Do you know that the world’s largest nuclear reactor is currently in Japan? This week, let’s embark on exploring Japan’s stance on utilizing nuclear power to generate energy.
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 have seen immeasurable amounts of radioactive leakage. Mishandling of nuclear energy can lead to devastating outcomes such as skin cancer or even death.
So what exactly is nuclear power and how does it generate energy?
Simply put, nuclear power is the manipulation of the heat energy emitted by nuclear fission to boil water into steam, which can be used to spin turbines and generate electricity.
Certainly, nuclear-related calamities struck Japan before, but there are several plausible reasons that I have found which may contribute to Japan’s persistence in using nuclear power.
Firstly, Japan emphasizes on cleaner sources of energy. Such could be seen in Japan’s endeavors to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear power is deemed cleaner since it does not release carbon dioxide or other GHGs, unlike its fossil fuel counterparts. Radioactive material produced can even be used in medicine and agriculture.
Secondly, nuclear power promises higher energy security. According to this scientific article, Japan found its dependence on external supplies of fossil fuel a volatile move and thus, it has to diversify its sources of energy.
Thirdly, harnessing nuclear power is more economically viable than the conventional use of fossil fuels. Uranium, the raw material for nuclear power is less prone to fluctuations in market prices. Oil prices, on the other hand, are more susceptible to the volatility of the market due to the global reliance on oil for energy production and the capitalization of the oil industry by major oil trading corporations.
Despite these reasons, Japan still primarily relied on fossil fuels, specifically oil to generate energy and nuclear power only contributed to approximately 1/10 of its total energy output. (Refer to report on Japan’s sources of energy) Such statistical evidence screams to me that regardless of how fossil fuels are not viewed as an environmentally-friendly option to generate energy, it is still the widely-used option in the short run that precedes other sources of energy.
This article suggests that the global economy relied heavily on fossil fuels and therefore other sources of energy could not keep up with the global demand or at least the demographics of primary energy sources could not be changed in the short run. Therefore, I infer that for Japan to be on par with other countries economically, it cannot completely forgo this means of producing energy.
Furthermore, since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, there has been much public disquiet over the use of nuclear power despite studies pointing out that nuclear reactors are actually safer than most fossil fuel generators.
It is undeniable that nuclear power is an upcoming and more efficient source of energy which might even take over fossil fuels in the future as the main source of generating energy. Yet, it takes only one nuclear-related accident to raise public concerns over its viability. What are your opinions about nuclear power then? Stay tuned till next week where I will be conceptualizing the use of nuclear power in Singapore and the world.
-Wen Han
(Cover photo by Johannes Plenio from Pexels)
P.s It is a general misconception that nuclear energy is renewable
Hi Wen Han,
I think it is regrettable that the public has such an aversion to nuclear power. More can be done to improve the public perception of nuclear energy, while governments need to ensure that complacency does not set in resulting in nuclear accidents that erode public trust.
I know you’ll be talking about it next week, but I can’t help but point out that nuclear power is not totally foreign to Singapore. In fact, Pedra Branca was considered as a potential site (https://mothership.sg/2018/08/lee-kuan-yew-nuclear-power-plant-pedra-branca/), although the Malaysians may have something to say about that. Nuclear power has also reached our shores before. All US Navy aircrat carriers are essentially floating nuclear reactors, and some have docked at Changi Naval Base before (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/n-powered-aircraft-carrier-docks-today). I am sure we have contingency plans if anything goes awry during one of those visits.
(btw I was trying to find your blog after you sent out the survey but couldn’t find a Claude writing about nuclear energy lol)
I look forward to your next post!
Cheers,
Ee Kin
Hi Ee Kin
It seems you are pretty hyped up about nuclear energy, perhaps we can have a chat on this topic in the near future! Thanks for pointing out that Singapore has contemplated the use of nuclear power on Pedra Branca before. I believe that with ongoing advancements in technology, more safety protocols can be implemented to lessen the devastating effects of a potential nuclear disaster, be it in Singapore’s future use of nuclear power or globally.
Pertaining to your insight on nuclear-powered aircraft vessels, I could probably relate to it more than any other NSFs that have served in the army because I used to be a Military Police sergeant dispatched as a Guard Commander to Changi naval base (9th Flotilla). During my service, I was trained in several aspects of contingency with respect to safeguarding the security of the base. Of all the contingency plans I have been trained in, dealing with nuclear leakage from the ships was one of them. It involved setting up tentages for radioactive purging (cleanups), quarantine protocols, and other confidential steps that I cannot divulge. In fact of all the US ships that docked in Changi naval base, I’ve witnessed the USS Ronald Reagan berthed on our shores. Our security heightened during that period as there were hundreds of US navy personnel on board and the ship was classified under a nuclear-powered ship. So to answer your statement on contingency plans for nuclear-powered ships, yes, we do have an efficient system of handling any possible nuclear-related scenarios.
Do stay tuned for Singaporean’s reaction to harnessing nuclear power locally in my next post then!
(Oh Claude is a nickname given to me by a French regular customer back when I was working as a part-time barista in a cafe. She could not really pronounce my Chinese name and decided to give me one French name instead, which I thought was pretty cool so I used it ever since!)
Hi Wen Han,
Oh wow, I didn’t know you were with 9th Flot. I left before the reorg and they were still CDS/TDS. Haha, yeap I knew that certain contingency plans were in place due to the RSN wide emails they sent out (details of which are best left undiscussed). Good to know we were in safe hands!
I wouldn’t say I am a huge proponent of nuclear power as yet because I’ve not kept up with developments in that area, but I don’t think we should be quick to write it off as untenable for Singapore. Many green groups around the world also seem to harbour strong opposition against all nuclear plants which does not seem to be fully logical. In some cases, the plant was already built but did not become operational due to backlash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUVZbBBHrI4).
I look foward to your upcoming post to get a better understanding of nuclear power .
Hi Wen Han! It’s a great read and I’m looking forward to your thoughts of nuclear energy use in Singapore. I have some thoughts of my own and cannot wait to see if we share the same opinion.
Anyways, I wanted to ask how green do you think nuclear plants actually are? Nuclear plants do require uranium, which has to be mined as well. They need large amounts of water to ensure reactors remain cooled (or else we risk a nuclear disaster which may cause even worse impacts). Waste produced can be radioactive and pose an environmental threat. Nuclear plants also have a limited lifespan of roughly 40 years, so what happens after that?
Of course, the impacts of nuclear plants are different from that of traditional fossil fuel-powered plants, but in your opinion, are the environmental impacts of nuclear plants that much lesser than traditional plants?
Hi Ernest
I am glad you found my blog interesting! Before I embark on my perspective, I would like to say that harnessing nuclear power is a controversial issue that requires a lot of deliberation before being put into practice.
From an individual standpoint, I still opine that nuclear power precedes fossil fuels as an environmentally-friendly solution. The environment itself is a broad spectrum to deal with and at the current point in time, climate change falls under the top few environmental issues the world is facing.
However, I do agree with you that the water footprint of nuclear power plants is high as well. Not only that, uranium is non-renewable and we might have to turn to other radioactive sources of energy when it is fully depleted. I partially agree with the lifespan of nuclear plants being 40 years old, as research has shown that the lifespan of nuclear reactors can in fact be prolonged to 80 years.
With all said, the topic of nuclear power is subjective since it certainly has its ups and downs, so it boils down to national interests and every countries’ environmental stance. Hope you get where I am coming from!
Hi Wen Han,
Good post.
Can I ask about 2 things ?
1. You say the amts of radioactive mat’l released by the atomic bomb and the Fukushima disaster are immeasurable. I’m not sure what you mean. Because we know (with a fair degree of precision) how much material was released.
2. What do you mean when you say radioactive WASTE can be used in medicine & agriculture. The ref you cite mentions the use of radioactive material, but not waste. Was this just a typo / mistake ?
Also, I hope you realise that the debate over the viability and desirability of nuclear power as a solution to climate change is absolutely huge and the best minds in the world can’t seem to agree. So, in your next post, if you want a word of advice, you might want to speak to a local expert to help you relate this to our context, like perhaps one of the profs in environmental engineering or, if you can get someone to respond to you, someone from the EMA.
jc
Hi Dr. Coleman
1. Oh, I kind of meant it as an adjective, but I may have used the wrong one in this case. A better word to describe the radiation levels could have been simply ‘large’.
2. Yes, it was a typo mistake and I have rectified it. Thank you so much for pointing it out.
I am currently trying to liaise with EMA and professors in this field but they have not gotten back to me yet. I will try my best to get insights from them, should anyone reply to my emails.
No worries.
During my PhD oral defense, one of my examiners said to me : “you used the term ‘decimate’ to describe the impacts of urbanisation on wildlife populations in some circumstances. Did you really mean that ?”
I was like : “sorry, what ?”
He said : “Well, decimate actually means to reduce to 10 % of its former value.”
That interaction (which somewhat embarrassed me, tbh) taught me a lot about careful word choice matters.