wildsingapore news: Mar 20, 2011

Indonesia not ready for nuclear plant: Minister
Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post 19 Mar 11;

Indonesia is not ready to build nuclear power plants due to human resources issues and public opposition, Environment Minister Gusti Muhammad Hatta said.

Gusti’s statement comes as the National Atomic Energy Agency (Batan) insists on going ahead with its nuclear plant program despite mounting opposition.

Minister Gusti argued that nuclear power plants should be the last resort since the country still had several energy options.

“There’s no need to hurry to build a nuclear power plant except if we start running out of energy resources,” he told The Jakarta Post on Friday.

Indonesia could explore cleaner energy options such as geothermal, wind or water to power electricity plants.

Aside from problems with the supply of raw materials, the government needs to ensure the public about the security aspect following Japan’s ongoing nuclear crisis, he went on.

“It is not easy to ensure a public that is skeptical about nuclear reactors in Indonesia,” he said.

Under the 2009 Environmental Law, Gusti’s office is responsible for issuing environmental impact analysis documents for strategic businesses, including for nuclear power plants.

The nuclear crisis in Japan, triggered by the 8.9 Richter scale earthquake, has forced the Japanese government to evacuate an area up to 30 kilometers from the plant site.

Like Japan, Indonesia is located within the ring of fire that is prone to earthquakes.

Batan head Hudi Hastowi has insisted that the office would go ahead with the plan since it had been mandated by law.

He said his office would implement Law No. 17/2007 on the long-term development plan stipulating, among other things, energy issues and the 2006 presidential regulation on the national energy policy.

The presidential regulation stipulates that 2 percent of the country’s total demand for energy should be met by nuclear power plants from 2025.

“We have already missed the first deadline to start operating nuclear plants in 2017. We don’t want another setback,” Hudi told the Post.

To supply 2 percent of the electricity demand, Indonesia would need to construct four nuclear power plants with a capacity of 4,000 MW.

It takes about 10 years to build a nuclear power plant.

“Batan will start mapping feasible locations for a nuclear power plant this year,” he said.

Hadi said the office had not received any proposal from developers interested in building nuclear power plants.

According to Hadi, the nuclear power plant debate should not been swayed by the issues with nuclear reactors in Japan.

“Batan works based on the law and it is our responsibility to uphold the law, but activists only look at the nuclear incident in Japan,” he said.

Activists have long complained about the government’s plan to build a power plant, urging authorities to utilize other energy resources instead.

The executive director of Indonesia Green Institute, Chalid Muhammad, said that with the nuclear radiation alert in Japan, the Indonesian government should cancel the plan to build a nuclear power plant.

“We could not imagine if a nuclear incident such as in Japan, a country with very good technology and preparedness in facing disaster, were to happen in Indonesia,” he said.

Chalid also questioned why Batan insisted on building a nuclear power plant.

“I suspect key officials at Batan have personal interests to make them to go ahead with the plant despite the lesson from Japan,” he said.

Mining Advocacy Network (Jatam) member Andrie Wijaya warned that corruption in the government could put the development of a nuclear power plant at risk.

He said the government was not ready in terms of good governance.

Japan fallout creates quandary for Thailand
Piyaporn Wongruang & Apinya Wipatayotin Bangkok Post 20 Mar 11;

For decades, the option has been on the table as an alternative energy source, but officials are now taking a hard look at whether it's worth the risk

When the magnitude-9.0 offshore earthquake and subsequent tsunami rocked Japan on March 11, it also shook plans around the globe to move forward with ambitious nuclear power development schemes, including those of the Thai government.

With each passing day, the risk assessment from the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant seems to grow, challenging nuclear plans in Thailand, which would likely have entered the implementation phase of the Energy Ministry's four-part plan this year had it not been for the nuclear power plant explosions in Japan.

With the latest developments in Japan, the ministry has not ruled out the possibility of going nuclear, although it has broken its silence and said the incidents should be taken as a case study regarding nuclear safety measures.

Quoted in Friday's Bangkok Post, Energy Minister Wannarat Channukul said the panel in charge of Thailand's 20-year power development plan from 2010-2030 must look more closely at safety measures and new technology to handle serious accidents.

"We are still in the feasibility study stage and have yet to make a definite decision on whether to build nuclear power plants. What has happened in Japan should be taken as a case study in safety measures,"he said

In 1954, the Thai Atomic Energy Commission was launched, with a focus on developing nuclear power for research purposes. The first research reactor was supported by the US with a minimal 2MW capacity in Bangkok's Bang Khen district, and it is still in operation today. A second reactor with a capacity of 10MW was planned in Nakhon Nayok, but eventually dropped, partly because its environmental impact assessment failed to get approval.

