Elec 2

ESI
Bulletin
ESI Bulletin on Energy Trends and Development (Volume 4 / Issue 1 April 2011)
Satellite Photo of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant 2011-03-12 after Tsunami http://commons.wikiemedia.org/wiki/File:2_Fukushima_daiichi_NPP_2011-03-12_after_Tsunami Image obtained from Google Earth and DigitalGlobe.com
This issue focuses on the implications of the tragic 11 March earthquake and tsunami off the northeast coast of Japan on the use nuclear energy in our region. Japan is the only country to have suffered the devastating effects of nuclear weapons, yet the country turned to nuclear energy in its ongoing quest towards energy independence and security. Research into nuclear power in Japan began in 1954 in response to a lack of domestic oil resources and vulnerability to oil import disruptions. Japan put its first nuclear plant into commercial operation in 1966. Japan has had considerable success in replacing fossil fuel use with nuclear. In 1973, about 72.5% of the countrys total electricity was generated from oil, 15.2% from hydro, 7.9% from coal, 2.2% from gas, 2.1% from nuclear and less than 1% from geothermal. By 2010, nuclear power met 30% of Japans electricity needs, and before the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami disasters, the government had planned to increase the share of nuclear power to 50% by 2030. Many Asian countries face similar energy challenges. In recent years, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and
Thailand have proposed plans for nuclear power generation to reduce their oil dependency and meet their rapidly increasing demand for electricity. Nuclear power appeared to be the most viable source of energy as renewable energy was either price uncompetitive or prohibitively technically challenging. Though what happened on 11 March has raised big questions about the future of nuclear energy, it is unlikely that governments will boycott nuclear energy altogether. Alternatives to conventional fuels are very few, hence the strategies for energy diversification are also limited. In addition, nuclear energy, being carbonfree, is perhaps the most useful weapon in terms of meeting international climate change targets on greenhouse gases emissions. Nonetheless, there are valuable lessons to be drawn from the disasters in Japan. Countries like Indonesia and India are also prone to tsunamis. An earthquake with a magnitude of 9.1 in the Indian Ocean in 2004 resulted in one of the worlds worst tsunamis, taking over 220,000 lives. It is clear now that any nuclear power plant built in Southeast Asia, if any, must be able
to survive a major earthquake and tsunami, no matter how remote the chance of occurrence. In this issue, we examine what happened, the problematic state of Japans electricity system, Fukushimas shadow on nuclear ambitions, the ASEAN governments reactions in terms of their own nuclear power plans and the lessons learned. We hope you find these short essays of interest. We welcome your views and opinions!
In this issue ...

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor Crisis: What Happened ................. Pg 2 The Problematic State of Japans Electricity System ........................................ Pg 3 Fukushimas Shadow on Nuclear Ambitions ..................................................... Pg 6 Nuclear Power, Tectonic Collision Zones and Climate Targets: ASEANs Risky Convergence? ................... Pg 7 Japans Nuclear Meltdown 2011: Lessons Learned ....................................... Pg 10 Recent Events ........................................... Pg 15 Staff Publications ....................................... Pg 18 Staff Presentations and Moderating .......... Pg 18 Media Contributions ........................... Back Page New Staff ........................................... Back Page
The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor Crisis: What Happened

By Dickson Yeo, ESI Energy Analyst
At 3 pm on Friday 11 March 2011, a 9.0-magnitude undersea earthquake occurred off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture in the Tohoku Region of northern Japan, about 220 kilometres north of Tokyo. It is estimated to be the most powerful earthquake to hit Japan, and one of the five most powerful earthquakes in the world since modern recordkeeping began in 1900. The ensuing 10-meter tsunami was not only among the highest ever recorded, but among the most forceful. The world has expressed enormous sympathy and many governments are continuing to dispatch recovery assistance. Even traditional rivals such as China and South Korea have garnered logistics and financial aid for the affected Japanese prefectures. As of 11 April, the total death toll had reached 13,219. Another 4,742 people were injured and 14,274 were missing. The hardest hit region is in Miyagi Prefecture, where the city of Sendai is located, north of Fukushima Prefecture with 15,000 residents dead or missing. All attention is focussed on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant which had six boiling water reactors (BWR): Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 MWe 439 760 760 760 760 1,067 Date 1971 1974 1976 1978 1979 1979 the worst radiation effects have not spread beyond the 19-mile radius of the plant, news reports about the Japanese prohibiting the export of agricultural products from the stricken region and rising radiation levels near Tokyo have painted a bleak picture for the nation as a whole. Across the Asia-Pacific region, various countries have announced restrictions on Japanese agricultural products or more stringent testing measures. At the end of March, seawater tested near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station was found to contain iodine-131, which is 3,355 times the safety standard. Thus, the authorities made the decision to scrap reactors 1, 2, 3 and 4. On 12 April, following a series of major aftershocks and the discovery that more radiation had leaked from the plant soon after 11 March than previously estimated, Japans Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) raised the severity level of this disaster from level 5 to level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, putting it on par with the Chernobyl Incident in 1986. This scale was developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the affected country itself, based on the set criteria, determines which level the event rates. The 1979 partial reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania was categorised as a level 5 event. TEPCO fears that the afflicted plant may ultimately release more radiation than Chernobyl, though as we went to press, a deputy director from NISA said that the total amount of radioactive materials released thus far was equivalent to only about 10% of that released after the Chernobyl Incident. Total damage to property and infrastructure is still being estimated. However, the Japanese government has announced that it expects total repair costs to be about USD $310 billion. This estimate still does not factor in losses in economic activity due to power and transportation outages and insurance payouts from the crisis. The Bank of Japan offered 15 trillion to the banking system on 14 March in an effort to normalise market conditions. Obviously, almost everything in the immediate region remains at a standstill until the electricity is fully restored. Electricity will continue to be rationed in eastern Japan until the end of April, and longer in the northeast. Thousands of people who lost their homes are being temporarily housed in school gymnasiums and other public halls with minimal heating, food and water. Across Japan, households, businesses and schools are having to adjust to rolling blackouts as the utility companies are still struggling to repair transmission lines. In addition, train service disruptions, highway closures and damaged ports all mean that private citizens and major corporations alike will have to live with disruptions in the supply of basics for an indefinite period.
Nuclear plants are designed to serve for forty years. Although these reactors were designed to handle earthquakes measuring only 8.2 on the Richter Scale, their safety and backup systems worked exactly as they should in this 9.0 quake. The seawall protecting the plants was designed to withstand a 20-foot tsunami but this one was over 30 feet high. Situated close to the coastline, the reactors and diesel generators therein, were instantly flooded. The ocean water swept inland, submerging 326, 67 and 49 square kilometres of Miyagi, Fukushima and Aomori Prefectures, respectively. The fission process was terminated immediately. The key problem was that all units suffered total loss of offsite and onsite power. When the power was lost, the auxiliary cooling systems stopped and the reactor core heated up. A hydrogen explosion at Unit 4 occurred due to inadequate cooling. While the fuel damage is inside the primary containment in the other units, the Unit 4 spent fuel pool is open to the atmosphere. The remaining TEPCO (Tohoku Electric Power Company) employees are working day and night to try to stabilise the situation. While American nuclear surveillance equipment, on loan to the Japanese have confirmed that
ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 2
The Problematic State of Japans Electricity System

