You're listening to a CNA podcast. 27 June 1954, the world's first nuclear power station came online in the Russian city of Obninsk, 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow. Connected to the capital's grid, this power plant launched a new era in electricity production. Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in more than 30 countries, providing about 9% of the world's electricity. Singapore is looking at whether it would make sense to
join that nuclear club. Hello everyone, I'm Lee Ling Tan, and thank you for joining me on Climate Conversations. My co-host, Jack Board is on assignment or on holiday, who knows, but that means you're stuck with me. And today, the topic goes nuclear. The Singapore government recently announced that it will study the potential deployment of nuclear power in the island state and see if this is an energy solution that the country can deploy in a safe and cost effective way.
It's an exciting announcement in an exciting time for nuclear power. Recent advancements in small modular reactors or SMRs could be a game changer. They're said to be smaller, more scalable, and safer than conventional nuclear plants. To better understand the pros and cons of advanced nuclear energy and what it could mean for Singapore and the region, I spoke with Doctor Alvin Chew, senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University.
Doctor, thank you for joining us on Climate Conversations.
Thanks for having me on the show.
So Alvin, we're talking about the possibility now of a nuclear power plant right here at home in Singapore on this tiny land constrained, densely populated island state. What's made something that was historically impossible for us. Now quite plausible.
Well, nuclear energy is a clean source of energy. What it means is that it does not actually emit any carbon dioxide or greenhouse gasses in this process of producing electricity. But when one looks at Singapore's energy mix, probably more than 95% of our electricity is produced from the burning of natural gas. And for that, it's very pollutive. So we actually solve this clean energy equation by having renewables, but then solar
power is probably the only viable renewable in Singapore. We are looking at probably about 10% of our electricity coming from solar by 2050 and when we can only accommodate like 10%. And we are trying to import electricity from our neighbors
for about 40%. We still need to take up about 50% of them running on natural gas because we are so reliant on our gas imports that we actually need to build more resilience and that we need to actually generate some of our sources in order to produce electricity and that's where nuclear actually comes in.
For
the
longest time, we rolled it out because nuclear plants require so much land, so much investment. But now it's become plausible because of advancements, especially around the small modular reactors, right? So in terms of Singapore's decision to further study the viability of deploying nuclear energy here, how big of a role do these SMRs actually play?
I think in 2008. Later minister mentor actually came out and mooted the idea of Singapore deploying nuclear energy. So it wasn't something that is new. And at the time, we didn't even think of SMRSs. But the question remains is that where are we going to site the nuclear power plant.
That's a big question.
Yeah, so obviously technological advancements in terms of SMRs has Actually helped to open up the possibilities of Singapore, siting a nuclear power plants on this tiny island, mainly because they are made smaller and they are also safer. The newer technologies will not incorporate that kind of, you know, what's going to happen to a catastrophic failure, what we're
going to see in Chernobyl or in Fukushima case. But despite having all these technological advancement, we cannot say and no one can say that it is risk-free.
Yeah, I was gonna ask you about that. You mentioned it in a commentary recently that Singapore is learning from the International Atomic Energy Agency about how to respond. To a nuclear emergency and protect population from radiation fallout, right? What does that entail? What kind of learning, what kind of prep are we talking about? I mean, is the preparation for worst case scenario, what's involved in those discussions?
Well, if you understand that all these kind of guidelines that are actually drawn out, you know, the safety parameters are all actually applicable to existing reactors, and these are reactors that are currently in operation, the Gen 2, Gen 3 and Gen plus light water reactors.
They are the large ones. They have not developed the planning parameters for small modular reactors yet, but they are in the process of developing and when that is coming out in a couple of years' time, because some of these SMRRs are going to be rolled out soon, uh, it's likely going to be a much smaller planning parameter and that actually opens up the option for uh Singapore to actually consider setting a nuclear power plant. But that is only on the planning side.
Because you need to have like a guideline to say that well, apart from let's say 30 kilometer zone, now you're you're just going to be like restricted to the zone parameter of the nuclear power plant and that's all. Well, there are some countries who don't have the luxury, not just Singapore, who doesn't have the luxury to actually, you know, evacuate within the 30 kilometer zone, but if we will ask ourselves carefully, what Entails the nuclear fallout. What are some of the effects?
Why do we need to evacuate when there's a radiation fallout from the nuclear power plant? You know, it's not going to be like a bomb exploding or what we see in the Hiroshima, and also it's not going to be the same as in the Fukushima incident as well, because of the tsunami, people need to evacuate. Well, when we ask ourselves, we don't even have a place to evacuate and basically, we have to go and protect ourselves and the best protection is actually to stay indoors. Yeah.
So when our authorities go and interact with the IEA we are just trying to find out some of the measures even for existing nuclear technology that is ongoing. How are we going to respond? Eventually, we might not adopt an SMRR because they are not really, they don't have that kind of track record to understand the safety principles. Yeah. So having the abilities or the capabilities or the competence to actually respond to a disaster is more important.
Right now, if we haven't got that capability, I think no matter how advanced or the SMRS technology are, we will not make it the kind of decision because safety is of primal importance.
So we talked about the worst case scenario already. Let's talk about the best case scenario. So let's just say we find that this is viable. Where would this, you know where I'm going with this. Where do you think the options are to place this plant? Are we talking about multiple SMRs? Are we talking about one, are we what are we talking about? What is it gonna look like? I mean, portable, you know, integratable can be prefabed almost, right? That's pretty much what it is.
What's it going to look like and where?
Yeah, uh, you're asking me where to cite them, right? Yeah. Uh, well, I mean, uh, it's I think really a problem. Do you want the technical answer to it or you want the social or political answer to it? OK,
so technical.
OK, so you have to conduct sightings feasibility studies to ensure where to cite them. Technically, the ground has got to be stable. Alright, OK, so I mean Singapore, we are not stable. We're not yeah, yeah. I mean, even if we are just like Japan is full of earthquakes, but the reactors can actually be designed to withstand the resistance can be designed to withstand an earthquake. So basically, when you talk about siding in Singapore, it's not so much of a
technical issue, it's more of a Social issue. Yeah, yeah, way, uh, no, if I said a nuclear power plant on the western part of Singapore. I'm not saying where it's going to affect the entire Singapore. It doesn't matter where I cite them, yeah, I saw them in the Jurong is going to affect uh places in China. If an incident were to happen. I think the most important thing is how do we know we are going to respond to it? Yeah, and if we are able to respond to it, it doesn't matter where we sit down.
Sitting on the mainland is not out of the question.
No. OK,
so it could be on the mainland, it could be maybe Pulau bukong, it could be anywhere.
Yeah, it could be on one of our islands, but then again we have to think in terms of feasibility connected them to our main grid because you're not just going to support. Supply electricity to just an island like a, you know, Semakau or whatever because you want to supply electricity to mainland Singapore and I think citing dam here would be one of the possibilities whereby you can get it connected to our main grid and also you have to think
in terms of the security. I mean, living close to a nuclear plant is a very secure place. Would you live next to a like close to OK so
you're OK. You OK with that?
if you ask me, uh, basically, uh, I I I I've known this field for for a long time. Yeah, so this is something to do with the social aspects, uh, you know, like, uh, in some countries whereby they incentivize people to live close to the nuclear power plant. Yeah, because there's job security and they can give them some other freebies like a tax breaks and things like that, yeah. But these issues that we can consider subsequently isn't proven to be too popular thing.
What does one SMR constitute a plant or
no, no. OK, so when we talk about SMR, I think we start small, say probably about 70 megawatts or so, which is very small. But then subsequently, we can have multiple units being added on. Like, for example, if you look at a new scale and they would say like maybe 6 or 12 units. that could be added on. Yeah. The thing about them being modular is that the scales get smaller and if anything does happen, it's restricted to just that plant.
How much does one unit?
Well, it's not just the facility with
one facility with the unit.
You also have to incorporate the adjacent and all these complementary infrastructures like the pipings and so forth, the turbine generators, yeah. So it can get pretty massive. But when we do the kind of assessment, we are just looking at just the reactor itself.
So who else in the region are looking into nuclear power as a potential energy source?
Singapore actually came in quite late, the first plant was actually built in the Philippines. But it didn't operate because of a protest at the time. But now they are definitely very keen in this Marcos administration to actually start the plow. So they are getting the Koreans to try to do an assessment to see whether is it possible to start the plant. They have actually built the plant already. But at the same time, they're also looking at SMRs, the smaller ones, because of
the archipelagic nature, you know, of the grid. Next in line would be Indonesia. Indonesia has all about build up the largest infrastructure of nuclear capabilities. They don't have any operating nuclear power plants, but they do have research reactors and they do have quite a lot of IE experts being parked over there. But the Malaysia, they have considered some of the sites that they're going with small modular reactors, but they haven't
really finalized on the kind of technology. I think the Indonesians are, they are actually looking at developing the technology themselves.