Thailand's ambitions to generate power from nuclear sources dates back to 1966. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) noted in a report last year titled "Preventing Nuclear Dangers in Southeast Asia and Australasia" that at that time Egat proposed building a nuclear power plant and identified a potential site in Chon Buri province, but later suspended the plan due to a fall in the price of natural gas. The plan was revived several times but eventually dropped after the 1997 crisis, as funds dried up and public concerns over safety rose.

But nuclear schemes resurfaced in the 2007 power development plan, which called for the development of two 2,000MW nuclear plants. This was later changed to five 1,000MW plants in the 2010 power development plan. The plan was devised by the Energy Ministry's Nuclear Power Programme Development Office.

The IISS analysed the planned schedule for nuclear power development outlined in the latest power development plan and concluded it is "probably not unrealistic". However, operations were at a very early stage and would depend on extensive foreign assistance.

Unclear legislation covering the nuclear issue and political instability could be problematic, the IISS report said. Growing public concerns over the safety of nuclear energy might also create delays, it said.

Tara Buakamsri, campaign director at Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said the NGO is firm in its contention that nuclear power is dirty, expensive, and potentially disastrous.

Mr Tara said energy planning in Thailand lacks public input and transparency. He said it is time to reconsider the process that has pushed for unsound energy sources like nuclear.

"We should apply an integrated approach, which will lead to a decentralised energy system, where alternative and truly diversified energy sources are given a chance for development," said Mr Tara.

Witoon Permpongsacharoen, director of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network, said the nuclear disaster in Japan has clearly demonstrated that the complicated technology is beyond mankind's control, and also called for a review of the country's power development plan.

"What happened in Japan has shown there are unpredictable factors hiding behind the technology. They say the systems can be designed to control unexpected factors, but this dialogue doesn't reassure us," said Mr Witoon.

He said that unrealistically high energy demand forecasts have led to unnecessary investment in the energy sector and unwarranted financial burdens on the public, which show up on electricity bills.

He said that currently the country has about 30,000MW of energy capacity, nearly 29% of which is reserve capacity. He said better management would negate the need to invest in a risky energy source like nuclear.

Mr Witoon said that energy efficiency measures alone could reduce present energy demands by as much as 30%. Unfortunately, he said, such measures have never been been seriously promoted among consumers. He also said that the push for new energy sources is not a response to energy demands, but is driven by investors' greed.

Speaking in favour of continuing Thailand's nuclear programme, Pricha Karasuddhi of the Nuclear Power Programme Development Office said that confusing reports over the crisis in Japan have caused misunderstandings about nuclear safety.

"The crisis in the nuclear power plant in Japan is quite far from the nuclear tragedy in Chernobyl," said Mr Pricha. "The crisis is controllable."

He said that that nuclear power was needed to replace fossil fuels. "We do need to look at the long run. In the past, [nuclear] technology has not been good enough, but now we have more advanced technology. The troubled nuclear power plant in Japan has been in use for over 40 years. It might have some problems, but the newer plant located near the old one has no problems. It is still working properly," said Mr Pricha.

He said that the Thai government should tell the public what the alternatives are if no nuclear power plants are built. While he understands why Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva delayed the nuclear power plant project for further study, he feels that since Thailand does not face the same risks from earthquakes as Japan, nuclear power plants "should have been constructed over 30 years ago".

Burin Asavapibhop, a physics lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, also voiced concerns over the country's energy security if nuclear power plant construction does not proceed as scheduled.

He said that it is very important to educate the public about nuclear power and possible impacts on the environment and health.

"Thai people have fears about radioactivity from the nuclear power plant in Japan. They are afraid that it will be dangerous to their health. But in fact, people are exposed to radioactivity from nature every day at a very low level," said Mr Burin.

"We should not agree to things that we don't truly understand. I can't say whether a nuclear power plant should be constructed in Thailand. The decision should come from the people. But before answering the question, we should be certain the answer comes from a true understanding of the issues."

NUCLEAR PHASES The Energy Ministry is the main player in the push to develop nuclear power in Thailand, and it coordinates with other agencies to prepare the plan for the initiative. Under a proposal approved by the cabinet in late 2007, the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Preparation Committee (NPIPC) was appointed to work on the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Plan (NPIEP), which was endorsed at the end of the year. The NPIPC was replaced by the Nuclear Power Infrastructure Establishment Coordination Committee (NPIECC) and the Nuclear Power Program Development Office (NPPDO) was established under the Energy Ministry to coordinate the NPIEP implementation.

An internal report from the ministry's Energy Policy and Planning office divides the programme into four main phases, with milestones set for each. The first phase, which ran from 2008 to 2010, dealt mainly with the approval of the plan, feasibility studies, potential site studies, and public relations.

The second phase, set to start this year, was expected, before the crisis in Japan, to begin with official government approval.

In this phase, the programme implementation phase, site and and technology selection is to be settled, along with the drafting of legislation to regulate implementation and development of the programme.

The third phase, scheduled to start in 2014, would concern bidding and the actual construction of at least the first plant. The final phase begins in 2020, when it is expected that the first nuclear power plant will be operational. This phase also would see expansion of the programme.

The internal report notes that the total budget for the first phase amounted to about 1.35 billion baht, received from the state-funded Energy Conservation Fund (750 million baht) and Egat (595 million baht). About 625 million baht was spent for public relations.

Some reasons given in the internal report for the development of nuclear power are that the country relies too heavily on natural gas from the Gulf of Thailand and Burma. This accounts for around 70% of the country's electricity production. In order to strengthen the country's energy security, new energy sources are needed.

The report also cites increasing energy demand in the future, as much as 20,000MW in the next 20 years. The report adds that nuclear power has low production costs and is reliable, and by using it, the country would not face hardships from making mandatory carbon emissions cuts to comply with climate change strategies.

An age-old dilemma
Rashvinjeet S. Bedi The Star 20 Mar 11;

Has the crisis at the Japanese reactors hit by the earthquake/tsunami poured cold water on Malaysia’s plans of going nuclear?

NOT many may know this, but Malaysia was supposed to go nuclear a long time ago. This was in the early 1970s when the Malaysian Government sent the brightest minds abroad to gain knowledge about nuclear power.

The Malaysian Nuclear Agency (Nuclear Malaysia) was established in 1972 as a step to introduce nuclear power as part of the energy mix in the country. Back then, it was known as the Centre for Application of Nuclear Malaysia (CRANE) before it was formally named Tun Ismail Atomic Research Centre (Puspati).

However, the discovery of natural gas and oil here in the mid-70s pushed plans for nuclear power in the background, and remained there until last year.

“The change and relegation of the importance of nuclear energy affected the staff as well,” writes president of the Malaysian Nuclear Society Dr Nahrul Khair Alang Md Rashid in a book titled Nuclear Insights.

The agency had to change course but the diversity of the applications of nuclear technology ensured its survival.

“We lost a generation there,” says scientist Peter Davis who is formerly with UKM.

After decades of waiting, the nuclear fraternity was rejoicing last December when the Government announced plans to build two nuclear power plants that would each generate 1,000 megawatts (MW) of power. (It has been recorded that a total of 15,000MW of power is required at 2.30pm (peak time) for the whole of peninsular Malaysia.)

The first plant was expected to be ready for operation in 2021 as part of an overall long-term plan to balance energy supply. The second was expected to be ready a year later.

But just as it looked as if the Government was going ahead with initial plans for the plants, the crisis at the tsunami/quake-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in the Tohuku region of Japan seems to have thrown a spanner in the works.

There has always been opposition to nuclear technology, but the stance against it has been growing again because of this situation, which has been described as the worst since the 1986 Chernobyl (Ukraine) explosion and 1979 Three Mile Island (Pennsylvania, US) accident.

“The anti-nuclear lobby is very vocal and is going to jump on this bandwagon to try and stop preparations for nuclear power,” says Davis.

He also describes the recent SMS message, which told people not to go outside if it rained because they could lose their hair and get cancer, as “anti-scientific fear-mongering”.

But while the SMS was a complete hoax, the visuals coming out of Japan certainly do not lie. Up till late last week, the Japanese were still struggling to contain the effects of the damage to the reactors, dropping water from helicopters and using water cannons on the ground in an attempt to cool them.

The full extent of the damage at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors is still unknown for now, although the severity level has been raised from 4 to 5 on a scale of 1 to 7.

In light of these developments, the Malaysian government has been swaying back and forth on the issue of nuclear energy. First, it was said that they were going ahead with the plan and then later that they were still undecided about it.

Other countries already in various stages of planning and building their own reactors are caught in similar dilemmas. China said it was suspending approval for new nuclear power stations and would also carry out rigorous checks at both existing reactors and those still under construction.

Statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency show there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide now, and another 65 new facilities are under construction.

Dr Nahrul, the former deputy director-general of Nuclear Malaysia, believes the crisis at the Fukushima plants will further fan negative perception about nuclear energy.

When the word “nuclear” is mentioned, he says, the image conjured up would be that of bombs and green-coloured people.

“People think those in authority or in the know are not being truthful. They will say those in the know have vested interests. It’s a dilemma faced by pro-nuclear people all over the world.”

The Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed during World War II in 1945 by the Americans, killing more than 200,000 people, are also remembered.

“But we have to look at the bigger perspective,” stresses Dr Nahrul, explaining that the Fukushima plant was commissioned in 1971 and that technological advances since then are now being used to build better and safer plants.

“Fukushima is unfortunate but we learn even more from every incident,” he says, adding that a decision to go nuclear should not be rushed.

Speaking as a regulator and not promoter of the technology, Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) director-general Raja Datuk Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan points out that if and when Malaysia decides to embark on nuclear power, it would have to ensure standards of safety, security and safeguards.

“We have to enforce the law regardless of whether it’s a private or government entity,” he says in an interview in the wee hours of Friday morning from Vienna.

He says that whenever there are accidents or near-accidents involving nuclear reactors, better designs are adopted, and he believes that if the quake-tsunami had occurred in the 70s, there might have been more devastation.

Power plants have incorporated safety features from the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, he says.

“There is a popular saying that if aeroplanes had all the safety features of a nuclear power plant, they won’t take off.”

Another issue always brought up by Malaysians to support their anti-nuclear stance is the reliability of our maintenance work. Images of stadium roofs crashing down, burst pipes at the new courts and shoddy government buildings come to mind immediately.

Abdul Aziz, who is also chairman of the Advisory Group on Nuclear Security (AdSec), says nuclear power plants have to conform to the high standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“Unlike stadiums, nuclear power plants have transboundary and global effects. We have to meet the standards. We would be under pressure from the international community,” he stresses.

The same standards will be expected of our neighbouring countries – Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam – who are all planning to go nuclear in the near future, he adds.

For future demand

The Government says Malaysia needs nuclear power in the future to meet demands for energy, which is expected to grow at 3% to 5% annually from 2010 until 2020.

Currently, Malaysia relies a lot on fossil fuels to generate electricity. In 2008 and 2009, 65% of electricity was generated from gas, followed by coal at 29%, and 6% from hydro.

However, experts have said supply of these fossil fuels was dwindling and alternate sources of energy were needed to overcome potential problems in the future.

Many have suggested that we look into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, but Dr Nahrul believes they will not be adequate.

“I wish we could use renewable energy,” he says, pointing out that solar power needs a lot of panels and would take up huge amounts of land.

According to Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), to generate 1,000MW of electricity through solar energy, a land area of 100sq km would be required.

TNB president and chief executive officer Datuk Seri Che Khalib Mohamad Noh has been reported as saying that the cost of a solar power plant is estimated at RM12.2mil per MW.

On its website, TNB admits that the capital costs of setting up a nuclear power plant would be higher. But operating costs would be much lower, it says.

TNB also says it could construct the first nuclear power plant at a cost of RM3.1bil.

It says that fuel costs make up 26% of the overall production costs of nuclear power plants while fuel costs for coal, natural gas and oil make up more than 80% of the production costs.

The refuelling of uranium in a nuclear reactor is done every 15 to 24 months.

Dr Nahrul adds that nuclear know-how will have a multiplier and spillover effect on different areas of technology.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has also considered nuclear energy as clean since it does not emit much greenhouse gases. According to its statistics, nuclear reaction for the purpose of generating electricity produces about 5gC (Carbon)/KwH. Gas and coal produce 100 to 220gC/KwH and 200 to 350gC/KwH respectively

As for the lifespan of reactors, Dr Nahrul says that with technologies forever evolving, they can be built to last longer. Some plants have been extended from 40 to 60 years, he says.

As for nuclear waste, Dr Nahrul says that waste in the new breed of reactors can be processed and turned into new fuel. But he concedes that there were still some issues to be resolved in this aspect.

“We still have to find a solution to it,” he says, adding that there is research being done on how to reduce intensity (lifespan) of the waste.

How about issues of location and fear of radiation? Most people would probably object to having a nuclear power plant in their backyard, right?

Dr Nahrul points out that all around the world many people are living close to nuclear power plants without any problems. France, for example, is 80% reliant on nuclear power, with people living near the plants, he says.

Those in nuclear-powered submarines are staying virtually next to the reactor, he adds.

Farah Nadia Dayana Samsudin, 22, an undergraduate student in Science who interned at Nuclear Malaysia last year, says she was hesitant about nuclear energy at first but she says she has no objection to it now.

“I am aware of the hazard that the Japanese are facing, but people should not be scared just because of a few incidents when many more reactors are operating smoothly,” she says, adding that she wouldn’t mind living near a nuclear plant.

“It’s unfair to be afraid of it when we freely let ourselves be exposed to cosmic radiation in an aircraft.”

Marcus Ng*, 32, says Malaysia should have its own nuclear power station, citing research and articles published in scientific journals as his sources.

There are several issues to look at, though, including a detailed environmental impact assessment study on the location, and choosing the best contractors and best practices and management systems, says the manager of a steel fabrication factory. “As long as the reactors are built to specification, I don’t see an issue here.”

* Not his real name

Best of our wild blogs: 20 Mar 11

Tiger prawns are first UK Fairtrade seafood

Nuclear energy in Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand

Fiji: Vanishing coastlines

Blog Archive

past daily news

subscribe via email

news categories

more news blogs

visit counter