By Valerie Choy, ESI Energy Analyst
The recent Tohoku earthquake, pursuant tsunami and nuclear crisis have unleashed a national crisis in Japan on a scale not seen since World War II. Whilst the government is desperately trying to prevent massive radiation leaks at four nuclear reactors and continues to press on with recovery efforts at battered coastal villages, it is now facing critical scrutiny over the flaws in its electricity system made obvious by the horrific spate of disasters. In the directly affected areas of the disaster, electricity services were provided by the Tokyo Electric Company (TEPCO) and the Tohoku Electric Company (Tohoku-EPCO). Tohoku-EPCO suffered critical damage to its systems with one nuclear plant and four thermal plants shut down, leaving some of the worst-hit disaster areas with total black-outs. However, the utility escaped the nuclear crisis that TEPCO now faces. TEPCO owns the Fukushima Dai-ichi and Fukushima Dai-ini nuclear plants with six and four reactors each, accounting for a total of 9.1GW of base load power generation capacity.1 Although not all the reactors at both plants were stricken in the earthquake, it can be expected that all reactors will be shut for a prolonged period of time, if not permanently. At the TEPCO owned oil-fired power plants, 5.15GW of generation capacity were shut down following the quake and will likely remain unavailable until adequate checks are performed and repairs made. TEPCOs biggest 1GW coal-fired power plant was also damaged in the quake.2 Also taking into account power generation capacities which were mothballed before the quake, this leaves TEPCO with about 42GW of existing power generation capacity, 35% less than its built capacity of 64.5GW and barely fulfilling electricity demand which fell significantly due to a drop in manufacturing output following the earthquake.3 Of the 42GW of power generation capacity, not all is currently online due to scheduled maintenance shutdowns. As of 28 March, TEPCO had only 37GW of power generation capacity online, including some borrowed from other utilities. This begs many questions about the future of Japans electricity systems. How adequately can TEPCO and TohokuEPCO cope with the dearth in electricity supply in the short and long terms? Japan has ten electric power companies, as shown in Figure 1, with TEPCO and Tohoku-EPCO being the largest and fifth largest, respectively. What have been the domino effects of the power capacity shortages of these two utilities on other electric utilities in Japan? How will the 11 March 2011 disasters affect Japans long term energy diversification strategies?
Utilities directly affected by the 11 March 2011 earthquake.
Figure 1: Japans Ten Electric Companies by Service Area Source: The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan
The 2007 and 2011 Earthquakes Compared

To answer these questions, it is useful to recall a similar event in 2007. In July that year, a large amount of power generation capacity was suddenly taken off the grid following the closure of the 8.2GW Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, also owned by TEPCO, after the magnitude 6.6 Chuetsu offshore earthquake. The relatively minor damage to the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant compared to the 11 March 2011 event meant it was shut down for a two-year inspection, with some reactors coming back online only recently. The power shortage then was particularly worrying as it took place at a time when power demand was at its peak during the height of summer, often surpassing 60GW.4 For perspective, the typical power demand in March is around 40GW. However, in 2007 there was significantly more maneuverability to recover from the earthquake. Back then, TEPCOs thermal power plants were not affected by the quake and could continue functioning properly. TEPCO was also able to bring in an additional supply of 4.7GW within a few weeks but this still left TEPCO hovering dangerously at a low reserve margin averaging 1.7% and -5.1% immediately following the quake.5 Power supply was boosted by increasing operational capacity at TEPCOs other facilities, shifting periodic inspection schedules to bring plants under inspection back online, purchasing from private power generators and interchanging power supplies from other electricity providers. Today, as in 2007, boosting operational capacities at all of TEPCOs undamaged facilities is urgently needed to maintain base load power. Purchasing electricity from private power generators could pose a challenge as electricity generation capacity in all of eastern Japan is now tightly stretched. In the past, TEPCO could tap on the surplus capacity from Tohoku-EPCO but now the latter is also facing a great supply shortage. Only 0.6GW may be expected to be drawn from the Hokkaido-EPCO further away. As shown in Figure 2, Japans power grid is divided into a 60Hz section in west Japan and a 50Hz section in east Japan.6 At present, these do not interact and TEPCO can tap into only a maximum of 1GW from the electric utilities in west Japan through existing conversion equipment. Following the power shortage event in 2007, there were many discussions about the need to expand the interconnection of transmission lines, but little action was taken to put in place higher reserve margins and create effective strategies to ensure stable electricity supplies when large power generation capacities are suddenly lost. What had been left as a future thought has now returned to haunt electricity companies and regulators. Now, even as TEPCO urgently tries to get all possible thermal power plant capacities up and running, it will most likely suffer an 8GW power shortage this summer when the demand for air conditioning is at peak level.7
Figure 2: Layout of Japans Power Grid Showing the Distinct 60Hz and 50Hz Regions Source: The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan
OFUNATO, Japan (March 15, 2011) - A tug boat lies in a residential neighborhood three-quarters-of-a-mile from the ocean following an 8.9-magnitude earthquake, which triggered a devastating tsunami through this Japanese coastal city. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Matthew M. Bradley/Released)
LNG to Fill the Gap

To cope with this obvious looming power shortage situation, TEPCO representatives have said they will consider building numerous small 0.3GW LNG-fired power plants which can be completed fairly quickly.8 However, this effort could be rendered ineffective by logistical bottlenecks at the four LNG terminals presently operated by TEPCO which may not be adequately prepared for a sudden major increase in the number of LNG tanker arrivals. In the coming months, these logistical issues must be resolved as TEPCO will most likely depend more on natural gas rather than coal or oil to fill its supply gaps in compliance with Japans Kyoto Protocol commitment to accelerate the shift to natural gas. The acceleration of LNG usage in the medium to long term will be further pushed by the unfortunate coincidence that many of TEPCOs power plant facilities currently under construction are would-be extensions of stricken facilities such as the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant and the quake- damaged Hitachinaka coal-fired power plant. In the face of these issues, TEPCO can still look forward to the full recovery of the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant and the completion of the Kannagawa hydroelectric power plant, potentially adding 5-6GW of power generation capacity. It may also take some comfort in the fact that the average prices of LNG arrivals in Japan in the three months following the 2007 Chuetsu earthquake showed no remarkable gains compared to the same period in the previous year even as the volume of LNG imports rose 20%. With that said, the current circumstances may have a larger impact on LNG demand and prices than in 2007. The nuclear crisis at Fukushima could force Japan to re-examine its 17 nuclear power facilities around the country and its plans for nuclear power going forward. Already, TEPCO has been asked by local authorities to conduct checks at the Kashiwazaki nuclear plant.9 Many worry that Japan would double back on its plans for nuclear power and push Japanese utilities to collectively increase their reliance on LNG. A large shift from nuclear power to LNG-fired power generation will reverse Japans energy diversification and may expose the country to new vulnerabilities arising from heavy dependence on foreign LNG imports. However, a wide-scale reduction of nuclear power generation in Japan, which accounts for 30% of electricity power generation, in the next few decades is unlikely as nuclear power development has been a national long term strategy since the 1970s. Reducing the reliance on nuclear power would also hinder the country in achieving its CO2 emissions reduction commitment in the Kyoto Protocol. It is estimated that the use of nuclear power lowers Japans CO2 emissions by 14% per year. 10
Conclusion
Japans endeavors to lower its CO2 emissions footprint and achieve a high level of energy diversification has meant that the country has inadvertently allowed itself to rely heavily on two sources of energy for electricity, both highly risky in their own right nuclear power for the safety issues and LNG for the logistical chokepoints and foreign import dependence. These risks can be better managed if greater efforts are made to reconcile the 60Hz and 50Hz grids
so that more spare capacity may be used to aid sudden and severe power shortage events faced by one or a cluster of utilities. Japanese electricity utilities and regulators must heed the tough lessons meted out by unplanned natural calamities and work harder in tandem to secure the countrys energy future.
All website references were accessed in March 2011.
1
Japan Electric Power Information Centre Operating and Financial Data 2009, at <http://www.jepic.or.jp/en/data/electr2009.pdf>. Status of TEPCOs Facilities and its Services after Tohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki Earthquake, 26 Mar 2011, at <http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/ release/11032608-e.html>. TEPCO Corporate Brochure 2011 at <http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/useful/pdf1/brochu-e.pdf>. T. Murakami et al., Impacts on International Energy Market of Unplanned Shutdown of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, 2008, Institute of Energy Economics, Japan 2010 TEPCO Illustrated at <http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/useful/pdf-3/10i_fulle.pdf>. Japans Two Incompatible Power Grids Make Disaster Recovery Harder, Scientific American, 25 Mar 2011, at <http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ post.cfm?id=japans-two-incompatible-power-grids-2011-03-25> TEPCO Loses One Quarter of Supply Capacity, Urges Restart of Thermal Power Generation, 17 Mar 2011, The Denki Shimbun, at <http:// www.shimbun.denki.or.jp/en/news/20110317_01.html>. TEPCO Considers to Build New Gas-Fired Power Plants, 19 Mar 2011, The Denki Shimbun, at <http://www.shimbun.denki.or.jp/en/news/ 20110319_01.html>. Tokyo Electric Asked to Check Biggest Nuclear Plant after Fukushima Crisis, 21 Mar 2011, Bloomberg, at <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-21/ tokyo-electric-asked-to-check-biggest-nuclear-plant-after-fukushimacrisis.html>. Japan Country Analysis Brief, Energy Information Administration, at <http:/ /www.eia.doe.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=JA>.
An aerial view of tsunami damage in an area north of Sendai, Japan, taken from a U.S. Navy helicopter assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76). This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the persons official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
10
Fukushimas Shadow on Nuclear Ambitions

By Dr. Tilak K. Doshi, Head, Energy Economics, Energy Studies Institute, NUS
The oil crises of the 1970s led Japan to embark on an energy policy to reduce dependence on imported oil by investing heavily on substitutes such as coal, natural gas and hydropower. Nuclear power played a key role in Japans energy planning. Japans Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), like its predecessor MITI, pledges to actively promote nuclear power generation as a principal energy source in the mid-to-long term, satisfying supply stability, environmental compatibility and economic efficiency. The results have been substantial. By 2008, almost 85% of electricity supplied came from a combination of nuclear, liquefied natural gas (LNG), coal, and hydro sources, with oil accounting for only 13%. In 1990, oil provided 30% of total electricity generated. The International Energy Agencys World Energy Outlook 2010 projects nuclear power in Japan to almost double its share of power generation, from 24% in 2008 to 42% by 2035. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) lists Japan as having 2 nuclear reactors under construction and 12 new reactors planned. Now, in the wake of the unfolding nuclear disaster in Fukushima, caused by the 9.0-magnitude earthquake and the massive ensuing tsunami, all bets are off and Japans nuclear development efforts seem fatally compromised. The multiple failures of Fukushimas nuclear facilities threaten serious environmental consequences and have reduced TEPCO, the countrys largest electricity utility, to half its share value. Apart from facing an unbelieving and suffering
Destroyed buildings rest here after the 9.0 earthquake and following tsunami here. Picture taken on March 27. The 31st MEU and Amphibous Squadron 11 picked up Japanese utility repair vehicles from the port in Kessenuma and delivered food, water, comfort items and the vehicles to residents on this isolated island. The island of Oshima has been cut off from the mainland since the earthquake and tsunami. The operation demonstrated the MEU's expeditionary capabilities in ship-to-shore amphibious operations. Marines and Sailors of the 31st MEU are conducting humanitarian aid and disaster relief missions in northeast Japan assisting the Japanese Self Defense Forces in their ongoing operations. This image or file is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Marine Corps. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
electorate in getting permission to build more nuclear plants, the government and utilities will have to face tough scrutiny by local councils and campaign groups on the continuing operations of the current fleet, many located on the coast. With the situation in Fukushima still highly uncertain, the costs of the nuclear disaster in lives and treasure will not be tallied in full for some time. In the past decade, there has been a revival of global interest in nuclear power due to a combination of factors: rapidly rising demand for electricity especially in developing Asia; the dramatic increase in fossil fuel prices since 2003 (with a brief hiatus during the 2008/09 financial crisis); and international policy concerns over climate change. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are 24 countries with operating nuclear power plants whose governments support investments in a new generation of nuclear power plants. And there are 20 more countries including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand which have proposed plans to acquire their first nuclear reactors. Of the 62 plants listed as being under construction by the WNA, 27 are in China, accounting for over 40% of the global total. Once Russia, India and South Koreas plants under construction are added to Chinas, they constitute three quarters of all plants being built world-wide, although many plants have been under construction for decades. The renewed interest in nuclear power in Europe and the US has been driven by policy commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, even some environmental groups have come out in support of nuclear power. After a long dry spell for the nuclear industrys ambitions following the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island facility in 1979, the US administration began to streamline the review and licensing process and offer insurance and loan guarantees for a new fleet of nuclear plants. By 2009, there were 26 new license applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the past few years, the UK and Italy had begun moves to end their de facto bans on new nuclear plant construction. Even the hostility to the nuclear option in countries such as Germany and Sweden was being challenged. The political calculus for nuclear development in the developed countries has now materially changed. The impact of Fukushima has already led Germanys Chancellor to suspend plans to extend the life of the countrys nuclear power plants, while Italy plans to announce a one-year moratorium on nuclear development. The US administration has injected a tone of caution in its plans to reach a grand bargain on energy policy, which would include nuclear power
Ishinomaki port showing heavy damage from the 11 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
development along with expanded offshore drilling, clean coal, and extensive support for renewables. Even India and China, where meeting booming energy demand is critical for continued economic growth and social stability, have called for reviews of safety procedures and halted the approval process for nuclear power stations for now. If the situation in Fukushima is brought under control soon, the impact of the tragedy will be to complicate the outlook for an industry already burdened by very high construction and maintenance costs, protracted approvals processes and the loss of public trust. The decision to commit to building new capacity will be even more difficult than it already is in the developed countries. If, however, significant releases of radioactive material occur at Fukushima, international confidence in the industry will be undermined just when planning authorities in Europe and the US were beginning to see a renewed potential in the nuclear option. While nuclear development plans will likely remain in place in developing countries intent on meeting the energy demands of rapid economic growth, concerns with safety protocols and vulnerability to catastrophic failure will slow many projects. If the Fukushima disaster brings to the fore the urgent need for a safety culture in developing countries where transparency and independent checks and balances required for meaningful regulatory oversight are in short supply, then it would not have been a moment too soon. (This article was first published in the Editorial and Opinion section of Business Times, 6 April 2011.)
Nuclear Power, Tectonic Collision Zones and Climate Targets: ASEANs Risky Convergence?
By Melissa Low, ESI Energy Analyst
Following the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that hit northern Japan on 11 March, fire fighters and troops are continuing to hose water over four reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in an attempt to minimise a meltdown and radioactive leakage. In the weeks following this quake several earthquakes measuring between 5.0 and 7.0 on the Richter Scale have occurred in Taiwan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan and most recently in Myanmar. These earthquakes have one thing in common the Eurasian plate. The Eurasian plate is a tectonic plate which is under most of Eurasia (consisting of continental Europe and Asia). The plate is moving at an average speed of 2cm/year (0.8 inches/year) and collisions with the Philippines, Arabian and Indian plates have resulted in the recent regional seismic activity.
GDP) by at least 8% by 2015 from the 2005 level. The plan also sets a strategic goal of having 15% of total power capacity installed by 2015 coming from regionally-derived renewable energy. The 2nd ASEAN Energy Demand Outlook published by the ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) and the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) estimates that nuclear energy will help achieve these targets by contributing 0.9% of the regions total power capacity by 2010 and 1.6% in 2030.2 ASEAN energy officials had reportedly been developing systematic plans of action and monitoring mechanisms in light of the announcement. But this was before Japans nuclear crisis.
Post-11 March ASEAN Responses and Rationale

Big water bottles are out of stock in Osaka. 18 March 2011 Tohoku earthquake effect in Osaka Creative Commons License http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011_T%C5%8
Earthquakes are natural occurrences resulting from the shifting of the earths upper crust and are driven largely by convection currents in the molten hot magma beneath it. The recent string of events following the quake and tsunami in Japan has raised fears and questions about nuclear energy in ASEAN.
As much of Southeast Asia sits astride or is near the Pacific Ring of Fire, apprehension among the general public over pursuing nuclear energy in this region has become palpable following the 11 March disasters. However, as can be seen from Table 1 which summarises the ten member states responses to the events unfolding in Japan, several governments are undeterred. While Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban formally announced that Thailand will halt plans indefinitely until officials have examined emergency measures and the potential for nuclear plants to become terrorist targets,3 Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia have all indicated that they are moving full steam ahead regardless of international scrutiny and concerns pertaining to safety and risks while the rest have opted to proceed with caution. Here in Singapore, despite the national target for reducing carbon emissions by 16% by the year 2030, the city-states size renders it impossible to meet the 30km safety radius requirement for construction and operation of a conventional nuclear power plant. Some months ago, the Republics Ministry for Trade and Industry announced that a prefeasibility study was being undertaken. Following the disasters in Japan, it recently reassured the public that the nuclear option for this country is still far away.4 Why are Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia choosing to forge ahead? The answer might lie in their national emission reduction targets for 2020 and beyond. For example, Vietnam has committed to 5% per cent of the nations electricity coming from alternative energy sources by 2020 and is aggressively moving forward with construction of ASEANs first 4,000MW nuclear plant to be operational by the same year. The government envisages 14 nuclear reactors online by 2030. Malaysias Prime Minister announced in Copenhagen in December of 2009 a conditional voluntary target of 40% reduction by 2020 from the 2005 level on condition that Malaysia receives technology transfer and effective financing from Annex-I nations. Indonesia has committed a 26% (19% from the energy sector, 7% from forestry and landuse) reduction and up to 41% (15% from the energy sector, 26% from forestry and land-use) by 2020 if international assistance is offered.
Pre-11 March Plans for Nuclear Power in ASEAN

Nuclear energy has been but one of the ways proposed in recent years to help meet ASEANs energy demand while at the same time preventing irreversible damage to the environment and runaway climate change. Energy demand in the region has been steadily and rapidly growing and it is increasingly critical for ASEAN to consider all available and possible sources of energy in order to maintain its growth momentum. Prior to 11 March, with the exception of Brunei and Lao PDR, every other ASEAN nation had announced plans to undertake nuclear feasibility studies or had started investing in nuclear technology and capacity building to meet their countrys growing energy needs. While some people regard ASEANs exploration into the use of nuclear power as an opportunity for the regions continued growth and cooperation, others remain sceptical about the security and environmental risks which nuclear energy presents.1 In 1995, ASEAN entered into a Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, often referred to as the Bangkok Treaty. This Treaty serves to protect the region from destructive nuclear weapon development and use and has provisions for the early notification of nuclear accidents. It also indicates that State Parties have the freedom and right to use nuclear energy towards economic development and social progress, thereby tying the entire region into a common energy future. In order for nuclear energy to be fully and readily accepted in the ASEAN community and internationally, issues of cost, safety, waste and proliferation need to be urgently addressed. More recently, ASEAN announced the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation 2010-2015. This Plan aims to reduce regional energy intensity (energy consumed per dollar of
Conclusion
Whatever the reason for pursuing the nuclear option be it national climate change and emissions reduction targets and/or a desire to diversify and enhance energy security Japans nuclear crisis has indeed complicated Southeast Asias potential adoption of nuclear power, especially for the countries that are very prone to earthquakes. With the Eurasian plate constantly ploughing into the Philippine, Arabian and Indian plates, it is safe to assume that ASEAN will never be free of seismic activity. And with the damage from the December 2004 Southeast Asian Tsunami still etched into many peoples memories, there is much reason to reconsider nuclear power generation. Despite the establishment of the ASEAN Nuclear Energy Cooperation Sub Sector Network during the ASEAN Energy Ministers meeting in Vietnam last July, the issues of building up a strong and effective capability base and having in place safeguards and standards have yet to be clearly addressed in the public realm. Furthermore, ASEAN nuclear geopolitics and tensions have resurfaced with recent claims that Myanmar is embarking on nuclear weapons projects with Russian and Pakistan and this remains a highly sensitive issue that the region should address collectively and not let slide. The sensitive nature of nuclear technology and power plant operation requires greater regional cooperation so as to cover security, technological, economic and environmental aspects. While regional agreements like the Treaty of Bangkok help govern ASEANs nuclear path, individual countries lack significant capacity to deal with possible nuclear disasters. The risks of trans-boundary pollution and waste disposal also need to be addressed. Safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Statute XIII,5 the Regulations on Safe Transport of Radioactive Material Country Brunei Cambodia Carbon Reduction Targets Not available Not available
and the UN Convention on Law of the Sea all lack specificity. What is needed is a unified ASEAN agency that would serve to govern the transfer and disposal of radioactive nuclear waste and address ASEAN-specific nuclear related risks. There is much work to be done among ASEAN member states especially in capacity building, strengthening public information and education, and in institutional, legal and regulatory capabilities relating to nuclear energy for power generation so as to secure a safe, nuclear future for the whole of ASEAN.
1
D. Tan, Nuclear Power in ASEAN, Singapore Institute of International Affairs, 2008 at <http://www.siiaonline.org> [21 Mar. 2011]. ASEAN Centre for Energy and Institute for Energy Economics Japan, The 2nd ASEAN Energy Demand Outlook , 2009 at <http://www.energycommunity. org/documents/SecondASEANEnergyOutlook.pdf> [23 Mar. 2011]. Thailand Freezes Nuclear Power Plant Plans, The Business Times, 17 Mar. 2011. Decision on Nuclear Energy Will Take a Long Time: MTI, Channel News Asia, 16 Mar. 2011 at <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ singaporelocalnews/view/1116899/1/.html> [21 Mar. 2011]. International Atomic Energy Agency, Statute of the IAEA, 2011 at <http:/ /www.iaea.org/About/statute_text.html> [21 Mar. 2011]. Indonesia Ready for Binding Targets on Emissions Reduction, The Jarkata Post, 15 Jan. 2010 at <http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/01/15/ indonesia-ready-binding-targets-emissions-reduction.html> [26 Mar. 2011]. Indonesia Nuclear Reactor Plans to Go Ahead, BBC News, 15 Mar. 2011 at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12742021> [27 Mar. 2011]. Malaysia Commits to 40% Reduction in Emissions, Malaysian Digest, 18 Dec. 2009 at <http://www.malaysiandigest.com/news/1260-malaysiacommits-to-40-reduction-in-emissions.html> [27 Mar. 2011]. PM to Meet Industry on Tsunami Impact: Government Warned Against Dismissing Nuclear Power Option, Bangkok Post, 20 Mar. 2011 at <http:/ /www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/227600/pm-to-meet-industry-ontsunami-impact> [27 Mar. 2011]. Vietnam Launches Low-carbon Master Plan, Business Green, 18 Nov. 2011 at <http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/1898856/vietnam-launches-lowcarbon-master-plan> [27 Mar. 2011]. P. Parameswaran, Southeast Asias Nuclear Power Plans: Promises and Perils, 2010 at <http://project2049.net/documents/southeast_asias_nuclear_ energy_future.pdf> [27 Mar. 2011].
10
11
Nuclear Plans None yet Currently undertaking cost-benefit analysis and feasibility study for nuclear energy 4% of total generation from nuclear energy by 20507
Date of Response No response No response
Type of Response No response Reportedly looking to use hydro and other indigenous sources for electricity generation No change in plans for 3 research reactors, with more being planned by the BATAN (Indonesias nuclear power authority) No response No change in plans
Indonesia
26% (19% from energy sector, 7% from forestry and landuse) by 2020, and up to 41% (15% from energy sector, 26% from forestry and land-use) if international assistance is offered6 Not available Conditional voluntary target of 40% reduction8
16/3/2011
Lao PDR Malaysia
None yet First 1,000MW plant operational by 2022 but effective decision will likely be made only by 2014 None yet, but nuclear weapons project plans with Russia and Pakistan have been reported over the last decade
No response 15/3/2011
Myanmar
Not available
No response
No response
Country Philippines
Carbon Reduction Targets Not available
Nuclear Plans Built the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in 1976, but it never became operational following the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster. Nuclear has recently resurfaced as an option Undertaking a prefeasibility study
Date of Response 16/3/2011
Type of Response Government to continue looking into nuclear option but strong NGO influence may slow plans into the future
Singapore
16% below BAU by 2030
17/3/2011
MTI has announced it is proceeding with caution Halted plans indefinitely; officials are studying emergency measures, and the potential for nuclear plants to become terrorist targets No change in plans
Thailand
Aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector by up to 30% from now to 2020, or 77 million tons per year
5 nuclear power plants with combined generating capacity of 5,000MW by 20259
17/3/2011
Vietnam
5% of the nations electricity to come from alternative energy sources by 2020 10
First operational 4,000MW plant by 2020, 14 nuclear reactors by 203011
16/3/2011
Table 1. Overview of the ASEAN Member States Responses to the Disasters in Japan
Japans Nuclear Meltdown 2011: Lessons Learned

By Catrina Yeo, ESI Energy Analyst Development of Nuclear Technology in Japan
Prior to the shutdown of the four affected Fukushima nuclear reactors last month, Japan had 54 nuclear reactors in operation, with a total installed generating capacity of around 49GW, housed in sixteen main power plant locations (see Figure 1).1 Japan imported its first nuclear reactor from the UK in 1961.2 Put into operation in 1966, it was a gas-cooled (Magnox) reactor with an installed capacity of 160MW built by General Electric and it operated for about thirty years to 1998. Following this, Japan focussed on building light water reactors (LWRs) which utilise enriched uranium dioxide as a fuel.3 LWRs are either boiling water reactors (BWR) or pressured water reactors (PWRs). Both are categorised as Generation II reactors. Japan has also developed Generation III reactors, which include advanced BWRs (ABWRs) and advanced PWRs (APWRs).4 The advanced reactors contain numerous safety improvements based on operational experience.5 Initially, the Japanese power utilities companies bought designs from US vendors and built them in cooperation with Japanese companies who in turn obtained licences to build similar plants.6 There are currently 26 BWRs, 24 PWRs and 4ABWRs in Japan. The quakeaffected Fukushima reactors were all BWRs.
Figure 1: Map of Japans Nuclear Power Plants Source: Global Insight found in <http://www.eurasiareview.com/japan-faces-a-nucleardisaster-18032011/> [March 2011]
Figure 2: Age Distribution of Japans 54 Nuclear Reactors Source: World Nuclear Association Japanese companies such as Hitachi, Mitsubishi and Toshiba have been exporting Japanese nuclear designs and technologies, and collaborating with foreign nuclear companies since the late 1990s.7 In Asia, Japan is recognised for its unrivalled nuclear plant performance and capabilities. In recent years, the Japanese have been working on fast breed reactors (FBR). The goal was to make these commercially available after 2050. Japans first FBR was connected to a grid in 1995. After detecting a sodium leakage during performance tests in December that year, the FBR was shut down and was re-opened only in May 2010.8 Nuclear plants are designed to serve for forty years. This is a standard imposed in the United States.9 Figure 2 shows the age distribution of Japans nuclear reactors, categorised by reactor types. More than half of Japans nuclear reactors have been operating for at least 20 years, with two of them passing the 40year mark. Due to the increasing number of aging nuclear plants, the Japanese government introduced the Periodic Safety Review and Ageing Management evaluation of plants as a regulatory requirement in 2005.10 The two 40-year old reactors, Mihama-1 and Tsunga-1, were given approval in early 2010 for extension of their operating lives beyond 40 years. Tsunga-1 was granted extension to 2016 due to delays in the construction of new reactors to replace it.11 Meanwhile, a feasibility study was initiated to study the possibility of constructing a new reactor at Mihama site in Fukui prefecture to replace Mihama-1. Fukushima-1, one among the four Fukushima reactors that were crippled by the March 2011 earthquake, was given a 10-year extension just one month before that fateful day. It had come into commercial operation in March 1971 and had just breached the 40-year period.
Aging of the Plants

The aging of nuclear plants is a big dilemma for nuclear power companies. Due to the very high capital investment needed to build a nuclear plant and the challenges of repairs and equipment replacements, power companies have been requesting to extend the operating lives of their nuclear plants to amortise costs. Many companies have indeed extended their operations, despite signs of premature aging.12 Given that the construction of new nuclear power plants incurs loud public outcry in Japan, nuclear power companies have been even more inclined towards extending operations rather than building new plants. Two common aging phenomena of nuclear plants are neutron irradiation embrittlement of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steel and stress corrosion cracking (SCC). Neutron irradiation degrades the toughness of RPV steel which weakens the integrity of the vessel structure. According to Japanese reports, Japanese modern pressure vessel steels contain very low concentrations of copper (Cu) and other detrimental impurity atoms such as phosphorus (P), and hence have very low susceptibility to irradiation embrittlement. On the other hand, stress corrosion cracks have been detected in many of Japans BWR plants but BWR owners have since replaced stainless steel with low carbon stainless steel.13 SCC occurrence is found to be positively related to carbon content. In general, careful monitoring and maintenance of nuclear plants maintain the safety of nuclear plants for daily operations. However, it is also important to note that while
retrofits and component replacements incrementally increase safety of aging nuclear reactors, installations also create opportunities for errors. Nonetheless, Japanese companies like Hitachi and Mitsubishi had been developing new technologies relating to general maintenance, prevention of equipment deterioration and more robust inspection. France had in fact also started to order equipment from Japan to meet the countrys rising demand for replacement parts.14 The state of nuclear technology in Japan, be it nuclear reactor design, reprocessing or replacement parts, was and still is considered one of the best in the world.
Historical Impact of Earthquakes on Japanese Nuclear Plants

