- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
May 24, 2010
SMALL NUCLEAR REACTOR
Why it's not a solution
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
IN LAST Monday's commentary ('Small nuclear reactors a new green option') by Mr Michael Richardson, the small nuclear reactor technology was enthusiastically described as 'a packaged solution for Singapore' because not only will it provide the necessary energy for Singapore's future, but it will also reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Though I share the concern for the need to find an alternative energy source, I do not, however, share his enthusiasm for the small nuclear reactor technology.
First, Mr Richardson emphasises that nuclear power can provide 'affordable electricity' for Singapore. However, historically, the promise that nuclear energy would be 'too cheap to meter' never materialised. This is because billions of dollars are needed to build a standard nuclear power plant, and much more to maintain and, later, decommission it.
Even though the small nuclear reactor is much cheaper - costing hundreds of millions instead of billions - it nonetheless produces electrical power only in the low megawatts range, rather than the gigawatts range a standard nuclear reactor produces. It is, therefore, unclear if electricity produced by the small nuclear reactor can ever be truly affordable.
Second, if we pursue such small nuclear reactor technology, we are merely exchanging our reliance on fossil fuels for a reliance on uranium.
Mr Richardson asks us to imagine a pollution-free world filled with such small nuclear reactors. This vision is attractive but incomplete: for this will also be a world filled with new contests and strife to secure uranium, which by any estimate exists in far smaller quantities compared to the reserves of fossil fuels.
Finally, the question remains on what Singapore ought to do with the radioactive spent nuclear fuels from such a small nuclear reactor. Although the option of reprocessing them exists, this will add new costs and will require nuclear expertise and containment facilities that we do not have now. Reprocessing inadvertently also produces plutonium, which can lead to unwanted nuclear proliferation.
From a citizen's perspective, do we want to burden the future generations of Singapore with such nuclear waste?
We have to be extremely cautious of this new technology even when it seems to promise us a source of green energy.
Jeffrey Chan
SMALL NUCLEAR REACTOR
Why it's not a solution
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
IN LAST Monday's commentary ('Small nuclear reactors a new green option') by Mr Michael Richardson, the small nuclear reactor technology was enthusiastically described as 'a packaged solution for Singapore' because not only will it provide the necessary energy for Singapore's future, but it will also reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Though I share the concern for the need to find an alternative energy source, I do not, however, share his enthusiasm for the small nuclear reactor technology.
First, Mr Richardson emphasises that nuclear power can provide 'affordable electricity' for Singapore. However, historically, the promise that nuclear energy would be 'too cheap to meter' never materialised. This is because billions of dollars are needed to build a standard nuclear power plant, and much more to maintain and, later, decommission it.
Even though the small nuclear reactor is much cheaper - costing hundreds of millions instead of billions - it nonetheless produces electrical power only in the low megawatts range, rather than the gigawatts range a standard nuclear reactor produces. It is, therefore, unclear if electricity produced by the small nuclear reactor can ever be truly affordable.
Second, if we pursue such small nuclear reactor technology, we are merely exchanging our reliance on fossil fuels for a reliance on uranium.
Mr Richardson asks us to imagine a pollution-free world filled with such small nuclear reactors. This vision is attractive but incomplete: for this will also be a world filled with new contests and strife to secure uranium, which by any estimate exists in far smaller quantities compared to the reserves of fossil fuels.
Finally, the question remains on what Singapore ought to do with the radioactive spent nuclear fuels from such a small nuclear reactor. Although the option of reprocessing them exists, this will add new costs and will require nuclear expertise and containment facilities that we do not have now. Reprocessing inadvertently also produces plutonium, which can lead to unwanted nuclear proliferation.
From a citizen's perspective, do we want to burden the future generations of Singapore with such nuclear waste?
We have to be extremely cautious of this new technology even when it seems to promise us a source of green energy.
Jeffrey Chan
