Winner Takes All

Mutually exclusive. That appears sometime to be the stance unconsciously taken by the champion of any particular energy sources. That leads to arguments for and against, and which one is better, that in the end put off even those who are sitting on the fence. It is as if one energy source can satisfy the need in totality. It is just not possible. Even China is targeting only 4% nuclear by 2020, what about the remaining 96%. Coal, may be clean coal, solar, and other sources still have to chip in.
Of course, in large scale deployment of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and wave the standards and practices in the usage of conventional energy sources cannot be adopted. Footprint for footprint, definitely solar panels cannot generate the amount of energy that could be generated by say a nuclear power plant. Thus, the application of solar, if it is to make contribution to total energy requirement should follow a different path altogether. The concept of centralized generation with distribution lines fanning out of the power plant is not suitable. Distributed generation could be a workable concept, but how could that be done?

Closing The Gap

Having professionals of different backgrounds and disciplines gathering in a workshop can lower mutual gaps of understanding between practitioners of the various disciplines. That was the intention of an MNS (Malaysian Nuclear Society) half a day workshop last Saturday, 15 December. Held at a hotel it was participated by a small but active groups of participants.
The speakers covered topics ranging from nuclear, to a new housing concept, new way of constructing buildings, greening of deserts using tropical trees, and technology in animal housing for livestock industry. It looked like a garden variety of topics with seemingly weak couplings between them. Leaving differences aside, an important thread tying them together stands out - that is they are all about technology, new technology, and innovation. Thus the title of the workshop "21st Century Science and Development to Achieve Vision 2020 and Beyond".
Energy technology, particularly nuclear energy should be seen in larger context. It serves the needs of everyone. It is part of a large family of technologies, even though some may dubbed nuclear as the pinnacle of all technologies. Indeed, the gathering too was able to highlight the interfaces between the various disciplines and how they can be exploited for common goods.
It was apparent that the use of nuclear technology beyond power generation is still not commonly known. The seminar was able to hammer that home.
The degree of innovation and creativity of those dedicated to advancing their respective areas of endeavor shone through at the workshop. This bodes well for nuclear energy that requires dedication, adeptness and affinity to technology. Overall, greater interaction promotes understanding; and that promote awareness and acceptance. The workshop too is untypical of MNS, or perhaps other workshops too, from several respects. The most obvious one is that the participants and speakers were dominantly from non-nuclear background.

It's A Question Of Supply And Demand

If supply = demand, then it is an issue, so as when supply >> demand. Even bigger issue is when supply < demand, even if only slightly.
When supply cannot meet demand, then either reduce demand or increase supply. The better approach, however, is meeting the requirement from both sides of the equation. Increase supply while at the same time reduce demand. Efficiency and energy saving can reduce demand and rate of increase in demand. For that reason, sometimes, energy saving and enhancement in the efficiency of energy usage are seen as energy resources too. Mathematically actually it is just taking the demand variable into the supply side of the equation.

PINE is fine

The Public Information on Nuclear Energy (PINE) forum last week in Kuala Lumpur went well with good deliberation by five speakers from the IAEA, FNCA, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and China.
The prime conclusion, I believe, is that public information is a necessary component of a nuclear power program. It must exist for as long as nuclear power is in the energy mix, not just during the introduction of the program. I don't know why that ought to be so. Despite the long established and strongly 'rooted' nuclear power program we see that Japan, Korea, and China have active PINE activities.
I also learned a new label at the forum - PIMFY (Please, In My Front Yard). It was used by the Korean speaker, Mr Kim, to describe the bidding process by the local councils to have the radioactive waste repository sited at their locality. As is now known the winner is Gyeong-ju. It was, as he said, a conversion from NIMBY to PIMFY. Economic benefits, which amounts to about USD 500 millions, and the relocation of KHNP headquarters to Gyeong-ju, packaged with hosting of the facility, are among the motivations. It is, I believe, logical that changes are not free, and should be accompanied with strong enough motivation.

Nuclear Energy Is Renewable Too

Solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and even biomass, which I have reservations, are considered renewable energy resources as they are inexhaustible. Their usage do not diminish or affect future supplies. In fact, this is the reason for my objection for biomass to be categorized as renewable energy resources for it does not 'renew itself.' Instead it is just replenishable. Continued farming activities and generation of bio-waste makes it available. There must be human intervention to make it 'renewable.'
If biomass is considered as renewable despite the fact that it is just replenishable, then nuclear should also be taken as a renewable energy resource. Spent fuels can be recycled and burned in different types of nuclear reactors to produce energy.
To say nuclear as alternative energy, to bring it conceptually closer to renewable, may also introduce the generally accepted or perceived connotation of the word 'alternative,' which is a replacement. But it is not actually a replacement. It has to contribute, like any other energy resources, complement each other, to fulfill electricity demand. I believe no energy source can 'single-handedly' supply our electricity need. Hence, there is no such thing as alternative energy source. Philosophically speaking...

Option Lockout

The current enthusiasm on nuclear energy is reminiscent of yesteryears, three decades ago or thereabouts. It's yesterday once more. But perhaps this time it would lead to a proclamation of nuclear energy being one of future energy-mix; or perhaps it won't. Both have finite possibility of happening, one will be more possible if the possibility of the other is less. Obviously.
The long period needed to introduce the first nuclear power plant makes timely decision important. The process is full of critical paths that are dependent on each other as could be seen when plotted on a Gantt chart. Prof. Shikama of Tohoku University quoted that for Japan, 5-7 years is the time needed to bring a nuclear power reactor to first criticality starting from the first pile in the ground. That figure is fairly consistent, he added.
Since nuclear energy cannot be put on-line in a relatively short period of time, it cannot respond to energy crunch fast enough. In real operation too it is best for base load operation, not for load following. When energy crisis becomes imminent, the time available will no longer be sufficient to introduce or even to consider nuclear energy. In that case, the fastest and familiar way to increase generation capacity would be the practical approach. Nuclear definitely does not fit the bill in such a scenario. Call it the nuclear option lockout.