Stranded passengers congregate at the Keio line concourse of Shinjuku Station in Tokyo as pubic transportation in northern Japan is interrupted on the day of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License.
Despite being an earthquake-prone nation, Japan has the largest commercial nuclear programme in Asia. The Japanese government revised its seismic guidelines for nuclear plant design and construction following the 1985 Kobe earthquake which had a magnitude of 7.2.15
Following this earthquake, the Japan Nuclear Safety Commission required that nuclear plants be able to survive http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011_Sendai_earthquake_Shinjuku_ a quake of magnitude 7.75. Seismic detectors trigger the Station.JPG tripping of reactors in the event of earthquakes that cause ground motions of a certain magnitude (specified as S1 or S2 in Gal units). The nuclear plants that are most vulnerable to high-magnitude earthquakes are located in the Tokai region (see Figure 1) and these are are already designed to withstand earthquakes up to 8.5 in magnitude.16 A brief timeline of significant Japanese earthquakes is drawn up in Figure 3. The Fukushima reactors were designed to withstand a magnitude 8.0 earthquake.17 It was of course never foreseen that the reactors would be hit by a once in 10,000 years magnitude 9.0 earthquake coupled with a 10-meter tsunami. The reactors were tripped according to design specifications during this earthquake. The failure of the reactors, notably Reactor 1, was largely due to the loss of electrical power which was much needed for cooling the reactor core.
Implications
Engineers and nuclear scientists have been trying to ascertain the sequence of events that led to the meltdown. There is considerable discussion about the Fukushima reactors being old and troubled.18 It was also reported that the power plant was designed to survive only a magnitude 8.0 earthquake. But investigations showed that the Fukushima reactors responded the way they were designed to, and actually survived the magnitude 9.0 earthquake until the tsunami hit. Reactors are forced to shut down upon specified ground motions of a certain magnitude. This way of controlling reactivity, together with cooling the radioactive fuel and containing radioactive substances, is one of the three basic safety functions. Unfortunately, the tsunami that followed the earthquake crippled the generators that were powering the coolant pumps. Although there were back-up batteries to provide electricity, the batteries ran out before adequate cooling was achieved. This is what led to the meltdown. Essentially, two concerns are being raised here: the safety back-up mechanisms and the age of nuclear facilities. In a recent New York Times article, the US Nuclear Research Centre (NRC), commented that they suspect US reactors could withstand a similar event provided their back-up batteries had as high a capacity as those of Japan. Currently, the capacity of back-up batteries in American reactors is four hours which is half that of Japans reactors.19 However, the truth remains unknown, until the system is actually tested. The NRC also commented that their reactors were able to withstand a total power loss and this safety mechanism was implemented in response to the 9/11 incident. Such a safety measure is expected to mitigate conditions that result from severe adverse events.20 This is perhaps something that the Japanese overlooked a safety back-up system that can function in the event of power loss and something that countries prone to tsunamis should be mindful of when designing and building their nuclear
Figure 3: Effect of Earthquakes on Japans Nuclear Plants (not drawn to scale) Source: Based on information from the World Nuclear Association.
plants. Newer designs of cooling systems in BWR use gravity and natural convection to cool the core, thereby eliminating the use of electrical power.21 In addition, scenario risk planning has become more important in the face of such events. Worst case scenarios must be seriously considered. Events with a remote chance of occurring are often omitted in scenario risk planning for economic reasons. However, with the present empirical evidence of such massive earthquakes and tsunamis, such omissions can no longer be made. The answer to whether or not the age of a reactor plays a part in safety is inconclusive. Fukushima-1 had an old cooling system (utilised electricity, instead of gravity and natural convection as do the newer ones).22 But reports show that the other three reactors which had not yet passed the 40-year mark (they were 33 to 37 years old) were also severely damaged.23 There were also reports about Fukushima-1 being a troubled facility, with accidents taking place before the earthquake.24 There may also have been elements of human negligence. The NRC reported that the Japanese GE Mark 1 reactors had not undergone the retrofits that they were
Soil-liquefaction at Shinkiba after after 2011 Tohoku Pacific Ocean offshore earthquake Photo taken by Morio |Date = 12 March 2011, Shibakouen, Tokyo, Japan Wikipedia Creative Commons License http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soil-liquefaction_at_Shinkiba_after_ after_2011_Tohoku_Pacific_Ocean_offshore_earthquake.jpg
ISAWA, Japan (March 19, 2011) Service members and Misawa residents pull a damaged vehicle from the woods near the Misawa port. Service members, civilian employees, and family members from Naval Air Facility Misawa are helping residents clean up the port following a 9.0-magnitude earthquake that caused a devastating tsunami along Japans eastern coast. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Matthew M. Bradley/Released) This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the persons official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.
meant to. The retrofits hardened vents were supposed to remove hydrogen that escapes the primary reactor containment shell and carry it outside the second containment building.25 This maintenance issue is more a question of human operations and negligence, than the age of the technology.
Conclusion
In retrospect, this terrible disaster, though costly, probably served as a timely wake-up call to the nuclear power producing nations and those planning to build nuclear plants. It helped reveal lack of adequate and appropriate safety mechanisms in nuclear plants and cases of human negligence. All countries currently producing nuclear power will undoubtedly closely re-examine the current state of their nuclear technology. Such assessments could involve either more stringent approval requirements for extending the life of old nuclear plants, the use of more robust and encompassing safety designs and/or the strengthening of safety measures at vulnerable sites.
1 2
World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Japan, 2011 at <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html>. Ibid. and K. Maize A Short History of Nuclear Power in Japan, POWER Business and Technology for the Global Generation Industry Blog, 2011 at <http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2011/03/14/a-short-history-of-nuclear-power-in-japan/>. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Japan. J-S.Choi, Nuclear Power in Japan: A Gaijin Perspective, presentation at the Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore, 4 Nov. 2010. World Nuclear Association, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors, 2011 at <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html>. Paul J. Scalise, National Energy Policy: Japan, Encyclopedia of Energy, vol. 4, 2004. World Nuclear Association, Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Japan, 2011 at <http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf79.html>. P. Brett, The Dilemma of Aging Nuclear Plants, Special Report: Energy, New York Times, 19 Oct. 2009. Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organisation, Aging of Nuclear Power Plants, 2007. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Japan. P. Brett, The Dilemma of Aging Nuclear Plants. Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organisation, Aging of Nuclear Power Plants, 2007. P. Brett, The Dilemma of Aging Nuclear Plants. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power Plants and Earthquakes, 2009 at <http://a4nr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Nuclear-Power-Plants+Japan-quakesWNA-2009.pdf>. Ibid. Y. Hayashi and M. Iwata, Japans Struggles to Control Reactors, Wall Street Journal, 13 Mar. 2011. R. Smith, B. Casselman and M. Obe, Japan Plant Had Trouble History, Wall Street Journal, 2011. P. Behr, US Nuclear Plants are Safer than Japans, but Operational Quality Needs Work, The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2011. Ibid. J. Tullock, Radioactive Wave: Will Tsunami Lead to Meltdown?, an interview with Professor Andrew Sherry, Japan Disaster, Allianz.com, 2011 at <http:// knowledge.allianz.com/?1393/nuclear-crisis-japan-tsunami-meltdown-radioactive&mcg=2062462492_6238736212&kwg=Broad_2062462492_japan+nuclear>. Ibid. The Risk Exposed: What Damage to the Fukushima Plant Portends for Japan and the World, The Economist, 17 March 2011. R. Smith, B. Casselman and M. Obe, Japan Plant Had Troubled History. P. Behr, US Nuclear Plants are Safer than Japans, but Operational Quality Needs Work.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25
Recent Events
Developments in Climate Change: A Dialogue with ExxonMobil, held 19th February
Robert Bailes, ExxonMobils Corporate Greenhouse Gas Manager, and David Bailey, ExxonMobils Climate Policy Manager, each had the floor for 30 minutes. A lively Q & A session followed. Robert provided an overview of the key insights emerging from the companys recently published Outlook for Energy: A View to 2030. The company forecasts a rapid growth in renewables through to 2030; however, their contribution to the world energy mix will be minimal. On a regional basis, Asia will drive energy demand growth and hence greenhouse gas emissions (as energy efficiency improvements will be unable to offset the magnitude of energy demand). On a sectoral basis, the growth in the power sector will be the engine of energy demand growth. ExxonMobil is in favour of a carbon tax rather than a mechanism whereby the carbon price fluctuates because it reduces uncertainty. David discussed the developments at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Cancun, Mexico. He mentioned the 2C temperature agreement and highlighted the issues that remain unresolved such as the issue of making country mitigation targets legally binding. ExxonMobils criteria when deciding the viability of a technology to fight climate change hinge on two factors: scalability and sustainability in the absence of government support. The company supports two technologies in particular: carbon capture and storage (CCS) and algaebased biofuels. They believe that a more pragmatic cost minimisation-based approach to GHG mitigation will prove a more sustainable path to addressing climate change issues. The seminar participants were left with the impression that global agreement on climate change mitigation and adaptation will continue to be an uphill battle. Association of Southeast Asian Studies and Singapore. His presentation explored the technology, economics and policies of nuclear energy, and focused on a multilateral approach that could be used to address the current concerns and issues associated with nuclear energy.
Food and Biofuels from Marine Algae: Prototype of an Offshore Algae Oilfield, held 14th December
Mr. Giovanni Drago
Mr. Giovanni Drago and Dr. Dirk Eichelberger of Wintershine, a for-profit social enterprise whose mission is to engineer sustainable development, presented a case for food and biofuel production from marine algae. Given that marine biofuel production has no land requirements and does not displace food crops, they suggested that offshore algae farms could be a potential win-win solution for our future resourceand land-scarce world. They argued that by creating an area of artificial upwelling from the deep ocean, offshore algae farms would find an abundant supply of carbon dioxide to sustain commercial scale growth.
Why Indonesia Wants to Go Nuclear, held 13th December
Energy Geopolitics Through the Looking Glass of India, held 27th January
Mrs. Mary Stonaker of the Middle East Institute at NUS delivered a presentation on the significance of Indias signing in December 2010 the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) and the Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement (GPFA) to import gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan. This pipeline may potentially run through the heart of Taliban-controlled territory (Kandahar, Afghanistan) and unstable tribal areas of Pakistan. This landmark agreement was discussed in the context of the geopolitics of transnational pipeline projects in India and the current state of Indias energy consumption, production and distribution.
Dr. Sulfikar Amir
Nuclear Energy: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom, held 18th January

Dr. Alvin Chew, an independent consultant, discussed the viability of nuclear energy for electrical generation in the
Dr. Sulfikar Amir, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Nanyang Technological University argued that Indonesias urgency to go nuclear is becoming stronger due the rapid depletion of the countrys oil and gas reserves. However, many citizens worry that the state has inadequate capacity to operate high-risk nuclear technologies. The discussion revolved mainly around the domestic political issues that have led to the nuclearization process and the role of scientific institutions in promoting nuclear power. The
presentation also covered the rise of organised resistance coordinated by civil society groups.
Black Swan and other Research Issues: Fuel Efficiency Fuel & CO2 as a Transport Problem, held 12th November
Dr. Lee Schipper, Senior Research Engineer with the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University conducted an in-house seminar at ESI to discuss energy efficiency policies, with particular focus on the transportation sector. He acknowledged the inherent challenges of studying this sector but argued that transport externalities are driving research into it. He contended that pricing ought to be lauded as the best strategy and policy to ensure efficiencies throughout the sector and pointed out that Singapore already allows the pricing mechanism to flourish.
Dr. John Nyboer, Director of MK Jaccard and Associates Inc. presented his experience in helping review, evaluate critique and develop indicators with the first Canadian Industrial Energy End-use Data and Analysis Center (CIEEDAC). Established to review industrial energy consumption data, this Centre has over the last 18 years worked to improve the energy data sets relating to manufacturing and energy supply. Data reliability, consistency, representativeness and usefulness have increased. The session addressed the issues faced, solutions found and problems that still exist in an effort to measure energy consumption and its implications for policy and progress in the Canadian system. The seminar participants were eager to see how this could be applicable in Singapores context.
Nuclear Power in Japan: a Gaijin Perspective, held 4th November

Professor Jor-Shan Choi, Project Professor for the Global Center-of-Excellence Program at the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Management, University of Tokyo noted that Japan has the third largest civilian nuclear power programme after the US and France. 54 power reactors are now in operation, providing 30% of the countrys electricity. Japan possesses a full nuclear fuel-cycle capability including enrichment, reprocessing and a soon-completed MOX fuel manufacturing plant. In addition, Japanese nuclear companies, such as Toshiba-Westinghouse, Hitachi-GE and Mitsubishi, own or join as leading partners in major global nuclear enterprises.
Measuring Energy Consumption in Canada Issues, Solutions and Policy Implications, held 12th November
Coal for Power Generation to 2050, held 4th November

