|
After 27 years, when the
meltdown of the atomic reactor at Chernobyl on April 26, 1986, led to
hundreds of thousands of casualties and evacuees, many countries appear
confused about developing atomic power. Although factors such as
increasing electricity demand, energy security and the need to limit
carbon emissions should have spurred development of nuclear power,
Indonesia continues to sit on the fence.
In 2007, the Indonesia National Long-term Development Plan (RPJPN)
suggested that the first nuclear power plant in Indonesia (other than the
three existing ones, used mainly for research purposes, the last one
commissioned in 1987) would start between 2015 and 2019 — an unlikely
target. The location changed from Muria peninsula in Central Java
(identified in 1989 for 600 megawatts (MW)-900 MW plant but shelved in
1998 because of the Asian financial crisis) to Bangka-Belitung (10,000-MW
reactor in West Bangka and 8,000-MW reactor in South Bangka to start in
2021, now shelved as a result of local resistance) to West Kalimantan,
the location being considered at present.
There is no doubt that Indonesia needs additional power and West
Kalimantan has uranium reserves. Atomic power produces less global
warming compared to coal — provided the radioactive materials are handled
properly. However, the country is indecisive about atomic power and is
yet to seriously examine the relevance of Chernobyl or Fukushima for that
purpose.
Runaway increases in the price of crude oil in the 1970s resulting from
Middle Eastern countries using crude oil as a strategic weapon and the
change of regime in Iran, followed by the Iran-Iraq War, encouraged the
increased use of atomic energy for power generation. By March 1979, about
16 percent of the world’s power generation capacity was generated from
atomic energy.
The Three Mile Island incident on March 28, 1979, was the first
incident that raised doubts about the ability to safely harness the atom.
Accidental cut off of coolant water supply to the atomic core of Unit 2,
only for about two-and-a-half hours, released radio-active steam in to
the atmosphere and the atomic core was partially exposed.
Since there was no loss of human life and the reactor vessel remained
intact, the gravity of the disaster was only realized after post-disaster
analysis. On realizing the extent of the damage, Unit 2 was shut down but
the other unaffected units continued.
The clean-up cost about US$1 billion and continued for about 15 years.
This incident, rated 5 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, is now
only as a blip on the history of atomic reactor safety in the light of
more severe incidents, such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima on March
11, 2011, which were both rated 7 on the same scale.
The Chernobyl disaster was the result of a mismanaged test for reactor
control during shut down, when a series of blunders resulted in the
reactor output dwindling to 30 MW — or near shut down level — grossly
inadequate to carry on cooling the reactor.
This was followed by power surges that produced so much uncontrollable
heat that the reactor vessel ruptured; a series of explosions and fires
ensued and a highly radioactive plume escaped into the atmosphere,
contaminating land and air in extensive geographical areas of the western
Soviet Union (mainly Belarus and Ukraine) and Europe, which required the
evacuation of about half a million people over 15 years. The typical
secrecy in — the then —Iron Curtain Countries meant that the exact extent
of the damage in terms of deaths (as well as deformities for the
unborn/new born babies) and the clean up cost are not yet precisely
known.
Despite serious doubts raised by this incident about the available
nuclear reactor controls, the overall balance of atomic energy as a
source for power generation did not change, since the number of atomic
reactors, already ordered and coming on line from mid-1980s more than
matched those shut down after safety reviews.
Even though many reactor orders were canceled, several factors including
further safety features meant many “third-generation reactors” were
commissioned such as the a 1350 MWe Advanced BWR reactor in
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (unit 6), Japan, a 1600 MWe European PWR in Finland
and other similar units in France as well as in China, India, Japan and
South Korea.
Then there was Fukushima, which in reality a chain of adverse
developments that began with a severe earthquake that knocked out the
power supply, followed by a tsunami generating waves of up to 15 meters
in height, causing flooding in several critical areas including the
back-up diesel generators and the electrical network.
This resulted in the failure of pumps to supply water for cooling the
reactors and the inability to connect portable generators in to the
electrical network. In short, too many went wrong at the same time, which
can hardly be expected and planned for.
Indonesia’s response to its growing power deficit seems to be based
mostly on coal based power plants. Atomic power as an alternative seems
to have been left on the back burner, although fail-safe methods
developed to control atomic reactors, such as Passive nuclear safety
(adopted by India for its Kudankulam Atomic Reactor) do not require
operator actions or electronic feedback in order to safely shut down
atomic reactors. China still plans a six-fold increase in nuclear power
capacity by 2020.
Indonesia, despite being located on the “ring of fire”, has inadequately
developed geothermal energy. Opponents of atomic power development in
Indonesia support their views with factors such as volcanoes, which may
cause massive earthquakes, and a lack of trained people to ensure safe
operation. Many industrial plants in the hands of inadequately
trained/inattentive personnel can be killing machines as was seen in the
case of the Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal, India.
I have examined several power plant projects from multiple view points,
such as investment costs, operating costs and safety. While these
projects have been mostly based on coal, atomic energy as an alternative
source is also considered. For large power projects (say more than 2500
MW), atomic energy would be a viable alternative, subject, of course, to
detailed viability studies.
Several Indian power projects, conceived when coal prices were less than
US$50/ton, are being re-examined since the continued availability of coal
at such prices appears doubtful. Prices of atomic fuel are generally much
more stable compared to coal and are usually based on political
considerations.
Instead of being merely scared by accidents, the extensive adoption of
good operating practices of other atomic power plant operators can make
Chernobyl or Fukushima irrelevant for Indonesia. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar