This is the first of a two-part series in response to Kompas´ article ¨Nuclear Power Plant will be built in North Coast, Banten¨ dated 5 August 2008. Kompas is the most widely read newspaper in Indonesia and it has a reputation for high quality writing and investigative journalism. The next article in this two-part series will cover Implication for Singapore, Strategic Opportunities.
Donaldson Tan / Guest Writer
The Governor of Banten Province, Ratu Atut Chosiyah, revealed in August 2008 that the Indonesian government is planning to build a 4,000 MW nuclear power plant in Banten Province. Indonesia‘s national agency of nuclear energy (BATAN) is currently undertaking a study to verify the right location for the power plant whereas the provincial government has already indicated full support. Construction is expected to start in 2010.
However, Indonesia is not alone in ASEAN in the pursuit of nuclear power. Vietnam‘s civilian nuclear power program dates back all the way to 1976, and it aims to have an operational 4,000 MW nuclear power plant by 2020. Malaysia foresees two nuclear plants by 2020, and Thailand began feasibility studies for nuclear power in March 2008, with the apparent aim of having a plant operational by 2020. The Philippines completed construction of the 621 MW Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in 1984 but it was never commissioned.
Why nuclear power for ASEAN?
Why Indonesia and other energy resource rich ASEAN states would need a nuclear power plant might look baffling to some. Despite Indonesia being the second biggest LNG exporter in the world, Indonesia‘s LNG export volume has been showing strains from growing domestic consumption. Natural gas is an extremely popular fuel for electricity generation at home and internationally. It is clean-burning and also much more energy efficient as a fuel than fuel oil and coal.
There is a substantial demand for natural gas from countries such as the EU-27 and the United States who are committed to reduce its green house gas emissions. One has to balance the needs of foreign investors who invested heavily into the domestic oil industry and the energy needs of the non-hydrocarbon domestic industries. On the other hand, diversifying domestic energy sources for energy security is also important in managing the nation’s exposure to volatile energy markets.
From a financial perspective, the price of fossil fuel in a conventional power plant accounts for 77.93% of the total generation costs while the price of fuel in a nuclear power plant accounts for 27% of the total generation costs. This means a nuclear power plant is much less susceptible to fluctuations and skyrocketing of commodity prices in the global energy marketplace. Yet at the same time, nuclear power does not contribute to global warming and acid rain. Studies from University of Chicago have shown that even if the price of uranium went up, total power generation costs would increase by at most 7%.
Coincidentally, Indonesia has somewhat of a domestic buffer against the supply uncertainty in the international uranium market. There are 2 established uranium mines in West Kalimantan and since 1991, Indonesia has been able to fabricate nuclear fuel elements from its domestic uranium ores. Indonesia is the most advanced ASEAN country in implementing the nuclear fuel cycle.
Remember the Chernobyl Disaster
Given Singapore‘s limited land area and high population density, the Ministry of Trade & Industry (MTI) has concluded that nuclear power is not feasible for Singapore. However, our proximity to our ASEAN neighbours does not shield us from nuclear plant accidents and environmental fallouts arising from the disposal of nuclear wastes.
The 1986 Chernobyl Disaster is the biggest nuclear power plant accident in the world. It provoked a radioactive cloud that originated from modern day Ukraine and floated all over continental Europe and the United Kingdom. The health and ecological aspect of the Chernobyl Disaster is widely published but the incident is a social disaster too. Former residents from Chernobyl were regarded as dirty and were socially rejected in many places for a variety of reasons such as increased competition within the localised job market and that a good number of them were visually sickly due to the radiation. This has created a generation of psychological trauma and inferiority complex amongst the former Chernobyl residents and their children. The City of Chernobyl remains uninhabited today.
Nuclear geopolitics in ASEAN
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised much concern amongst the ASEAN community for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Looking back into history, it is interesting to note that Indonesia, under President Sukarno, had a shortlived nuclear weapons programme led by Brigadier General Hartono of the Army Ordnance Department in the 1960s. In view of the dualuse nature of nuclear technology, the Secretary General of ASEAN said “while countries are free to address their energy needs, it would help to reassure nervous neighbours.”
These concerns were finally amalgamated in the Treaty of Bangkok which came into force in 1997. The treaty declares Southeast Asia as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) while it reaffirms the right of each state party to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Notably, concerns over the safety of nuclear power plants and nuclear waste management were addressed. A full-scope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is required for the pursuit of a civilian nuclear power program.