Dr John Topper, Managing Director of the International Agencys Clean Coal Centre examined coal demand projections in the business as usual scenario and contrasted these with the IEAs 450ppm CO2 scenario, which includes the condition that there is a 50% chance of not exceeding a 2-degree centigrade rise in global temperatures by 2050. He also discussed the state of the art in coal-fired power generation, concentrating on the most efficient units with the lowest emissions and provided an update on where we are globally in developing carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Dr. John Nyboer
An Outlook on Gas Exports from the Middle East and Central Asia: How Much Gas will be Available for the Asia-Pacific Gas Market?, held 14th October
Mr. Siamak Adibi, Senior Consultant at FACTS Global Energy (FGE) highlighted recent changes in the Middle East gas market, in particular the rapidly increasing gap between supply and demand and dependence on natural gas. He questioned if the Middle East has become a tough environment for new gas exploration and development projects by international oil companies. He also assessed the gas export potential of Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Australia, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. When discussing LNG demand, he spoke at some length about Chinas growing appetite for the resource. Finally, Mr. Adibi outlined market implications for these changes in economic gaming.
Audience at Measuring Energy Consumption in Canada event
Roundtable: Novel Concepts in Biomass and Waste Stream Utilisation, held 11th October
Professor Johannes Schwank, the James and Judith Street Professor of Chemical Engineering from the University of Michigan, addressed issues on biomass waste and utilisation without gasification, skid mounted gasifiers and reformer units for distributed power generation. The focus of discussion was existing gasifier reformer technology to convert biomass-based feedstock into energy. However, Professor Schwank also highlighted the new, advanced Flexible Feedstock Reformer (FFR) currently being studied by the University of Michigan and NextEnergy. He described Singapore as the purveyor of this distributed power technology and hoped to engage Singapore in running an energy cottage industry and build capabilities in distributed power generation.
Bad Energy Policy: Learning from Our Mistakes, held 29th September
Audience at Bad Energy Policy: Learning from Our Mistakes event
ESI and Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Special Topics Seminar, held 7th October
The theme of this seminar was microgrids, distributed generation and energy poverty. Mr. David McLean from NextEnergy, Ms. Malavika Bambawale and Mr. Anthony DAgostino from LKYSPP spoke on the importance of rural and civilian applications of high-tech power solutions in poverty-stricken and rural areas of the world, in particular the Asia-Pacific. Electricity is a fundamental requirement for economic development. The speakers contended that renewable technologies like wind, solar and pico-hydro can help provide electricity to large numbers of people now struggling with no or little power. However, they noted that various socio-cultural problems can impede implementation.
Mr. Michael Lynch
Atoms for Sale: From Atoms for Peace (1953) to a Nuclear Renaissance (2010)? The South Korean Case for Nuclear Energy, 1955-2010, held 1st October
Mr. Michael Lynch, President and Director of Global Petroleum Services Strategic Energy and Economic Research Inc. spoke about policy-making being both art and science. Citing various global politicians and policies, Mr. Lynch studied the trends in bad energy policy-making, particularly in oil and gas, which have resulted in huge amounts of money being spent on inappropriate goals and technologies. By reviewing these mistakes, he hopes a better understanding of the appropriate targets and methods for energy policy-making can be formed.
Ambassadorial Series: Building Better Climate Change Policy and Stronger Carbon Markets: Lessons from the United Kingdom, held 17th September
In light of surfaced and growing uncertainties in the Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), this conference featured talks and panels by industry experts, government officials and academics on how the UK is acting to avert the challenges of climate change. Discussions addressed carbon reducing mechanisms that are used in Southeast Asia such as energy efficiency in the power industry and other businesses, developing carbon markets through renewable energy projects, carbon finance, building sustainable supply chains and corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspectives. Challenges such as carbon fraud were also explored. The event concluded with a short address on climate science and business by Lord Ronald Oxburgh of Liverpool who is Deputy Chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) and a member of House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Dr. John Di Moia
Dr John Di Moia, Assistant Professor in the Department of History at the National University of Singapore, discussed the roots and trajectory of the nuclear power industry in South Korea to the present. In the ensuing discussion with seminar participants, he outlined South Koreas current nuclear construction programme, manpower capabilities and future relations with North Korea. Dr Di Moia argued that the South Korean nuclear energy programme has always been intertwined with its ties and cooperation with other international actors, both in the spheres of diplomacy and technology exchange.
Staff Publications
Internationally Refereed Journals
Elspeth Thomson, The Role of Coal in the Development of the Baltic and South China Sea Regions (co-authored with Krish Booluck), Asia Europe Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, 2010
Other Publications
Hooman Peimani, In Search of Energy Security in the 21st Century: The Asia-Pacific Region Opts for Nuclear Energy, Northeast Asia Energy Focus, vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2010). Hooman Peimani, In Search of Energy Security: China Looks at All Directions, Northeast Asia Energy Focus, vol. 7, no. 3 (Fall 2010). Hooman Peimani, Europe/Mediterranean Projects, World Pipelines, vol. 11, no. 2, Feb. 2011. Hooman Peimani, Global Review, World Pipelines, vol. 10, no. 12, Dec. 2010. Hooman Peimani, Energy Security in Central Asia, Orient (Berlin), Oct. 2010.
Not Classified Journals

Hooman Peimani, China and Iran in a Multipolar World: Energy Security Cooperation, but Not Much More, East Asian Policy, Oct.-Dec. 2010.
Book Chapters
Geoffrey Kevin Pakiam, The Industrial Dimension of Energy Security, The Routledge Energy Security Handbook, edited by Benjamin K. Sovacool (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), pp. 250-74.
Staff Presentations and Moderating