Reactor In Museum

The Mutsu Science Museum at Aomori Prefecture, Japan hosts more than just interesting collection of hands-on exhibits. It is also home to the decommissioned PWR used to power an experimental nuclear ship. The 36 MW thermal reactor used low enriched uranium to propel a 130 meter long 8240 ton ship. It was completed in 1972 and testing was done in 1974. However it leaked radiation. It was the cause of concern for many parties, and the media too played out the news. The reactor was decommissioned in 1992, taken out of the ship, and put in the museum.
It is entombed with radiation shield equipped with two lead glass viewing panels. It is a good approach in making use of a decommissioned reactor for educational and public awareness and information purposes.

So, Where Is The Connection?

Frequently, almost automatically, whenever oil price shoots up nuclear energy is mentioned, in positive light. This is good as in that way the public can easily see the importance and the need for nuclear energy. Looking closer, however, oil contributes only 3% to national electricity generation. Globally too oil is no longer the main source for electricity generation. So, how is oil price gets strongly connected to electricity and hence nuclear energy?
It is not so straight forward as it appears, or made out to appear. To me, the linkage is in the use of oil in the transportation sector, as primary energy source, not for electricity generation. Increasing electrification of the transportation sector, e.g. electric train, would reduce its dependence on oil and increase demand for electricity. But will that necessitate the use of nuclear energy? That is what we have to study and analyse. My view could be wrong, but that is how, for now, I look at the issue.
Depletion of fossil and other non-renewable resources, climate change, polluting behavior of fossil fuel, and the capability of renewable energy to supply electricity at the scale comparable to convetional plants appear to have direct linkage to nuclear energy, and they cannot easily be watered down, in my view.

Public Acceptance Dilemma

"I am not going to believe you. You have vested interest in it."
"It is obvious that to you nuclear is good. Isn't it?"
Actually, most of the time you may not hear those words uttered by the audience, not even by a whisper. But, you can read them in their eyes.
In contrast, 'neutral experts' flown in by the anti-nuclear group would receive different treatment. They are believable, credible, and acceptable as exposing the real thing, the truth. They have no vested interest (other than seeing to it that nuclear is phased out). Who is going to dispute their views. Anyone in the nuclear area would have been disqualified by virtue of having the correct background and the authority to say so. That is the dilemma.
The aim of public acceptance program should not be to convert the unconverted, the hardcore. They would remain the same regardless of the argument. The objective should be to limit and curtail their ability to bring the public to their side. The focus should also be on the fence sitters, sitting between the pro and the anti groups. They should be won over. Perhaps through words of mouth, that is using others outside the nuclear fraternity as spokesperson. Those passive members of the pro group should be persuaded to say it loud. A public acceptance program should provide them the means for doing so.
Getting the positive aspects of nuclear energy sitting side by side with, if not replacing the image of the bombs, in the mind of the public I believe is the ultimate aim of any public acceptance program. Once achieved, the public would voluntarily mention those virtues when asked about nuclear, before or even without, blurting out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl.

Nuclear Renaissance

Nuclear energy is set to make active appearance again within this century after a long spell of lackluster growth. The percentage contribution of nuclear energy to global electricity generation stands at around 16-17 percent since mid 1980s. Maintaining such a percentage means the its contribution is increasing in absolute terms. What has not changed much is the number of new nuclear power reactors being built, and the number of countries having nuclear energy in their energy mix.
We have yet to see the first new country introducing nuclear energy in this century. For many many years the number 30 described the number of countries having nuclear electricity. It could stay there longer, but there have been a lot of announcements. In the Asian region for example Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia among others have made the announcements. They would be the new countries.
Countries already having nuclear in their energy mix is planing to increase their nuclear contribution. China for instance is adding 2-3 units of 1000 MWe nuclear reactors every year to attain the target of 4 percent nuclear, or 40 GWe nuclear contribution by 2020.

NIMBY and BANANA

The objection to have nuclear power plants in the neigbourhood was encapsulated in the acronym NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. This is not so bad because we can go to someone else backyard. The backyard of those who support nuclear unconditionally. Those in the NIMBY group support nuclear energy, but only if the nuclear power reactor is sited away form their backyards...
The BANANA group - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, or Near Anyone. This is tough. Anything means not just nuclear power plant, but could also be chemical plant, etc. I first heard of it, in a nuclear power conference; obviously 'anything' in this case refers to nuclear power plant, in Hong Kong in 2006. That probably is not new.. only new to me..

It's needed

Well, with the ever increasing price of oil, let's have nuclear energy. The uncertainty of supply due to geopolitical factors plus depletion of resources can only push the price further up in the future. Oil has to serve the needs of myriads of other uses that cannot be replaced by other resources. Uranium has only one peaceful uses, viz. electrical power generation using nuclear reactor. Definitely it can further lessen the burden we place on oil for electricity generation.

Introduction

This century is said to be the beginning of nuclear renaissance. Interest to use nuclear energy for electrical power generation is surging everywhere. Countries not having it yet are planning to introduce nuclear power program, whereas those already in it are increasing the percentage contribution of nuclear energy in their energy mix.

The word nuclear captures the interest of everyone. Everyone has something to say about it. I am no exception.