Advancements in nuclear energy have made it safer but public fear remains stumbling block

As demand for energy grows, so too is interest in civilian nuclear energy, including among Southeast Asian countries. The second of this three-part Big Read series across three Saturdays in October takes a look at safety and technological advancements. Read the first instalment on the state of play in the region, and look out for next week’s exploration of alternative sources of clean energy.
Thanks to pop culture depictions of war and news headlines of disasters, any mention of nuclear technology is likely to conjure up images of an atomic bomb explosion or a nuclear reactor meltdown.
But in reality, nuclear energy has been harnessed for peaceful purposes to produce electricity since the 1950s.
Today, more than 400 reactors are operating in some 30 countries, generating almost 10 per cent of the world’s electricity.
Despite this record, accidents — no matter how rare they may be — still cast a long shadow on the public’s confidence in the technology.
The March 2011 Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown in Japan, despite causing no human deaths, spooked the world so badly that it shook up the plans for countries with both existing and aspiring civilian nuclear programmes.
In Europe, Italy shelved its plans to build new plants and Germany initiated a moratorium on nuclear energy just three days after the accident, paving the way for a phase-out of nuclear energy.
Thailand indefinitely postponed plans to build its first nuclear energy reactors, despite having Parliament approval a few years before 2011.
Indeed, after 13 years, Japanese authorities are still dealing with the aftermath of the disaster, in which a tsunami caused by an earthquake crippled the plant.
Extraction of radioactive fuel debris began only last month, while China still bans the import of seafood from Japan after the latter released treated water from Fukushima into the ocean.
Aside from the terrifying spectre of a mishap, people also worry about whether nuclear reactors could be misused to build weapons, whether such energy plants pose a health hazard to nearby residents and to what extent nuclear waste is harmful.
But what the public may not know is that the advancement of technology has made nuclear energy safer.
One notable example is the advent of small and micro modular reactors — some designs are purportedly even small enough to transport on a truck. 
In the simplest terms, the smaller size means proportionally less heat emitted, making passive safety systems more effective. And if things go south, a reduced level of fuel in a smaller scale reactor also means a smaller fall-out area.
Still, with some designs decades away from operation, experts told CNA TODAY advancements need to go hand in hand with public education and incentives to help the public overcome their reluctance towards the technology.
“Improving public understanding through education about the technology safety advancements, including waste management and radiation safety, is crucial to changing the narrative and overcoming barriers,” said Dr Zulfikar Yurnaidi, the head of energy modelling and policy planning at the ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE), noting that many countries in the region have been considering nuclear as a clean energy source to power their developing economies while battling climate change.
Here is a look at some of the common worries people have about nuclear power, and what experts say about each:
CAN NUCLEAR WASTE BE SAFELY MANAGED?
In a seven-year public opinion survey of nuclear energy in Indonesia conducted from 2010 to 2016, respondents who opposed the building of a nuclear power plant cited as a key reason the belief that no safe method has been found to store radioactive waste.
But Dr Guet noted that as the energy density of nuclear energy is high, the quantity of waste is small to begin with.
Furthermore, spent fuel, which has the highest level of radioactivity generated from past reactors, has been “properly stored” without any major incidents since the start of a civilian nuclear programme 50 years ago, said the director of the Singapore Nuclear Research and Safety Initiative (SNRSI) Chung Keng Yeow.
“In short, there are solutions, more than one, in dealing with all levels of wastes and these have been very successfully implemented in the past and the water-cooled small modular reactors are in similar situations,” said Dr Chung. 
CAN A NUCLEAR REACTOR PRODUCE NUCLEAR BOMBS?
Professor Shirley Ho from NTU, who has conducted multiple nationally representative surveys in Singapore and Southeast Asia about public perceptions of nuclear energy, said one common misconception is that “nuclear energy equals atomic bombs”.
That is probably unsurprising given that the technology to split the atom was developed during World War II by the Americans, who used nuclear fission in the form of atomic bombs, to horrifying effect in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
“Many people think that if the plant is there, it’s very easy for nuclear energy to be weaponised,” said Dr Ho, the Associate Vice President of Humanities, Social Sciences and Research Communication in NTU.
In reality, a nuclear reactor and nuclear bomb work on different and opposite principles, though both build upon the same fundamental of nuclear fission: The splitting of atoms to release energy.
Commercial nuclear power plants control nuclear fission in a stable, slow manner to produce electricity over long periods, through control rods and cooling systems.
Typically, the heat released from fission boils water, forming pressurised steam. The steam spins turbines that drive generators to produce electricity.
