the consequences (opportunity costs) to our economy or standard of living if we really do need the extra power but do not get it?
2. Now consider the costs and risks: What are the space and safety requirements for the shipment of fuel material and waste? What is our plan if our ability to ship waste out becomes compromised? What are the consequences if we suffer a failure – do we make Singapore unlivable?
Based on my feelings alone, I think the risks associated with a nuclear fission plant overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits. Modern fission plants may be very safe, but if a bad failure means we lose our country, the benefits had better be worth it. I believe we would be far better off looking at how we can:
1. reduce our consumption.
2. acquire energy from alternative sources: solar, tidal, even wind given our constant cycle of sea and land breezes.
3. help ITER develop viable nuclear fusion power and then consider fusion as an option.
Lee Hsien Loong’s speech makes approximately the same considerations, but I take exception to this one statement:
“But we cannot afford to dismiss the option of nuclear energy altogether.”
He would have to answer my very first question before he can rightly say “cannot afford”. Because my reply is “Well, we lagi cannot afford to lose our country.”
Seeing this thread has garnered some interests, I think I ought to contribute a little bit more than my initial comment.
With regards to Chee Wai’s question on the breakdown, I think MEWR’s State of the Environment Report has a simplified breakdown (although I must add that Singapore’s SotE is pretty scant in details relative to other countries’). From a table in Chapter 2, electricity is consumed by:
Industry — 21%
Buildings — 15%
Consumers/Household — 8%
Transport — 2%
Others — 2%
Here, buildings refer to the operation of commercial and institutional buildings.
A nuclear power plant is capable of providing a significant proportion of energy. But more importantly, it allows Singapore to diversify its energy sources. It will cushion Singapore’s electricity prices against large fluctuations in oil and gas prices. Coal power plants, which provides a substantial amount of power for many countries, do actually emit more radioactivity into the air than a nuclear power plant.
In addition, a nuclear power plant is much cleaner than power based on fossil fuels, which will assist Singapore in reducing our carbon emissions. Already, Singapore has one of the highest emissions per capita in the world. Other major modes of clean energy is not feasible in Singapore. Singapore is not windy enough; tidal energy technology is not commercially viable yet. And here’s a surprising fact: Singapore does not receive a high amount of solar power because of our high cloud cover (which is a consequence of the high humidity that makes Singapore feel so hot and thus, ironically, gives the impression that solar will have a high yield here).
Much as we are concerned over the state of the Fukushima plants, let us keep in mind that we still don’t know what is happening down there, and it may be weeks or months before we do. For now, the radiation leakage is low and local (the IEAE rates it at level 4). The core, which houses the uranium rods, remains intact. After all, despite the panic over the Three Mile Island incident, no one died, and no one suffered any radioactive poisoning. We will have to wait to learn more about the incident.
But that being said, I am not arguing for nuclear power in Singapore. I think it is an option that should not be discarded too simply. Singapore, as I have stated in the first comment, is safe from large geological disasters and thus are not exposed to the risks associated with nuclear power in Japan. The greatest challenge in nuclear power in Singapore, from my personal opinion, is the lack of transparency in many areas of industry and civil service. After all, the reason why Chernobyl was such a massive disaster was because of the multiple cover-ups by the Soviet authorities.
Perhaps, on a more personal stand, I am not so much pro-nuclear as anti-nuclear-panic. I am thoroughly sick of hearing people telling me the “devastation” in Three Mile Island, and how a nuclear power plant will erupt into a mushroom cloud.
I apologise in advance for the numerous typos and poor paragraphing in my previous post.
While conventional nuclear reactor technology can be dangerous, there are certain reactors that do not use pressurized steam and cannot overheat. Most nuclear reactors use mixed oxide fuel and have to rely on active cooling. On the other hand, uranium nitride-fueled reactors cannot go critical as they are self-moderating and have negative coefficients of reactivity, unlike conventional uranium oxide based reactors. Their safeness are guaranteed by the laws of nature, not mechanical design.
I won’t be surprised at all if Singapore and HK are thinking about buying uranium nitride-fueled reactors. In fact, I would wager money that this is the kind of nuclear power technology that Singapore government is currently looking into.
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Uranium nitride? That’s an interesting option. I was originally thinking along the line of a molten salted based thorium reactor. Those small reactors are probably rated between 100 and 300 KW but it is too small for industrial consumption. Maybe something up to 50MW…
Thanks for the information on Uranium Nitride, Fox. It is very interesting and I dug up additional information about a US initiative to pursue that technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Power_Generation
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Moderated_Self-regulating_Nuclear_Power_Module
Modules are supposed to be capable of 25MW.