The sensitive nature of nuclear technology would require regional cooperation to cover its security, technological, economic and environmental aspects. It is a platform for fostering closer ties among ASEAN member states. Perhaps this could be the catalyst for ASEAN integration. After all, Southeast Asia is among the most densely populated region in the world. Embracing nuclear technology in ASEAN would be tying the entire region’s future together. There has been no objection to nuclear power among ASEAN governments and support for nuclear power was reiterated in the Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security and the Singapore Declaration on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment.
Future Challenges
Given the emerging role of nuclear power in ASEAN, there are many future challenges ahead. Nuclear power represents a new age of energy security in ASEAN. It introduces uncertainty to regional security and environmental protection, all which may have economic implication. The capacity to enforce domestic environment regulation is also lacking among ASEAN governments. The question on how Singapore will adapt to a shared nuclear future with ASEAN remains unanswered.
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
RH:
1. Modern generation nuclear plants are far safer than Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island although human error and bad work attitudes can pose dangers.
2. I think the nuclear and other dangers to Singapore are directly from Changi Naval Base. LIE KY, trying as usual to suck the Americans, built the CNB for the American fleets from nuclear submarines to nuclear aircraft carriers. Each and every one of these nuclear powered ships pose a danger, right on our doorstep. So it is silly to worry about our neighbours’ civilian nuclears when these nuclear warships pose a far greater danger.
3. In addition to nuclear engines and nuclear fuel for these engines, these warships carry a deadly arsenal of nuclear bombs and missiles, all of which pose far greater dangers than civilian nuclears because, simply, nuclear weapons are designed to explode and devastate as huge an area as possible.
4. Not just nuclear weapons but also biological and chemical weapons, plus new methods of killing people continually being developed. All these are brought right into our CNB, thanks to LIE KY sucking of Americans.
5. In order to deflect my criticisms that LIE KY sucks Americans, he had to open CNB to other navies, horrors of horrors, who have even lower safety standards in their nuclear ships.
6. Thus, if LIE KY is really serious about nuclear dangers, he and ASEAN should ban all nuclear ships from ASEAN. These nuclear warships and their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons pose far bigger dangers than our neighbours’ civilian nuclear plants.
Just a quick comment: the two most widely known and devastating nuclear accidents involving nuclear fission power plants is Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (although the latter was far from the disaster as painted by the media).
Considering that there are thousands of fission plants in the world and with only one mega-disaster, I must say that the record isn’t that terrible at all. In fact, the Chernobyl disaster is so bad because there were cover-ups instead of clean-ups when the accident first happened.
My point is, nuclear fission power plants are actually pretty safe. There have been minor accidents and leaks, but it is never as doomsday-ish as Hollywood movies or dystopian novels paint them.
Robert Ho (#1),
Clause 2, Article 3 of the Treaty of Bangkok reads:
Each State Party also undertakes not to allow, in its territory, any other State to:
(a) develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons;
(b) station nuclear weapons; or
(c) test or use nuclear weapons
This means it is illegal for nuclear weapon states to even have aircraft, submarines or vessels that house nuclear weapons in ASEAN water and airspace. In fact, all the nuclear weapon states actually protested against the Treaty because the treaty cover not just land, but also the air space and water of the exclusive economic zones (ie. 200 nautical miles from the coast lines) too. However, nuclear powered engines is not outlawed. Modern US aircraft carriers and submarines actually use nuclear powered engines, but not all of them carried nuclear weapons.
Hello Jackson,
“My point is, nuclear fission power plants are actually pretty safe. There have been minor accidents and leaks, but it is never as doomsday-ish as Hollywood movies or dystopian novels paint them.”
I think when you conduct any risk assessment, you cannot just confine it exclusively to the operational / there is also the issue of natural risk such as earthquakes, tremors etc. Along with the theoretical possibility of terrorism and sabotage i.e ploughing a jetliner into a nuclear reactor – these also have to be sensibly scaled accordingly as well, but the main issue for Singapore is simply this, we are not Russian or America, where if you have a Chernobyl or three mile island, everyone can be effectively evacuated and the area effectively zone off and declared a national park for X number of years, that I believe is the main issue and if you see it in that context, then however safe you say it is operationally, the cost will always be exorbitantly high to render it a real and present threat.
Reg
SD (internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)
nonono…
nuclear power too danger..too much risk..
but clean energy is better and is good to environment..no harm for pp and environment..
but is expensive..but singapore affortable,not sing pp..
all the officer salary add together can have all clean energy technology in all part in sing lo…
PAP always say tat they r FAR Far sighted view…so now…??
do they built?? nonono … becos can”T have any benefit ……LOL..
poor and sad singaporeans.
