Skip to main content

Singapore: Not All Nuclear News Is Good

From Singapore:

Second Minister for Trade and Industry S Iswaran said a pre-feasibility study has concluded that current nuclear energy technology is not suitable for use in Singapore, even though the latest designs of nuclear power plants are much safer than older designs which remain in use in many countries.

Not exactly a  good time story for nuclear energy advocates.

Konstantin Foskolos, project adviser from Switzerland, said: "Singapore should wait for a reactor technology that cannot have a severe accident like in Fukushima - where the probability of such an accident is practically zero. Fukushima reactors belong to a technology which is 30,40 years old. They cannot compare with today's reactors. This zero probability for an accident can be achieved by different kinds of technology, which are currently under scrutiny and under development."

None of this really adds up – if Foskolos feels that current technology is not like that of Fukushima Daiichi, and less prone to accidents, then what’s the problem? If it’s a question of risk, then where does one draw the line? In 2009, power lines owned by a subsidiary of Singapore Power (may have) toppled over in Australia, causing a fire that killed 119 people. I say “may have” because I don’t believe the cause of the fire was determined definitively – the point is, power lines in dry country carries a risk.

Mr Iswaran said: "Singapore needs to continue to monitor the progress of nuclear energy technologies, and to strengthen our capabilities to understand nuclear science and technology. It is also important to track related developments in areas such as emergency response and radioactive waste disposal. Then we can assess the implications of evolving nuclear energy technologies and regional nuclear energy developments for Singapore. This will also strengthen our operational preparedness and our existing capabilities in radiation and incident response."

You really don’t need a million reasons to do something – or not do it – but it’s interesting regardless that Singapore looked at nuclear energy. Currently, Singapore generates about 80 percent of its electricity from natural gas, almost all of which it imports. The goals here are energy diversity and independence – and maybe balancing its trade portfolio while it’s at it. I couldn’t find much on renewable energy – maybe Singapore is too small for it to make much sense at the scale it requires. This abstract for a report seems to think so.

Ah well – moral of story: can’t win ‘em all.

---

But why leave on the down note?

Poland will pursue its plan to build the country's first nuclear power station, a government member said on Monday, playing down suggestions from commentators that the 50 billion zlotys ($15.8 billion) investment might be scrapped.

And:

European Union member Poland wants to develop nuclear power to reduce its dependence on highly polluting coal. It aims to launch a 3 gigawatt nuclear plant by 2023 and double that capacity by 2030.

GE-Hitachi, Westinghouse and AREVA are all angling for some of the work. Hope they all get some.

Comments

Robin said…
Singapore is a city state and as such, a decision to not build is a minor dissapointment at best. It has the same impact on the industry as, say, Chicago deciding not to build a nuclear plant. The reaction from the audience sould be a "Huh? Chicago?".
Engineer-Poet said…
I don't know if Singapore has a stand-alone grid or is connected to others, but its 2009 electric consumption of 39.6 TWH yields an average of about 4.5 GW.  An AP-1000 would supply roughly a quarter of average electric demand, which is a huge amount for a single plant.

Singapore is probably better off waiting for the mPower or other small modular reactor, and buying those in some quantity on the order of a dozen.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …