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...