As traditional sources of energy dwindle, Singapore needs to take a hard look at this alternative
Amresh Gunasingham Straits Times 24 Jul 10;
MALAYSIA recently announced an ambitious plan to build its first nuclear plant by 2021.
Vietnam has declared its intention to build at least one plant within the next decade, while Indonesia and Thailand are giving serious thought to the idea. Singapore has so far opted to tread the cautious route, announcing earlier this year that it would do a feasibility study to explore the use of nuclear energy.
The mention of nuclear energy still conjures images in the public consciousness of environmental disasters like Chernobyl and the devastating long-term toll it took on the health of many.
But the posts have shifted dramatically in the last two decades, with the advancements made in nuclear technology and improving its safety.
In a region of half a billion people, many countries are making strides to explore the nuclear option as a means to fuelling their power hungry economies. The issue is galvanised by the realities of a modern world where traditional sources of energy are both dwindling in supply and causing increasing harm to the environment.
The feasibility study, a multi-agency effort spearheaded by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, is exploring a number of options. It will do well to consult major nuclear power users such as the United States, where up to 20 per cent of electricity is generated from nuclear power.
Key among the challenges to overcome is to ensure, as far as possible, that situating a reactor here would assuage public safety concerns.
That is easier said than done. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently remarked jokingly at a conference that a nuclear reactor could be located out at sea, the reason being it would minimise the threat to the population in the event of a leak.
Finding a suitable site to locate a plant here is complicated by the fact that international safety guidelines stipulate a nuclear reactor has to be ringed by a safety buffer zone, which poses an immediate challenge for land-scarce Singapore.
Researchers say areas in the western part of the island or even offshore around the Republic's southern islands could be suitable for building such a plant.
But the bigger question will be how to dispose of radioactive waste safely.
Officials familiar with Singapore's feasibility study say the main options are to either go underground or export waste nuclear material to countries with the proper storage facilities.
The option of going underground is widely considered by most countries as the safest way of running a nuclear facility, although there has not been consensus as yet on the most effective way to do it.
Experts say that more studies are needed to better understand how the heat generated by a nuclear reactor will affect a rock mass and how radionuclides could seep through the rocks into the atmosphere in the event of an accident.
Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently submitted a proposal to the US government that looks at whether the drilling of bore holes 4km deep underground could be a safe way of storing waste near nuclear plants there.
The most common method used to store radioactive waste now is above ground in massive, airtight canisters made of steel or concrete.
For Singapore, though, given its limited physical space, the preferred option remains to export its waste to countries already equipped with nuclear storage facilities.
Countries such as Canada, Russia, the US and Australia can be tapped to build a nuclear plant, train staff to run it as well as provide uranium - the fuel most widely used in nuclear plants to generate electricity, said Energy Studies Institute researcher Hooman Peimani.
Another is South Korea, which recently scooped a US$40 billion (S$55 billion) contract with Saudi Arabia to build a nuclear facility there for the Saudis' exclusive use by 2017.
Agreements could be struck with countries from whom plutonium is purchased, to export the radioactive waste there.
'All this could be done by one country although that does not need to be the case' he said.
The benefits of going nuclear are well established. It offers a viable alternative energy source to a nation chronically lacking in resources and increasingly dependent on its neighbours for energy.
The need for alternative energy sources here has grown with the double-barrelled effect of population and economic growth.
Over the next three years alone, electricity demand is set to soar from around 40 gigawatt-hours (GWh) at present to around 60 GWh.
Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear-generated power also does not emit heat-trapping carbon emissions into the atmosphere, making it an attractive alternative fuel source to combat global warming.
Many countries have boldly declared their intention to embark on such projects, only to flounder under the weight of the hefty capital costs needed.
Finland, for example, will have to cough up close to US$8 billion, almost double the initial estimates, to realise its plans to build a reactor.
That said, the technology is continually improving. New reactor prototypes designed with a smaller capacity makes them cheaper.
This, coupled with enhancements made to safety, will make nuclear power more viable going forward.
Realistically, it takes at least a decade to build up the technical expertise and execute the construction of a nuclear plant.
Given the lack of viable alternatives to source power from, it is timely that we have at least begun to explore this option.