And Vietnam also planning to have a nuclear power. Vietnam was the first to actually announce the nuclear power in 2008, and eight years later, in about 2016, they decided that no, they are not going ahead with the nuclear power, but recently, because of their energy demands that they feel that solar is not sufficient and it's also going to be expensive, so they have actually revived their nuclear power plants.
OK, so lots of interest in SMRs as well in the region.
When I made a presentation in 2010 on the nuclear energy in Singapore, somebody came up to me and said that, well, Alvin, may I know whether do you have any children or not? And I said, no, I don't have any kids then. And he says, ah, I see there's a problem because if anything does happen, like what happens to Sugar, Fukushima hasn't happened yet. He says, then what's happened to the future generation of Singapore?
So I don't have answers. I haven't got any kids then, but nowadays, I always bring this anecdote up and I say that I'm still advocating for nuclear energy simply because I've got a 9 year old boy now studying in primary school, and I say that it is for his future because of what happens to climate change. We need nuclear energy, we need to keep our environment clean because we have to stop burning fossil fuels, if not, uh, well.
Not talking about Fukushima or Shinobi. Uh, I don't know what's going to happen in 2050 if we don't meet our net zero carbon emissions.
I was also going to ask you whether you had kids, but I was too polite, so I'm I'm glad that you brought it up because a lot of the question is about do we want to subject our future generations to the safety risks and at what price, then you think about the climate change thing, we're kind of leaving that kind of a legacy for them as well. So what's worse, right? Now the other question I wanted to ask you is what's going to happen to all the nuclear waste?
Currently, there are only 2 technical solutions that are available in terms of long term storage of high-level spent fuel. We're talking about high-level nuclear waste, right, that comes out really bad, right? Uh, yeah, those are the long-lived ones. All right. So when they come out from a nuclear reactor, let's say for example, a light water reactor, right, existing ones, you have to spend like 15 to 20 years in the spent fuel pool. And after that, uh, they will take out the plutonium.
You have it reprocessed in some other countries, definitely not in Singapore or not in the region because of our non-proliferation commitments. It's probably going to be processed in countries like France or maybe the US, reprocess over there.
And then when they take out the plutonium and then the waste that comes back is quite hefty, the high-level waste that we have to store them in a dry cast barrels, right, metal containers, and currently what is happening now throughout the world is that they are just being stored on site and that became an issue. Yeah, except for Finland, you should have managed to build an underground cavern to actually store this waste storages.
And the other way, basically, apart from building it underground is to actually drill a hole down that's about 2 kilometers deep. I mean, you can drill as long as deep as you want. So, and then if you put the waste, the barrels of the waste inside and then you seal them up, you will not be able to
retrieve them forever. So that is the second solution. We wouldn't have that waste problem simply because in the contract of acquiring the nuclear power plants or the SMRs, they are willing to take back the waste.
Oh. Yeah, OK, let's talk about timeline. Best case scenario, when do you think this might happen in your lifetime?
Certainly, I would think so because we do really have an energy security issue that has been plaguing us since early 2000s. So in terms of timeline, let's say if we are looking at 2050 for net zero, give ourselves, let's say 10 to 15 years, the IEA milestones that we have to be met before for the first deployment. Then if you walk that backwards, I would say that perhaps in the middle of 2030. We should be able to make a commitment if we
are serious to go about it. And that is also the time whereby some of the SMRs would have been rolled out. And maybe this newer technologies like the one that Google is funding for Kairos Power and so forth, they would be operating and then the IA would be able to find a way, some of the mechanisms that are able to safeguard this and that can be exported to the region.
In our lifetime, and necessity breeds invention, right? So.
Yeah, if we just close off this option simply because we do not understand the safety aspects of it, then I think it's doing our future generations a disservice.
OK. Great. Thank you so much, Alvin, really appreciate your insight here. You've got me a little bit excited about SMRs too, so we'll be watching this very closely. Thank you.
Thank you pleasure.
And that was Dr. Elvin Che, senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies. That brings us to the end of this episode of Climate Conversations. Thanks for tuning in. Jack Board will be back with us next week. Until then, I'm Lee Ling Tan. Big thanks as always to the team that put together this podcast, Sai Ye Wind, Tiffany Ung, Junaini Jahari, and Kristina Roberts.