Energy security: a look at other fuel sources

With prices continuing to stay high for oil and natural gas - the two main imported fossil fuels on which Singapore is 100% dependent - shouldn't the Republic consider alternatives like solar energy, the biofuels which are taking off rapidly in this region, or even nuclear energy? This was among the questions raised on the subject of energy security at a recent Experts' Roundtable organised by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and Shell.

Singapore's power industry is moving to diversify and supplement supplies of natural gas - currently piped in from Indonesia and Malaysia - with imports of liquefied natural gas which can be shipped in from anywhere in the world, whether the Middle East, Australia or as far as Russia. 'The idea is to bring in the gas from as many sources as you can,' EMA CEO Khoo Chin Hean said. There are also concerns that Malaysia and Indonesia, with their growing economies, will increasingly need the gas for their own use, with correspondingly less supply for Singapore. But why LNG, and not say, coal or nuclear? 'The main concerns are environment and safety. In addition, you lose economies of scale when you mix technologies,' he said, adding however, that 'still, in a dynamic market, we keep our options open'.

A couple of the gencos here have for instance, looked at possible use of coal with PowerSeraya, for example, still considering it as a possible future fuel option, once the technology allows for processes which are clean and economic. The Roundtable agreed that in the longer term, advances in technology, especially developing alternative energy sources, will have to be part of the solution. Solar energy was one such possibility discussed, with differing views expressed on its viability. Biofuel is essentially palm oil mixed with diesel fuel to make biodiesel. While most of the biofuel plants are coming up in next-door Indonesia and Malaysia, where the palm oil plantations are, Singapore is also attracting biofuel plant investments including by Germany's Peter Cremer Group on Jurong Island.

As for nuclear power, countries like Vietnam and Indonesia are planning a nuclear-fuel option, while others are wary, largely on grounds of safety, the Roundtable heard. But as one participant put it: 'The technology (for nuclear plants) is now safe. The whole issue is really whether we trust the people behind the plants.'

- This was a good discussion on energy in Singapore. This is the first occasion I know of that nuclear energy for Singapore has been put on the table, so to speak. I believe it is also the first time where all the available alternative energy options have been discussed in public among local experts.

The "economies of scale" remark regarding LNG reinforces my opinion that "the path of least resistance" is being taken, obviously due to the fact that the existing infrastructure including power stations and piping can continue to be used without much changes. Still, it is valuable to have that confirmed.

I see that the fundamental disagreements on solar remain, even amongst the experts. The intermittency and storage issues will not go away. The same goes for wind. You might also want to note the omissions - hydro, geothermal and ocean thermal/tidal seem to have been omitted from the discussion. We don't have any obvious sources for the first two and I'd suppose the latter is still considered somewhat experimental.

Here is where I differ from most of the local Singapore peakoilers, and probably an even bigger chunk of the general population : I think Singapore should go nuclear for electricity generation. I will go further and suggest that not only do we go nuclear, we re-process the spent fuel to extract maximum mileage out of the 99% of the U238 portion that is otherwise unused and considered as so-called "nuclear waste". I will further suggest that, since Singapore likes to be a hub for so many other things, Singapore might even become a uranium re-processing hub for neighbouring countries.

We must not fall into the trap of thinking that "renewable energy" means "forever energy". Hydro dams silt up, wind turbines wear out. Solar cells sound good but associated inverters and batteries will wear out too. They talk about LNG now, but LNG is an interim measure. In the long term, even nuclear power is an interim measure since uranium is also a finite resource which will eventually peak and run out. In the very long term, a network of orbiting solar power satellites could move humanity to step up from a Type 0+ to become a Type 1 Civilization, capable of harnessing a significant portion of the solar energy falling on the planet. The next step might also be fusion, or perhaps something more exotic. The problem right now is to hang on long enough to reach that next step.

Comments:

some questions:
- will 1 nuclear reactor be enough for us?
- how much space/land needed? and where would be suitable to be 'safe'? tekong? or some islands to the south?

Posted by wkwp on October 18, 2006 at 09:08 AM SGT #

As far as I know, Singapore's total energy consumption is somewhere over 4500 MW, less than 5000 MW. A typical nuclear power plant can supply at least 1000 MW. New 3rd generation reactors can come in "modules" of 1500-1700 MW.

So just one of these can provide about 1/3 of the current power demand (33% nuclear). It could provide a reliable anchor as baseload power, while existing natural gas stations, plus other renewable sources, including possibly solar, wind, and other plants like NEA's Waste2Energy one supply the rest of the variable load.

I don't know about the exact land requirements but AFAIK it's not very big. The biggest chunk of space needed is for the cooling towers. Best if it's near a body of water for cooling purposes, and far away from populated areas. I would suggest the recently reclaimed land at Tuas at the extreme south-western edge of Singapore.

Posted by lowem on October 18, 2006 at 11:27 AM SGT #

Hi Lowem,

I cannot agree with you on going nuclear in Singapore. One shouldn't equate improvements in safety to a zero defect operation. In the Chernobyl disaster circa 1986, a 30-km radius around the plant was evacuated. Given that Singapore's size, you will have to evacuate the entire populace in such an event. Statistically, the probability of an accident is not zero.

I don't even want to think about Singapore as a refinery hub for nuclear waste.

On your notes regarding 'renewable energy', I believe there is no trap there. The renewability of these energy source merely refers to the much longer lifespans of the source, i.e. billions of years of the sun. The parts of such an energy system built by men will always face aging problems.

Posted by shooperman on October 18, 2006 at 04:32 PM SGT #

Chernobyl and to a lesser extent Three Mile Island have historically been seized upon by anti-nuclear activists as their chief trophies. The Chernobyl reactor suffered from fundamental design flaws including lack of a containment unit.

For positive examples, look at France, which is 80% nuclear. Or Japan, which operates nuclear plants despite having been at the receiving end of two atomic bombs.

As for renewability, that is the exact trap I refer to. Yes, in theory renewability equals billions of years of energy from the sun, wind, ocean, etc. In practice, renewable sources are necessary, but they are not sufficient.

Sure, if we cling on to hopes of our favoured renewables solar and wind catching on, we might have to wait quite a while longer, while continuing to burn fossil fuels, polluting the air, changing the climate. I say that's not necessarily the best policy.

Again, contrary to some peakoilers / skeptics, I believe gov.sg has been doing what it can, switching to natural gas which is the cleanest burning hydrocarbon. It may reach a point where that is no longer sufficient. And then we are hoping for what, wind and solar to take up the slack? Turn back to coal?

And what happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? You need to understand what baseload power is, and what are the available sources that can provide that kind of power. Read it up.

Posted by lowem on October 18, 2006 at 05:11 PM SGT #

And here are some of the available and theoretical choices for baseload power (requirement of operating 90% of the time or more), take your pick :

- coal
- diesel
- fuel oil
- geothermal
- hydro
- natural gas
- nuclear fission
- nuclear fusion
- ocean thermal/tidal
- solar power satellites

Let's say we regroup this into smaller chunks :

- hydrocarbon fossils (coal, oil, gas)
- geographical (hydro, geothermal)
- nuclear (fission)
- sci-fi/experimental (fusion, ocean, satellites)

I suspect I will encounter less opposition from environmentalists and peakoilers both if I said I support, say, coal.

Take your pick.

Posted by lowem on October 18, 2006 at 05:54 PM SGT #

I don't understand the need to move our baseload power supply from natural gas to anything else, nuclear included. I always thought the existing fossil-fuel-based plants should still be the baseload.

At the national level, renewable power sources should always contribute to the variable load, e.g. solar to power airconditioning in the offices during the day. With this in place, we would be burning less natural gas on the whole, wouldn't we?

I brought up the Chernobyl case to illustrate how big an area can be affected and why Singapore simply doesn't have the luxury of making a single mistake. While a similar case is unlikely to happen, current nuclear reactors have their own problems, for instance, the topic of cracks in pressurized water reactors is now getting more attention in Japan and France.

Posted by shooperman on October 18, 2006 at 09:42 PM SGT #

I thought so too.

Until I realized the level of pent-up demand there will be for natural gas in various forms. One can even spell out why : LNG. CNG. GTL.

When a taxi driver in JB told me how cheap it was to convert his Proton, and how everyone else he knew was doing it too, and I calculated that each refueling would cost him just over 2 riggit cents per km.

When gov.sg announced the LNG terminal. When some of our top ministers got sent to Russia and Qatar to talk "economic cooperation".

When GTL became an economic and viable option after oil sailed over $40 per barrel. When Robert Hirsch declared a liquid fuels crisis.

When the nature of the Indonesian gas depletion situation came to light.

The questions to be asked for Peak Gas are similar to those being asked for Peak Oil - how fast the crash, how soon, how steep? What are the options available? How much time do we have?

If you choose to firmly believe that wind and solar will ramp up faster than declining availability of gas, it's up to you. I would wish to believe that myself. If you were in charge, would you bet a country on that?

Shrug. It's not like we have that much say anyway.

And you know what? There's always the coal option. Coal will peak long after gas does.

As I said, for baseload power, take your pick.

Ok. I pick nuclear. shooperman picks natural gas. Someone pick coal please? That leaves us with the geographically-dependent stuff and the sci-fi / fantasy / experimental stuff. I think simontay78 might pick ZPE. Anyone wants to flood half of Singapore with a hydro catchment area? No? Okay.

Great. We are going to live in interesting times :)

Posted by lowem on October 19, 2006 at 12:05 AM SGT #