It still leaves the issue of waste disposal, though in the case of the module design, it is supposed to be safe because of the coolant used. I would frankly still feel more comfortable with a fusion reactor, but I’m reasonably convinced that if one *has* to go nuclear, this is a far superior option to traditional approaches to nuclear energy.
Actually, uranium zirconium hydride fueled reactors are used *on campus* to train undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineers in many universities in the USA. Most of then are only rated around 1 MW.
Also, the self-moderating reactors automatically decrease reactivity in the event of coolant loss. They can’t blow up. They are no good for making bombs either. I honestly think that such a technology can be adapted for Singapore.
Total power generation capacity in Singapore is around 11.5 GW. So, to fully replace all our fossil fuel-based power generators, we’ll need about 460 of these 25 MW modules. Assuming that they cost 25 million dollars each, that’s about 11.5 billion dollars for 460 of such modules. Assuming conservatively that they last 7 years, that amounts to about 1.6 billion dollars per annum. Singapore spends roughly 2.3 billion dollars a year on natural gas/oil imports for power generation.
Yeah, one can easily make an economic case for the use of nuclear power in Singapore. Don’t forget that making Newater requires a fair bit of energy. So, it is also a national security issue too.
Fox – that makes sense. We used to have a nuclear plant at UIUC for the nuclear sciences department, but I did not understand enough about nuclear fission plants to make sense of how or why it could be placed in the middle of campus town with little obvious concern.
I remember reading somewhere that Toshiba has a commercial miniature nuclear reactor that has an electricity rating of 25 MWe. It is one of those ‘black box’ systems where Toshiba would be responsible for installing and decommissioning the nuclear reactor. A lot of the new emerging technologies in the commercial sphere are not mature. It is quite a difficult choice to pick between a mature technology and a new technology that makes untested but tempting promises.
Though Singapore is a free-disaster country, we can think that it is good to put nuclear plant because it helps lessen the CO2 emission, even help the production costs to be affordable for us.
Big question is WHAT IF the operation went wrong like Chernobyl Plant in Russian which got error operations? Technology is important to be built in but the operation need to be double or triple cautious through the nuclear workers who need to be in discipline and commitment.
I support nuclear program but the risk is the workers – Singapore may not promise to keep the reactor to be safe…it is btw the workers and the management. Hope Singapore can find a solution…for the nuclear plant.
In August 2010, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mr. Yukiya Amano (Nuclear Energy Expert) commented in Singapore that it is very save to build nuclear plant in a country. He illustrated how ‘save’ it is by providing examples of several nuclear plants in Japan which are situated near the residential area.
He probably has his point of view backed with tones of nuclear energy experiences. Lots of countries rely on their professional expertise from IAEA for certain key decision whether to build nuclear plant or not, including Singapore. Nonetheless, reality has proven him wrong entirely. The immediate & long term damages from recent nuclear plants explosion in Japan are devastating! This can be alarming if you relate to high academic achievers but lack experience while going to assume key leadership position in Singapore. They’ve to rely on facts from feasibility studies & statistical data which may be tweaked towards specific desirables. That may lead to wrong judgment & implement inappropriate policies resulted with disastrous ends.
There may be theoretically safe but may not be practically safe. There are stringent operation procedures & audit checks for Japan’s nuclear plant operation. But the recent nuclear plant explosion disaster reveals that they have been warned that the plants are too old which should be amortized & doesn’t meet the safety requirement & yet the Japanese government has just approved for the continual use of these plants in April 2011. The key is the financial gain has overwhelmed the potential damage in continuing to use the old plants. Also that any human activities will have potential mistake. Take for instance the collapse of Nicoll highway. Even civil/structural plans & mathematical calculations are approved by qualified engineers & stringent audit by respective authorities. But, who would not want to have low construction costs? Who are there to ensure the best quality construction with low skilled foreign workers? There will be gaps somewhere!
Singapore with about 24km North to South & 42km East to West, there will be no escape for majority of the people should there be a nuclear disaster outbreak. Except that there may be a specially constructed shelter for the selected few key personnel like that in the U.S., of course. Besides, the nuclear waste product will take thousands of years to reprocess. Its ‘spent fuel’ like plutonium will remain radioactive hazard to human for hundreds of thousands of years.
Targeted incremental population in Singapore will face the energy crunch by 2050, if not earlier. Technically speaking, nuclear energy seems relatively most efficient to meet that high energy demand to be. With the improved in technology, better safety measures can be in place to prevent accident or to minimize the damage from nuclear disasters. Nuclear power emits relatively less CO2 & able to generate large amount of electrical energy in a single plant. Uranium is used as fuel for nuclear energy which is scarce & expected to last about 70 years from now. It implies that the price of uranium will rise like oil in time to come, especially if more countries decided to build nuclear plant.
There are certainly alternatives like solar, hydro energy & etc. However, how big a development focuses on this so far? How adequately have we invested in these? How supportive is the government & private organizations in these initiatives? What are the end results currently? Have we really done enough?
Or, should we go back to basic? Aka, reduce energy consumption! Many may argue that with increased population, increased demand for car, food, manufacturing & etc, there is no way to reduce energy consumption. Honestly, have we done enough?
It’ll be too late to regret when experiencing the pain of losing love ones, country that is successfully built being destroyed, great health & harmony collapsed, mankind survival being threatened & more. Till then, we may not see the argument of ‘Nuclear energy is a must & the best solution’ still stands.
Wait a minute….is this Donaldson’s reply or PM Lee’s reply?
Perhaps PM Lee would like to consider Tesla’s free energy?
Kelly,
This is a brief re-cap of the points on nuclear energy mentioned in PM Lee’s speech.
Hi, see a lot of discussion going on here! I am sort of an On-The-Fence guy about nuclear energy, Because there are some benefits, but at the risk of citizens, though the accident we think would happen might not happen at all!
Well, you might have read the article in the Straits Times called “The Nuclear Divide”, and it talks about the many different benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power plants. And if look closely enough, there are quite a few points here already! I shall list them below:
BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR POWER:
NO carbon emission from the plant process
Nuclear energy works through the process off using the energy obtained from splitting radioactive atoms such as uranium, which releases energy used to heat the water into steam to turn the turbine. It is the same as fossil fuel power plants, just the way of turning the water into steam. Also, the clouds seen coming from the power plant is not smoke or radioactive plumes of air, but is actually steam! Scientific research has shown that in fact that the fly ash from coal burning contains more radiation than the amount released into atmosphere by the nuclear power plant.
–
MUCH HIGHER energy production
Nuclear fission produces roughly a million times more energy per unit weight than fossil fuel alternatives.
–
Takes up LESSER SPACE
It takes up lesser space than a water dam generator or the required amount of wind turbines to produce an equal amount of energy.
——————————–
DISADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER:
RADIATION!!
From the nuclear WASTE:
-The nuclear wastes emit high level of radiation, and much protection is needed to keep the radiation from spreading. This characteristic of radioactivity makes it easy to escape and enter the atmosphere. This is of especially high danger, and in cases of complete exposure, can certainly have very bad effects.
Although the waste does decay to safe level of radiation, it takes thousands of years for the waste to reach those safe levels.
From PARTS in the nuclear PLANT:
-Because these parts are exposed to the radiation, they also begin to emit low-level radiation.
–
HEAT
Heat is also greatly released in the process of nuclear fission, and near the plants they are quite high, affecting nearby life together with the radiation.
–
The SAD TRUTH of CARBON EMMISION
Although the process of nuclear fission does not release carbon dioxide, the process of searching for the uranium, mining and milling the uranium, and purifying the uranium uses fossil fuels which releases carbon! Furthermore, the construction of the nuclear plant also releases carbon dioxide.
Despite the fact that nuclear plants are constructed in limited space, they still consist of many different compartments that have many different special needs and requirements for safety; therefore the construction is also quite extensive.
–
COST
The cost for constructing a nuclear plant is well hidden by the governments who build them. The blatant truth is that such extensive equipment cost quite a handful, but the governments are willing to hide it from the public to gain their nuclear acceptance. Imagine how much has been spent on this that can be used for more pressing matters such as homelessness or unemployment, or using in funds for the education industry!
Above, I have tried my best to clear up the benefits and detriments, so I would really love to see something that could pull me to one side of the fence!
Maybe i will just tell my name…
I am the same person above…
Hi Intruder,
Can you tell us the date and page number of the Straits Times article “The Nuclear Divide” to facilitate our search process? We don’t read the Straits Times.
Sorry for not including that information, but here it is. The article can be found in the Straits Times Saturday, April 2 2011, Part D of the paper (special report,Youthink, science), on Page D17. I am not so sure of its availability now that it has been quite some time since its release.
P.S. You may call me Navneeth.
Actually, there have also been many other useful articles in the paper that also contain information on nuclear power. Also worth reading is how countries respond to nuclear disasters. You may have heard of Germany shutting down its reactors, for safety reasons, despite them being extremely safe.
Sorry for my terrible phrasing…you must have noticed the numerous ‘also’ in my typing…
Hi Intruder,
I assure you that we are no Grammer Nazis. Your terrible phrasing is perfectly acceptable. It has been quite a while since I penned an article on nuclear power, so I am surprised this thread is still alive.
Let me deal with the disadvantages of nuclear power:
Thermal Pollution is equally applicable on gas and coal power plants.
CO2 pollution from mining is equally applicable on gas and coal power plants.
One cause of Hidden Cost is regulatory delay which is usually caused by protests and challenges brought by civil society and political groups.