Reactors and bombs also use different fuel. Commercial nuclear plants use roughly 3 to 5 per cent of enriched uranium to sustain a nuclear chain reactor. 
Nuclear weapons need to use over 90 per cent of enriched uranium or plutonium in a concentrated form to achieve an explosion. 
International safeguards encourage transparency in nuclear power plant projects worldwide, with bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) empowered to verify that nuclear material has not been diverted to weapons.
Still, tensions persist over the possible use of ostensibly peaceful nuclear facilities to produce weapons grade fuel. For example, some Western nations have accused Iran of trying to develop an atomic bomb.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT?
A 2021 study which polled respondents in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand found that the majority of respondents in every country were unsupportive of nuclear energy development in their own country, which Dr Ho, who helmed the study, said could be attributed to the lingering effect of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear reactor accident.
But proponents of nuclear energy note that the existing design features of reactors ensure that the risks associated with daily operation and emergencies are low.
In high doses, ionising radiation can damage human cells or even cause death. However, nuclear facilities discharge low level radioactive gases and liquids during operation, according to the IAEA.
Though accidents, such as a meltdown of the core of a reactor, could pose serious health and environmental risks, proponents note they are rare, with only three major accidents in the roughly half-century history of civilian nuclear power generation.
Those accidents were: Fukushima, Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in the US in 1979.
Mishaps related to nuclear energy may attract more attention than environmental hazards and waste production linked to conventional energy sources such as oil spills, focus group discussions noted in one of Dr Ho’s studies.
There would be 24.6 deaths per 1 terawatt-hour of electricity generated by coal, compared to 0.03 deaths for the same amount of electricity generated by nuclear energy, it stated.
One terawatt-hour of electricity production is equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 people in the European Union. One terrawatt is one trillion watts.
High-profile accidents have made criteria in plant design and safety culture in operations stricter, experts noted. 
For example, Dr Chung said the frequency of core-melt in Generation II reactors was estimated to be about 1 in 10,000 reactor-years — or roughly 1 in 25 years, given there are about 400 reactors in operation.
Generation III and SMR reactors “have this frequency down by at least 100 times”.
This means if all reactors are replaced with Generation III types, “one would expect a core-melt accident to happen about once in 2,500 years”, he added. 
Singapore on multiple occasions has reiterated that no decision has been made with regard to tapping nuclear energy in the future and that the possibility of it is being studied alongside that of other energy options.
A pre-feasibility study here in 2012 found that large conventional nuclear reactor technology was not suited to the small, densely populated city.
However, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) has kept tabs on advanced nuclear technologies which could potentially offer “significant improvements” in safety and costs, said the authority together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) in a joint response to CNA TODAY.
Some small modular reactors (SMRs) with their “smaller designs” would enable the incorporation of enhanced safety features such as natural circulation, which enables passive cooling, said the authorities.
These small but advanced nuclear reactors have a power capacity of roughly one-third that of traditional nuclear power reactors, offering potentially lower initial capital investment, shorter construction time and more flexibility in where they can be built, given their compact design. 
“However, many of these new nuclear energy technologies are still undergoing development, with some SMR facilities expected to come onstream nearer the end of the decade,” the authorities added.
To better understand the safety, security and environmental implications of evolving nuclear technology, Singapore has been making investments in recent years to build up its own pool of talents in this field.
Indeed, the design of nuclear reactors has changed over the span of about 60 years to address various key concerns such as safety and costs:
Generation I reactors have been retired, and most operational reactors today are Generation II ones. There are also some Generation III reactors already in operation or near commercialisation. 
On the horizon are the fourth generation of reactors, currently at the research and development stage.
While there are potentially more than 80 designs for SMRs under consideration, only two countries have successfully built operational SMRs: China and Russia. 
These newer generations of designs, including those in development, go some way in addressing key safety concerns, experts said.
For example, because they are much smaller, they require a much smaller “emergency planning zone”. This is the area to be established around each commercial nuclear power plant, which allows for emergency planning and response.
In contrast, SMRs have a smaller output of less than 300 megawatts, allowing for a much smaller emergency planning zone which allows the flexibility of siting a plant close to city centres. 
Moreover, while newer reactor designs incorporate advanced features, they often build on the well-established technology and inbuilt safety features of conventional reactors. 
Dr Alvin Chew, senior fellow at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU, said that the first ever SMR to be deployed, a floating nuclear power plant developed by Russia, is using light-water reactor technology, a “mainstay” for generation two and three reactors.
“As such, light-water reactors have clocked years of operational time and newer light-water reactors, be it large scale or SMR, will incorporate advanced and passive safety features,” said Dr Chew. 
While fourth generation reactors promise to mitigate the known accidental risks associated with current light water reactors, it is uncertain what other risks these reactors might pose as they have not been licensed and put into large-scale operation yet, he added.
Dr Chung from SNRSI also noted recent advancements which focus on passive cooling systems, maintaining core cooling without external power or human intervention during an emergency. 
“This is one of the main advantages of SMRs compared to conventional large reactors as the lower heat produced allows passive cooling to be more effectively implemented,” said Dr Chung. 
Recent designs of water-cooled SMRs also integrate major components into a single unit, thereby eliminating risks such as pipe breaks between them, he added.
In pioneering nuclear countries such as the United States and France, with their experience in operating large reactors and established regulatory bodies, the transition to new technology such as water-cooled SMRs is developing well, Dr Chung said.
Then there are advanced reactors deploying “novel concepts”, such as using helium or molten salt as a coolant instead of water, which have to undergo very thorough tests on their technical feasibility, he added.
Dr Chung noted that while the certification of the designs and supply chain to procure these alternative coolants could be more challenging, these newer designs have an even lower chances of core-melt.
While there is no nuclear power plant in operation in Southeast Asia, the more than 400 nuclear power plants providing energy to some 30 countries around the world is testament to how this technology has won significant acceptance despite the reservations of some.
One pioneer is France, which derives about 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear energy generated by more than 50 reactors. France earns billions of euros in revenue annually from nuclear energy, as Europe’s current largest net exporter of electricity.
Its move to nuclear was prompted by a global surge in oil prices in 1973, which led then prime minister Pierre Messmer to unveil plans to rapidly build nuclear reactors. Some 50 were eventually built within the span of two decades.
While the desire to be energy independent helped drive acceptance among the French public, it was also the government’s public education efforts, through ad campaigns and nuclear plant tours, that sustained public acceptance through the years.
The fact that nuclear plants contribute to communities through local taxes and the provisions of jobs helps too.
Meanwhile, Finland and Sweden are hailed as strong examples of best practices when it comes to handling and disposing of spent nuclear fuel. 
Before the government gives in-principle approval for a site, the local municipality must first agree to host the waste disposal facility, making it more palatable, as the population feels that they have a say in the matter.
SKB, the nuclear plant and waste company in Sweden, held engagement sessions with local communities to explain the details of the proposed project so that the population could make an informed decision on the matter.
“The government has engaged in efforts through the Nuclear Energy Programme Implementing Organisation, an ad hoc body designed to coordinate stakeholders and prioritise activities related to the deployment of nuclear power plants,” said Dr Zulfikar from ACE.
“Indonesia has also developed relevant legal and regulatory frameworks, addressing issues such as safety criteria, licensing, siting, and waste management for nuclear power plants.”
The extensive technological progress over the years has clearly not been enough to win over some critics of nuclear technology even today, as evident from the various public surveys.
While nuclear energy is often compared to other alternative sources of clean energy, Dr Ho from NTU noted that critics of nuclear energy may have an “oversimplified” view of other renewables.
For example, she pointed out that some in Singapore assume that solar energy is easy to harness and could fully support the base load of the Republic’s electricity consumption, when in reality this is not the case.
Further, public perception of renewables such as solar and hydroelectricity tend to be positive as compared with nuclear energy because of associations of solar as harnessing the power of “natural”, rather than man-made phenomena, Dr Ho added.
“People have a positive impression because ‘natural is good’. In their minds, nuclear power is made of chemicals, like uranium. So people think it’s harmful to the body, and also because of media images of different disasters,” she said.
The success stories of some countries highlight the importance of effective public education. Acknowledging this, Singapore, too, is putting in effort into public engagement even as it is still mulling nuclear energy as an option.
“SNRSI has organised several education and outreach activities with schools and the public on ionising radiation, radioactive materials and nuclear science and engineering,” said MTI, EMA and NEA.
However, Dr Ho noted too that research shows having information “is not the only factor”.
Rather, for controversial science like nuclear technology, the public’s trust in potential stakeholders, such as government bodies, is an important factor that determines their acceptance of nuclear-related information.
Ultimately though, experts said members of the public also rely on heuristics in arriving at their own opinions and positions over issues. 
In other words, if they are constantly exposed to images of nuclear mishaps, such “information shortcuts” would ultimately colour their view of nuclear technology.
“It’s important to curb the spread of misinformation, and also some misperceptions in public opinion, especially during the planning and developmental stage, because this can lead to delays in public support and create barriers to implementation,” said Dr Ho.