I hope they remember to build it in some place that is not earth-quake or tsunami prone…
GOD.. this region is getting dangerous with all the nuclear reactors …
I better migrate to australia.
Why can’t MM Lee stand before our power stations and ‘Will’ those turbines to turn and generate electricity without burning oil or gas? After all in Singapore, with his iron will, he is able to make Singapore move his way or no way.
isa – I think Oz also got nuclear reactors…
Do not confuse the nuclear issue with Singapore’s strategic interests.
The US-Singapore security partnership is not a negotiable component of our foreign policy.
Nuclear power is not far fetched.
USA has been using nuclear powered submarines for so long.
Its safe IF you master the technology.
A Gun is not safe IF you do not use it safely.
A Gun is safe IF you use it safely.
Sex is not safe if you do not have sex safely.
I believe Robert Ho (#1) is referring to these incidents:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/30/asia/AS-Japan-US-Nuclear-Sub.php
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/07/content_9036469.htm
Nuclear plants and Indonesia are not compatible due to risks of:
1. earthquakes
2. tsunamis
3. corrupt and unreliable regimes and history of administrative/organisational failures.
Time our toughie MM gets going and tell our next door neybours a thing or two,instead of bullying local political opponents!
#8 Gerard..
I know.. but I’ve lived in Australia and I believed their capabilities in building a SAFE Nuclear Plant .. with all the safety measures..
What I am scared is Indonesia is like Russia last time… slipshod shaddy worksmanship
so if got chernobyl incident… Singapore is not too far away…
I dont think it is a very good idea. What if it is like the haze, it is burning there but we get it over here?
Let us not talk about tremors and earthquakes, btw just FYI, there is something happening in the Intelligent Singaporean.
Last night bfr I switched off my computer a box appeared it read go and check out the right hand side column of the Intelligent singaporean, it said, something new and sweet comes this way. See for yourself, if you don’t believe me.
http://intelligentsingaporean.wordpress.com/
See what I mean, there are tremors all the time
I believe it is only a matter of time for us to have nuclear energy option. We do not hv to be held hostage to oil prices, if our neighbours build theirs before us, it is only right that we follow suit. Maybe that is why we have been selling our power plants. My main concern is if our neighbours hv their nulcear plants, are they up to scratch in maintaining n running it bearing in mind their corrupted culture. All the more we shd hv nuclear option, any nuclear fallout from our neighbours are going to affect us whether we hv nuclear power stations or not.
RH:
7. Thanks, Donaldson Tan, for pointing out the Treaty of Bangkok.
8. I wouldnt place any trust in a treaty and the Americans honesty in obeying it. Truth is, nobody, not even the Americans-sucking LIE KY can go on board the US warships in CNB to ensure that there are no nuclear weapons, the smallest of which, incidently, is small and light enough to be carried by 1 man. LIE KY just doesnt have that clout with the Americans — he just sucks them where it is more pleasurable for them.
9. Even assuming that the Americans obediently oblige our little ASEAN treaty and even littler LIE KY sucker, do you think the American warships would go to the trouble to offload their nuclear arsenal or chemical and biological weapons just before entering CNB? I think not. Suckers can only suck. They have no clout with their patron.
10. Even assuming the American warships carry only unremoveable nuclear engines and attendant nuclear fuel, and not a single tactical nuke, the conventional bombs are so big many of them produce devastations even greater than tactical nukes, like the MOAB, for instance. If any of these conventional explosives go off, CNB and its surroundings will cease to exist. Even the rocket fuel on ‘ordinary’ missiles are pretty explosive. So, too, chemical and biological weapons accidents will destroy Singapore, whether these be accidental or terrorists set off.
11. LIE KY, instead of finding a way to co-exist with neighbours, instead put his trust in a sucking relationship with the US. When the US suddenly vaporises, like now, LIE KY will find that he has no 1 left to suck for protection. And the decades of insulting neighbours will be revenged. Stupid again.
12. But dont worry. LIE KY has nuclear bombs, on the reliable authority of such orgs as Janes of UK, which has published that LIE KY does have nuclear bombs. Incidentally, this contravenes the Bangkok Treaty you quoted.