21 February 2011, Michael Quah presented, Diversifying Sources for Power Generation in Singapore in a CarbonConstrained World at the Updates for Key and Emerging Markets, Coal Power Generation Conference, held in Singapore. 11 February 2011, Michael Quah presented, Sustainability: The Challenges of Energy Diversification for the Power Seraya Energy Symposium, held in Singapore. 26 January 2011, Hooman Peimani presented, Energy Security: Implications for East Asia and ASEAN at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. 20 January 2011, Melissa Low presented, A Singaporean Youth Perspective on Climate Change: Copenhagen, Cancun & Beyond, at the Geography Department of the National University of Singapore. 5 January 2011, Elspeth Thomson presented, The Energy/ Water Nexus, for the 4th International Perspective on Water Resources and the Environment Conference at the Faculty of Engineering, National University of Singapore. 14 December 2010, Neil Sebastian DSouza presented, Singapores Petrochemical Sector and National Energy Efficiency Strategy, at the 2nd Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia, Sub-Working Group (ERIA, SWG) meeting - Energy Efficiency Design, held in Jakarta. 9 December 2010, Michael Quah presented, Microgrids: for Urban and Rural Electrification?, for a Workshop on Alternative and Renewable Energy for Sustainability (WARES), held in Chiang Mai. 9 December 2010, Valerie Choy presented a poster, Feasibility Study of Micro-grids for Southeast Asia, for a Workshop on Alternative and Renewable Energy for Sustainability Exploring Technologies for Building a Green City, held in Chiang Mai. 3 December 2010, Michael Quah presented, Leveraging Microgrids Research for the Southeast Asian Region at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in Berkeley, California. 3 December 2010, Valerie Choy presented, Opportunities and Challenges for Micro-grids in Southeast Asia at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Berkeley, California. 1 December 2010, Nicholas Koh presented, Energy Policy Research at the Energy Studies Institute for the 2010 Japan Energy Study Workshop organised by the Singapore Environment Institute, Institute of Energy Economics Japan and the Energy Conservation Centre of Japan. 30 November 2010, Tilak K. Doshi presented, The Oil and Gas Industry Sector in Singapore, at the British High Commission in Singapore. 26 November 2010, Tilak K. Doshi presented, Graduation and Deepening in Asia in the Post-Kyoto World for a conference entitled, Post-Kyoto Climate Change Policies: Current Status and Perspective, held at the Institute of International Relations, Nihon University, Mishima. 19 November 2010, Michael Quah presented, Sustainability R&D in Singapore and ASEAN at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 8-10 November 2010, Tilak K. Doshi presented, Climate Change: Consequences for Oil Policies at the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research (ECSSR) 16th Annual Energy Conference, held in Abu Dhabi. 5 November 2010, Michael Quah presented, Examining Microgrids and the Integration of Distributed Energy
Resources, for the Smart Grids Asia 2010 Conference, held in Singapore. 4 November 2010, Michael Quah moderated the ESI-ISEAS (Institute of Southeast Asian Studies) US Ambassador Series Conference on Transitions towards Greater Energy Security and Environmental Sustainability: The US Experience and ASEAN Perspectives, held at the National University of Singapore. 4 November 2010, Elspeth Thomson moderated a joint ESI/ ISEAS Seminar, Coal for Power Generation to 2050 presented by John Topper, Managing Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Clean Coal Centre. 3 November 2010, Hooman Peimani moderated the Energy Security and Clean Energy Policies panel of the Clean Energy Expo for the Singapore International Energy Week (SIEW). 3 November 2010, Michael Quah moderated the Grid Integration panel of the CleanTech Expo for the SIEW. 2 November 2010, Michael Quah moderated the ESI-Shell Roundtable on Energy Industries in a Carbon-Constrained Future, for the SIEW. 2 November 2010, Elspeth Thomson moderated the Sustainable Biofuels panel of the Clean Energy Expo for the SIEW. 2 November 2010, Michael Quah moderated the China/India/ USA Roundtable on Climate Change and Preparations for Mexico for the SIEW. 29 October 2010, Hooman Peimani presented, Russia and Energy Exports of Land-Locked Central Asia: The Challenge of Maintaining Influence in a Multipolar World, for the 10th Annual Aleksanteri Conference on Fuelling the Future: Assessing Russias Role in Eurasias Energy Complex organised by the Aleksanteri Institute, Finnish Centre for Russian and Eastern European Studies affiliated with the University of Helsinki. 26 and 12 October 2010, Michael Quah, together with Dickson Yeo, Valerie Choy and Catrina Yeo, gave a series of lectures for the MFA/KOICA (Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Korea International Cooperation Agency) Training Programme held in Singapore. 25 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, Distributed Generation: Its Role in ASEAN for the Power Grid and Market Issues in Singapore and the Region, Power & Energy Interest Group of the Institute of Engineers, held in Singapore. 21 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, Microgrids and DC Networks: A Role in Data-Centers? for the Datacenter Dynamics Singapore 2010 Conference, held in Singapore. 19 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, Why Microgrids and DC Networks?, at a IEEE-PES (Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers and Power and Energy Society) Graduate Student Workshop, held at the National University of Singapore. 16 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, A Business Case for Distributed Generation for The Start-up @ Singapore 24-hr Challenge, held at the National University of Singapore Business School. 15 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, Climate Change and Business Opportunities for the INSPIRE Panel, The CleanTech Opportunity of the Asian Youth Energy Summit 2010, held at the National University of Singapore. 11-13 October 2010, Tilak K. Doshi presented, Examining Regional Market Outlooks and Developments, at the 2nd Annual Meeting of Gas Asia 2010, held in Kuala Lumpur. 8 October 2010, Tilak K. Doshi presented, Green Finance for Green Growth, for the APEC Experts Panel on Green Finance for Green Growth at the APEC Finance Ministers Summit held in Kyoto. 6 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, Climate Change: Mitigation, Adaptation, and Some Business Opportunities for the International Singapore COMPACT CSR Summit on Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, held in Singapore. 5 October 2010, Elspeth Thomson presented, The Energy/ Water Nexus for an ESI MINDEF Workshop on Energy Security: Options, Implications and Outlook, held in Singapore. 4 October 2010, Michael Quah presented, International Security Challenges (and New Business Opportunities) Brought About by Climate Change, for an ESI MINDEF Workshop on Energy Security: Options, Implications and Outlook, held in Singapore. 4 October 2010, Hooman Peimani presented, Energy Supply Security, for an ESI MINDEF Workshop on Energy Security: Options, Implications and Outlook, held in Singapore. 27-29 September 2010, Catrina Yeo visited the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) and Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO). 28 September 2010, Tilak K. Doshi presented, The Economics of Renewable Energy for Underwriters Laboratories (UL) South East Asia Forum 2010: Emerging Technologies and their Impact on Safety and Sustainability, held in Singapore. 17 September 2010, Michael Quah chaired the conference, Building Better Climate Change Policy and Stronger Carbon Markets: Lessons Learned from the UK, jointly organised by ESI, ISEAS and the British High Commission, held at the National University of Singapore.
Media Contributions
Nur Azha Putra, The Role of Non-State Agencies in Securing Singapores Energy Security, Berita Harian Singapura, 11 Mar. 2011. Nur Azha Putra, Singapores Energy Security: Geopolitical Issues and Challenges., Berita Harian Singapura, 28 Jan. 2011. Nur Azha Putra, Singapores Energy Security: Where is it Heading?, Berita Harian Singapura, 21 Jan. 2011. Tilak K. Doshi, Energy Security has Produced Much Bad Policy, Straits Times, 4 Jan. 2010. Tilak K. Doshi interviewed by Channel News Asia about insights on the UN climate change summit in Cancun, 30 Nov. 2010. Elspeth Thomson quoted in Unravelling the Myth of Sustainable Biofuels by Miak Aw Hui Min in EcoBusiness.Com, 2 Nov. 2010.
New Staff
Melissa Low has a B. Soc. Science in Geography and minor in Urban Studies from the National University of Singapore. She joined ESI as an Energy Analyst in September 2010. Before this, Melissa was part of a 12-member youth delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) 15 talks in Copenhagen in December of 2009. There, she gained invaluable insight into the workings and negotiating processes towards a fair, ambitious and legally-binding climate deal. Melissa also worked for the local non-profit organization, ECO Singapore, to raise awareness about climate change and environmental stewardship in Singapore.
Contact
Collaboration as a Partner of ESI (research, events, etc) Media Enquiries ESI Upcoming Events Ms Jan Lui esilyyj@nus.edu.sg
The Energy Vibes blog, launched in July last year, is continually receiving positive feedback on its wide-ranging posts on energy/environment/sustainability issues. Visit us today at www.energy-vibes.com! Sign up for email updates and join us on Facebook (Energy Vibes) to receive notifications on new posts and ESIs latest events and bulletins!
The ESI Bulletin on Energy Trends and Development seeks to inform its readers about energy-related issues through articles on current developments. Our contributors come from ESIs pool of researchers, local and overseas research institutes, local government agencies and companies in the private sector. You may download past issues from http://www.esi.nus.edu.sg/portal/. We welcome your feedback, comments and suggestions. The views expressed in each issue are solely those of the individual contributors.
The Singapore International Energy Week (SIEW) will take place 31 October to 4 November 2011. Now in its fourth year, SIEW is an annual week-long platform for top energy leaders, policymakers and commentators to discuss and share best practices and solutions within the global energy space. This years theme is Securing Our Energy Future. More details in our next issue. In the meantime, visit www.siew.sg!
Energy Studies Institute National University of Singapore

29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Block A, #10-01 Singapore 119620 Tel: (65) 6516 2000 Fax: (65) 6775 1831 Email: esilyyj@nus.edu.sg http://www.esi.nus.edu.sg
If you would like to be put on our mailing list or know someone who should be on it, please write to Ms Jan Lui at esilyyj@nus.edu.sg.
Published by The National University of Singapore

Elec 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Elec 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ESI

In this issue ...

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor Crisis: What Happened

The Problematic State of Japans Electricity System

Utilities directly affected by the 11 March 2011 earthquake.

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 3

The 2007 and 2011 Earthquakes Compared

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 4

LNG to Fill the Gap

Fukushimas Shadow on Nuclear Ambitions

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 6

Post-11 March ASEAN Responses and Rationale

Pre-11 March Plans for Nuclear Power in ASEAN

Date of Response No response No response

Lao PDR Malaysia

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 9

Carbon Reduction Targets Not available

Date of Response 16/3/2011

16% below BAU by 2030

5 nuclear power plants with combined generating capacity of 5,000MW by 20259

5% of the nations electricity to come from alternative energy sources by 2020 10

First operational 4,000MW plant by 2020, 14 nuclear reactors by 203011

Japans Nuclear Meltdown 2011: Lessons Learned

Aging of the Plants

Historical Impact of Earthquakes on Japanese Nuclear Plants

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 14

Mr. Giovanni Drago

Why Indonesia Wants to Go Nuclear, held 13th December

Dr. Sulfikar Amir

Nuclear Energy: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom, held 18th January

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 15

Nuclear Power in Japan: a Gaijin Perspective, held 4th November

Coal for Power Generation to 2050, held 4th November

Dr. John Nyboer

Audience at Measuring Energy Consumption in Canada event

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 16

Audience at Bad Energy Policy: Learning from Our Mistakes event

Mr. Michael Lynch

Dr. John Di Moia

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 17

Not Classified Journals

Staff Presentations and Moderating

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 18

ESI Bulletin April 2011 Page 19

Energy Studies Institute National University of Singapore

Published by The National University of Singapore

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen