Nuclear Power Trend in Southeast Asia and Its Contested Discourses on Climate Change

Besides the energy production, used nuclear fuel entails radioactivity that its waste still has management limitation to ensure long-term safety for the environment, human health and all living things. Despite the fact that renewable energy such as solar and wind has become increasingly competitive and sustainable considering its lower cost and better efficiency to supply the need of power demand compare to fossil fuel energy sources including recent nuclear technology that still depends on uranium ore from extractive mining industry. Nuclear power continues to renew its image as “improved” and “mature” technology though there are debates whether it is a safe energy source for mitigating global climate change or posing higher risks as already known from the past disasters in the era of climate crisis.

In Southeast Asia, civilian nuclear or using nuclear technology for peaceful purpose initially began in the Cold War period (1950s) through the campaign of “Atom for Peace” by the U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration (1953-1961). Following the peaceful use of nuclear technology, the U.S. assisted Southeast Asia countries in constructing TRIGA-class nuclear research reactors focusing on medical and research purposes in Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand.[1] Along with nuclear reactors constructed with the U.S. assistance, institutions and regulation on nuclear had been developed to operate the reactors. For example, Thailand first established national nuclear agency in late 1950s and passed the Atomic Energy for Peace Act in 1961.[2]

Currently, there is no nuclear power station that operating commercial electricity in Southeast Asian countries. However, pro-nuclear comes up with many reasons aiming to materialize the nuclear power which ranging from growing of domestic power demand to boost economic activities, reducing the electricity cost – in the case of the Philippines[3], to producing no Green House Gases emission, in particularly CO₂.     

Emerging new nuclear countries in Southeast Asia

In April 2018, the ASEAN Center for Energy (ACE) published a “Pre-Feasibility Study on the Establishment of Nuclear Power Plant in ASEAN” supported by the government of Canada under the Nuclear and Radiological Program Administrative Support (NPRAS) program to provide the status of civilian nuclear power development in the region.[4]

The report says that ASEAN’s prospect about the first nuclear power plant operation could take place by 2030 and possibly two more by 2035 of which the first half out of 10 Southeast Asian nations including Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines are identified as frontrunners given their developed legal and regulatory frameworks, nuclear energy infrastructures and the required human resources.[5]

According to World Nuclear Energy, emerging nuclear energy countries in Southeast Asia includes: Myanmar, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore.[6] These countries have shown interest in nuclear power as reliable energy source regardless it is expensive to construct and likely to face cost overrun and delay as to ensure and required higher safety.

The status of nuclear power development in Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos has not yet specified in their power master plans. However, all of these three countries have signed bilateral agreements with Russia on nuclear power cooperation.[7] 

For Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Sen talked to a representative of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2014 that there would be no nuclear power development in the country. however, he wanted IAEA to support all relevant guidelines in this field. Following in 2016, the Kingdom signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Russian’s Rosatom which paved the way for the two countries to develop human resource in nuclear technology.[8]    

The land-lock country Laos is ambitious to be the “Battery of Southeast Asia” with many hydropower dams on rivers inside its own territory and shared international Mekong River. Though agreements were signed between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and Rosatom of which the first agreement was signed in 2015 planning to build two 1000 MWe nuclear power reactors[9] and the second agreement was signed in 2017 which is a roadmap for Russian-Lao cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy[10], it is unlikely that nuclear power plant will take place in the next few decades as the country must first have regulations and trained human resource in this field following the international guidelines and standard of IAEA.     

Myanmar took the first step that shown its interest in nuclear technology development through signing a memorandum of understanding for peaceful use purpose with Rosatom in June 2015 of which similar to Cambodia and Laos that this agreement has tied the two countries to cooperate in nuclear including training and education to develop human resource in this field.[11] Prior to that, Myanmar and Russia signed the first inter-government agreement to cooperate in nuclear technology and build a nuclear research center in 2007.[12] Prospect of nuclear power development in Myanmar has a long way to go as the country is required nuclear law and regulation, infrastructure, joining and meeting guidelines of IAEA.    

Indonesia is the largest energy user in Southeast Asia and the world’s largest coal exporter as well as using domestic coal to reduce dependency on imported fuel.[13] The country adopted Nuclear Energy Law in 1997 that gave guidance on construction, operation, and decommissioning.[14] In Indonesia’s 2015 White Paper on national energy development policy to 2050 saw nuclear providing 5GW by 2025 with other new and renewable sources providing 12GW.[15] The feasibility studies and infrastructure reviews for a potential nuclear power program[16], but the nuclear plan was scrapped in 2017 National Energy General Plan to 2050.[17] Despite, the exclusion of nuclear plan, nuclear supporter is optimistic toward the first nuclear power plant in the country that is back by improved regulatory framework following IAEA’s safety standards, as quoted below.[18]

“Indonesia strives to continuously upgrade the regulatory framework to address future challenges in relation to upcoming plans, such as construction and operation of the first nuclear power plant….” - Jazi Eko Istiyanto, BAPETEN Chairman

Indonesia as the biggest archipelago nation in Southeast Asia located in the Pacific Ring of Fire where volcanic eruption and earthquake often happen must take a serious precaution regarding its wishful to build nuclear power plant.

For Malaysia, the Malaysian Nuclear Agency (MNA) was established in 1972 and has operated the Puspati Triga research reactor since 1982 which later set up the Atomic Energy Licensing Board in 1985 under the supervision of the Ministry of Science.[19] Prior to 2012, the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) was established and nuclear power plan was introduced.[20] The country initially planned to implement commercial nuclear power by early 2020s, but the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 caused the plan to defer its deadline to 2030s.[21] In 2018, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said that the risks involved, lack of knowledge in this technology and concerns on nuclear waste disposal, Malaysia no longer planned to develop a nuclear power programme.[22]

“If you have a nuclear power plant, you will accumulate nuclear waste which is radioactive and until now they do not know how to reverse the process… We don’t want this country to be full of such waste thrown all over the place and affecting people,” – Tun Dr Mahathir, as reported by The Edge Markets.[23]

In the Philippines, the first nuclear power plant Bataan was built in 1984 but have never been operated and then shut down in 1986 regarding safety concerns after Chernobyl nuclear disaster happened in the same year.[24] However, nuclear power has resurfaced given the reasons that it is needed for energy mix. In addition, nuclear power would bring the electricity cost down.[25] The country is looking on small modular nuclear reactor from Russian developers.[26] To move forward with nuclear power programme, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Executive Order 116 and signed on July 24, 2020 which “ordered the Department of Energy and other government agencies to suggest “necessary steps” on the possible use of the country's first and only nuclear power facility.”[27] The country of a thousand islands is prone to natural disasters from heavy storms, volcanic eruptions to earthquake as located on the Pacific Ring of Fire same as in Indonesia must take this issue into account when talking about nuclear power plant and safety.

Singapore, a small island country with advanced economic development and technology in Southeast Asia, is also exploring possibility to include nuclear as its alternative energy option. Despite critic says that the nation can “produce much more electricity that it is currently using”.[28] Considering the land mass of the country, building nuclear power plant is not suitable as it is to have necessary 30km safety radius.[29] However, the country’s effort to include nuclear in its national energy mix, considers small modular which claimed that “…promise to be safer and easier to manage as they produce less heat.”[30] It should be noted that, although Singapore needs to reduce dependency from imported natural gas from Malaysia and Indonesia[31], pursuing nuclear power will come at a massive cost in terms of safety and environmental implications.  

Initially, Thailand adopted the idea to develop nuclear power programme through the “Atom for Peace” campaign. As a consequence, national nuclear agency was set up in late 1950s, following by passing the Atomic Energy for Peace Act in 1961. Thailand took several attempts to build nuclear power plant. The first nuclear power plant project was explored since 1966. The nuclear power plant site at Aow Pai in Chonburi province was almost construct in early 1976, but was scrapped indefinitely in 1978, principally due investment cost concerns.[32] In the present, Office of Atoms for Peace (OAP) under the supervision of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) is the government agency that is in charge of responsibility to regulate on nuclear safety issue. The plan to materialize nuclear power plant for electricity generation was for the first time included in Thailand’s National Power Development Plan (PDP) in 2007. Since then, the PDP has been revised many times and all of them and the latest one PDP 2018 maintains nuclear energy which scheduled the first nuclear power plant of 1,000 MG in 2035 and the second nuclear power plant of 1,000 MG in 2036. Thailand takes further step that implies preparing for future nuclear power projects by involving in “a joint venture known as Guangxi Fangchenggang Nuclear Power (II) Co Ltd to develop, construct and operate units five and six at China’s Fangchenggang facility.”[33]    

Vietnam have seen the most progressive in terms of materializing nuclear power plant among its neighbors in Southeast Asia. The country signed an agreement with Russian’s Rosatom company to build nuclear reactor and also signed an agreement with Japanese companies to develop additional plants.[34]  But the construction of nuclear power plant in Ninh Tuan province has been halted in November 2016 as the National Assembly decided to suspend all nuclear development until 2030[35], specifically due to safety and financial of construction concerns. The decision to stop Ninh Thuan nuclear power project was informed with official letter to Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) on 30th March 2017.[36] Vietnam’s attempt to build nuclear power project has revived in September 2020, as the news report says that Vietnam will restart its plan for nuclear:

“Nuclear energy is mentioned in the draft master plan released for receiving feedback, but it envisages development of this energy to begin after 2035. The draft envisages national nuclear power capacity reaching 1,000 MW by 2040 and 5,000 MW by 2045.”[37]

The key reason for pro-nuclear in Vietnam to reconsider nuclear power project is given that the technology is “still relatively safer and low-priced”[38], while the country is facing energy deficiency to meet its domestic electricity demand.[39]^{, [40]}

Nuclear energy is still mentioned in the national draft master plan, but the development of nuclear power is envisaged after 2035.[41]

Nuclear power and contested climate change discourse

Global climate change is threatening human beings and all living things that are co-dependent and interconnected on this planet earth. It is a cross-cutting issue related to the energy sector and economic activities. The Paris Agreement (COP 21) on 12 December 2015 called all nations to take serious effort in keeping the world temperature below two degrees Celsius (2°C) in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The fact that energy production sector is the biggest contributor of GHGs especially CO₂ from fossil fuels. Thus, nations are seeking ways to reduce GHGs emission from the energy sector of which nuclear energy finds its ways to reintroduce itself with discourses as “low carbon” or even “zero carbon” emission. But these discourses are contested.

In Southeast Asian countries, nuclear power projects have been introduced or planned in national energy mix such as in the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. The Philippines claims that nuclear power in the energy mix will reduce electricity cost. Similarly, Indonesia saw nuclear power along with renewable energy in the national power mix. For Vietnam, nuclear power plant project has been suspended, but the country sees it as capable energy source to meet rising domestic demand of electricity. In the case of Thailand, nuclear power is incorporated in its latest Power Development Plan (PDP 2018), implying the country’s interest to materialise two nuclear power plants.

In Indonesia and the Philippines, discourses have been used to support revival of nuclear power projects says:

“Nuclear, together with large-scale hydroelectric power generated by water, is the only technology which can supply a vast amount of stable and carbon dioxide-free power.”[42]

Pro-nuclear go further to highlight nuclear power as “reliable” and “predictable” energy source for meeting growing energy demand from urbanization and economic activity[43] and “…makes economic sense if the alternative fuel options are too costly or unreliable to provide baseload electricity demands during peak periods.”[44] They claim that nuclear is “mature” and “advanced” technology such as small modular reactors (SMRs) is easier to operate.  

On the other hand, critics say nuclear power plant takes a long time to complete. According to Mycle Schneider et al., 2017, the average reactor construction time is 10.1 years, for the latest 51 units in ten countries since 2007 and with a large range from 4 to over 43 years.[45] With the lengthy time and increase safety required in building nuclear power plant, it is likely to face cost overrun – thus nuclear is expensive and does not make sense in terms of the need to urgency response to mitigate climate change crisis. Anti-nuclear also argues against nuclear power that expansion of renewable energy is faster than building nuclear power plant. In addition, renewable energy has become more efficient with decreasing installation cost. Furthermore, downside of nuclear power is hazardous radioactive waste and the method to deal with it to ensure public health safety and security. In handling with the nuclear waste, deep geology disposal is the most common method that optimistically could take 50-100 years.[46]

Debates on whether nuclear power is a solution or problematic due to more frequency of extreme climate events is summarised as in the table below.

Source: Knowledge Politics in National Nuclear Energy Planning in Thailand (2007-2017) with a Case Study of Ubon Ratchathani Province.[59]

Both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear have one shared concern regarding nuclear power which is “safety”. However, they view safety from different lens. For example, pro-nuclear believe that safety is a technical issue which can be prevented by having stringent regulations and trained staffs. On the other side, anti-nuclear sees safety as inevitable event that “Nobody dared to say that accidents would never happen, however.”[60]

As we are in the era of climate crisis, it is important to truly understand the fuel cycle of nuclear power with which entails environmental impacts from rare earth element like uranium mining, transportation, construction, operation, hazardous waste treatment. Then we may be more optimistic about energy choices such as solar and wind to slow down climate change than choosing nuclear power plant that once it is built, the risks is unimaginable and inevitable that will also pass on to the future generations.

In addition, nuclear has become an obsolete source of power considering all financial and environment concerns involved, while renewable energy is taking the trend toward better environmental-friendly and with cost-effective issues. The 2020 International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook claims that “Solar becomes the new king of electricity”, as quoted below:

“With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gasfired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen. In the STEPS, renewables meet 80% of the growth in global electricity demand to 2030.”[61]

Relatedly, Fatih Birol, the executive director of the IEA also emphasised that:

“I see solar becoming the new king of the world’s electricity markets,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, says in a statement with the report on Tuesday.[62]

To stress that nuclear is expensive and not climate-friendly kind of energy source, the report on Nuclear Energy — The High Cost Of A Dying Industry[63] compared the costs of solar, onshore wind, and nuclear. The report looked at analyses for the US conducted by Lazard at the end of 2019, which advises on financial matters while managing investment portfolios.

The report shows important figures and facts that:

§  Solar PV (crystalline, utility-scale) averaged $40/MWh, compared to $65/MWh in 2015.

§  Onshore wind was $41/MWh, compared to $55/MWh in 2015.

§  Nuclear is $155/MWh, compared to $117/MWh in 2015.

 “…over the past 5 years, the annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for nuclear has risen by over 50%. In stark contrast, renewables have become the most inexpensive of any type of power generation. “What is remarkable about these trends is that the costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements, while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continue to see costs rising. Nuclear power is now the most expensive form of generation, except for gas peaking plants.”[64]    

In conclusion, nuclear energy is proved to be outdated and expensive to invest in time of climate emergency. Thus, the energy source that we – as people who have the right to participate in decision making, need to realize that it is time to choose the kind of energy that will save the earth from disaster so that we can survive in the healthy environment.

REFERENCES