13. Finally, inviting the hated Americans into your home [CNB] is also inviting America’s uncountable enemies into Singapore, possibly to a terrorist explosion like USS Cole right in CNB. Of course, LIE KY police state is very secure, but Mas Selamat happened, remember? So, all in all, LIE KY stupidly sucked up to Americans but we may pay a big price for it. Below, a fictional account of a CNB terrorist strike I wrote years ago:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-wrote-it.blogspot.com/search/label/Tom%20Clancy%27s%20next%20novel
Robert Ho (#16),
You are better off reading The Asian Trilogy by Kerry B Collison. The novel is about a fictional clandestine nuclear weapons programme operated by the Indonesian government being disguised a civilian nuclear power program.
Interestingly, due to corruption and shoddy construction work, the nuclear power plant (which is also capable of producing plutonium for the nuclear weapons program) is situated at an earthquake-prone site, near Java Island. The story ended with a major nuclear plant accident triggered by an earthquake and a series of after-shocks.
/// 2) Jackson Tan on October 11th, 2008 1.01 pm
My point is, nuclear fission power plants are actually pretty safe. There have been minor accidents and leaks, but it is never as doomsday-ish as Hollywood movies or dystopian novels paint them. ///
Jackson, nuclear power plant per se may be safe, but it is only as safe as the people of operating them (leaving asides the issues of earthquakes, volcanoes and terrorism). Some of our neighbouring counrties are so bad at maintaining simple infrastructure and systems that I shudder to think what will happen if there were to have nuclear power plant. I can still remember just a year or so ago that a LRT train’s heavy metal wheel fell off from its overhead rails in KL and fell on someone below. Or the frequent black outs and brown outs. God help us.
sad and scary. hope the singapore will be safe from any nuclear accident. accident can be prevent but it can never be stop from happening 100%.
one goes wrong,,all finish.
hahas.
clean enery better.
I’m just curious – is there a limitation in the solar cells to power cars and buildings? It seems Singapore have a very good chance to excel in solar technology since we are teh best testbed in this region..
I have experience working with the Indonesians. They are very interested in big dollar projects where each can cream off a few percent off the project price. However nobody wis interested to maintain the finished facilites as there is too little money in maintenance and even substantial percent age cuts are not worth their while.
Until present generation of politicians and corrupt Govt officials are dealth with
It will be sucidal to trust Indonesian with a nuclear power station.
TSHP,
Ironically, locating the latest light-water nuclear reactors in Singapore would actually be safer for us, if what you say is something still very prevalent.
singaporedaddy (#4):
Yeah, I’m very much aware of this as well, which is why I was initially not in favour of a nuclear fission plant in Singapore despite its benefit. (After all, I did say it was a quick comment…) However, unless alternative sources of energy can be developed fast enough (and to be honest things don’t look particularly optimistic), we may have to consider nuclear energy.
Nonetheless, I believe, with sufficient safeguards – more than a typical nuclear fission plant – it will be very safe. And keep in mind that, if immediate shut down procedures can be implemented when some problem occurs, the leakage can be contained quite effectively.
Of course, if it ever gets implemented, it still has to be at a corner of Singapore, e.g. Pedra Branca, Pulau Tekong, Hougang.
T (#18):
Very true, but I’m actually speaking in the context of Singapore. Indeed, it is worrying if some neighbouring countries with poor security decides to construct a nuclear fission plant. But I think shoddy construction work and operation is not going to be a problem. A nuclear fission plant is a major project; no countries will cut costs on that.
Some information on Generation IV reactors.
One of the most commonly mentioned IV reactor type is the Pebble Bed Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_Bed_Reactor
CelluloidReality (#25),
Generation IV Pebble Bed Reactors sound good but the ASEAN governments are actually considering the different variants of the Advanced Pressurised Water Reactor (APWR) system. It is Generation III+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, General Electric, Westinghouse (Toshiba´s Nuclear Energy Division) and China National Nuclear Corporation are apparently lobbying the ASEAN governments to consider their APWR systems.
Given it is ASEAN first time using nuclear power on an industrial scale, it would be rational to employ a time-tested nuclear energy system rather than using a system with revolutionary design such as the Pebble Bed Reactor.
Donaldson,
I see. I would have thought that Gen IV would be safer for nations in this region.
But the Gen III reactors seem to have less complicated systems relating to safety issues, and that is perhaps a good way to begin, especially for non-nuclear nations to have to learn new skillsets in maintaining these things.
Indonesia can partner Singapore by building one at batam.
So far it is not affected by earthquake.
Batam is a good place. I actually mentioned it Part II. So just wait for it!
RH:
14. Dear 17 Donaldson TAN, if you and other readers and commenters are really worried about neighbours civilian nuclear plants blowing up [these accidents are almost never nuclear chain reactions but mostly small explosions due to overheating, etc], then let me be ‘constructive’ and offer some suggestions:
a. LIE KY and his nepot son and nepot cousin-in-law and other cronies, etc, admit and give up, that is, destroy, all their current nuclear bombs [they can always buy some more from the same sources if really necessary if neighbours renege on the agreements].
b. LIE KY will still have his American security blanket since he is still paying them the US$3 billion every 2 years, now probably increased since the first payment in 2005.
c. With nuclear disarmament, LIE KY then gets our closest neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia to agree to have nuclear power stations only on a Design, Build and Operate basis. In other words, Malaysia and Indonesia can have as many nuclear plants as they want but all these are operated by foreign companies so no hanky panky enrichment of uranium into bombs. In other words, they buy only the electricity and have nothing else to do with the nuclear plants.
15. This will not be easy as Malaysia and Indonesia each have their own security interests and potential enemies like IndoChina countries and Australia. But if 1 or more of the Big Powers can help them feel safe by selling them the kind of arms they need to feel safe, then they dont need to go nuclear. This can work since the same country that sells the nuclear plants can then also sell the arms, in a package, which is even more profitable. So, buy only the electricity and to feel safe, here are some arms.
16. Maybe you can explore all these and work out better solutions in your Pt 2 or even Pt3? Regards.
safe or not is how competent you are in mastering the technology.
RH,
You have clear and very valid points at time, but your claim of Singapore possessing nuclear weapons is very false.
It is impossible to possess our own nuclear weapons under the current situation.
If you are speculating on possible usage rights under a US nuclear umbrella, fine, but even that is almost bordering on the fantasy….
Malaysia and Indonesia are blessed with so much petrochemical, LNG and hydroelectric power that one wonders what their real intentions are vis-a-vis going nuclear.
Stated commercial intention — nuclear
Unstated military intention — unclear
Attendant political objective — can rule
Potential mega commissions — can lure
Most likely manifestation — an ulcer
(radiation sores)
P/S – for those who don’t get it, the intentions/objective/outcomes are all anagrams of the word “nuclear”.
For those who are interested to find out more about ongoing nuclear energy activities in ASEAN:
1. Malaysia Institute of Nuclear Technology
http://www.mint.gov.my
2. Vietnam Atomic Energy Commission
http://www.vaec.gov.vn/News/Index.php?EV=0
3. Indonesia´s Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency
http://www.bapeten.go.id/
4. Indonesia´s National Agency of Nuclear Energy
http://www.batan.go.id/
5. Thailand´s Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
http://www.egat.co.th/en/
6. Philippines´ Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.metts.com.au/bataan-nuclear-ps.html
nuclear power station can made nuclear bomb…
indones,better don built,,..
now still have terrorist…more offen in indones..
tat country,protection too weak..
cannoT!!
RH:
17. Dear 32 CelluloidReality, before you stupidly call me a liar, please check Janes publications of UK, which specialises in the worlds military arsenals. Janes published decades ago that LIE KY had indeed bought nuclear bombs. You can go to their website, pay to subscribe if needed, and search for these references.
It should be noted that the Chernobyl disaster was not due a failure of science and engineering theory. Proposed explanation of the causes focused on operator error, inept management, and design flaws (which the designers knew). These errors are often associated with cost-minimization/cost-cutting, insufficient funds, and unrealistic deadlines and other pressures.
A complex system fails at its weakest link. Even if the technology is safe, there is a need to reduce perverse incentives. Due to its intangible nature, regulation and monitoring will be challenging.
Yet, because of the worst-case consequences of failure (of a nuclear plant), I would rather not that have a shared nuclear future catalyse SEA’s regional cooperation.
Instead, cooperation and proper design of technological, social and political systems should precede the implementation of nuclear power. To do otherwise is akin to letting kids drive, to let them make mistakes, to mature, and learn responsibility.
Singapore is considering to build an underground nuclear power plant.
Dr Alvin Chew from NTU RSIS actually wrote about it.
You guys miss out on the real bone of contention: waste disposal.
It is surprising how little the topic is addressed and even if so, just in terms of issues of safety and security. Yet, again, the real problem lies somewhere else: How can you possibly take responsibility of shipping the waste you create to some far-distant land without caring whether the guys there actually want it? Even worse, what if just their leaders do so and will slack on safety measures? Concerns about adverse selection and compliance were the reasons why almost every developed country with nuclear power plants decided to dispose waste in their own country. Yet, so far, only Sweden has achieved so. Are you ready to have your waste dumped under your feet? I seriously doubt that. What makes you think others do?