Senin, 29 April 2013

Is Chernobyl or Fukushima relevant to RI?


Is Chernobyl or Fukushima relevant to RI?
Chandrasekhar Moghe ; Working for about 40 years in Banking,
Project Finance and Financial Services
JAKARTA POST, 26 April 2013


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