we do have a research reactor though. but let’s be real, the problem with nuclear at this point isn’t the tech but the governance (for maintenance, upkeep, etc). i’m a nuclear energy idealist myself, but those are legit concerns. i’m optimistic though, since it’s my understanding, there’s more evidence now for tech that’s not based on dirty and weaponisable fission material.
Nuclear energy is great only when we have the expertise and THE expertise to maintain, operate and especially handling the nuclear waste. NYTimes runs a piece on Taiwan nuclear waste dump [1], and why Taiwan is moving away from the nuclear energy is interesting to read (especially France reneged the agreement when Taiwan signed the deal with them to reprocess the waste [2]), it is just one of the many cases where nuclear energy is not the answer for all. Where do we dump our nuclear waste if we were to setup nuclear reactors, next to Prime Minister Office, Putrajaya, maybe ?
Wait…, I have an idea, Gua Musang in Kelantan or somewhere in Pahang might be ideal since there are ample of lands to re-propose for other usages despite the state government totally ravaging and deforest them for short-term profit. It is at least benefiting the peninsular if it is for energy bill, so to speak. Definitely not sarcastic. For East Malaysia, obviously not an issue, the current and former Chief Ministers there probably not knowledgeable enough to comprehend the opportunity to setting up nuclear waste land. When they learn about this potential and opportunity to make money, they will announce big projects.
yes, governance is absolutely a sticking point. Even to your points relating to expertise is very much a consequence of governance, and past conditions dictating your available choices (in this case, a nuclear reactor isn’t designed to be usable for all kinds of atomic power generation, their designs are always use-case specific. which is why the economies that committed to them using the technologies of post-ww2 cannot pivot so easily, as say China, who is still I think investing on scaling up thorium salt reactors – I think, I’m not sure what’s the state of the science right now.) Those current reactors are absolutely dirty, you will not find me disagreeing. Which is why I state specifically on the weaponisable part – there’s a political reason why nuclear energy sector threw its chips down almost immediately in the consumer market… because the waste is useable.
because the other problem with those economies, is because of their energy requirement, look at where they’re pivoting: coal & gas. Nuclear (ideally) is still one of the cleanest options, if we can figure out how to utilize the developments in the last 30 years. BUT, at the same time, I would also argue with myself and agree with you that the urgency has been reduced, since renewable energy tech has really improved in leaps and bounds.
… except for one problem that’s a genuine political and environmental concern - the rare earths and minerals needed to manufacture the photovoltaic cells, for example. the mining activity here has absolutely contributed to political instability and refugee crisis.
so to sum up, my arguments:
no disagreements with the state of retail nuclear energy options
no disagreements on the governance problem because retail options depend on tech that considers having nuclear waste to be a plus
pointing out new scientific research is ongoing
the issue with existing retail options is that they’re very specific to the tech they’re serving, so it cannot pivot
this is where newly rich economies can lead the way e.g china
shuttering nuclear reactors has actually caused an uptake in coal and gas-powered plants e.g Japan, Germany, I will have to look up Taiwan but I won’t be surprised
renewable energy much like most of computing tech, is also a contributing actor in a lot of political instability in the global south.
Don’t get me wrong. You are obviously more knowledgeable in nuclear energy that I do. I am just the average person pointing out the obvious and recall the numerous disasters [1, 2] that vividly paint the importance of having the expertise. Japan is about to release nuclear waste water into ocean [4] despite international watchdogs and environmental groups protest because Japan has no other options.
I am rather pessimistic on our country state of nuclear energy technology and readiness, even with the technology transfer from foreign enterprise, it comes down to every single engineer, technician, and operator. When we look at the current civil servant and public service, it is very unconvincing to go with this route without taking a huge risk.
On that part i agree. The examples you cite are also of a piece of what I mentioned about existing retail-side tech, so no arguments there. Fukushima especially exposed that even in systematic disciplined Japan, staff was cutting corners. And govt response since leaves something to be desired, speaking as someone who was in Tohoku a few years after.
we do have a research reactor though. but let’s be real, the problem with nuclear at this point isn’t the tech but the governance (for maintenance, upkeep, etc). i’m a nuclear energy idealist myself, but those are legit concerns. i’m optimistic though, since it’s my understanding, there’s more evidence now for tech that’s not based on dirty and weaponisable fission material.
Nuclear energy is great only when we have the expertise and THE expertise to maintain, operate and especially handling the nuclear waste. NYTimes runs a piece on Taiwan nuclear waste dump [1], and why Taiwan is moving away from the nuclear energy is interesting to read (especially France reneged the agreement when Taiwan signed the deal with them to reprocess the waste [2]), it is just one of the many cases where nuclear energy is not the answer for all. Where do we dump our nuclear waste if we were to setup nuclear reactors, next to Prime Minister Office, Putrajaya, maybe ?
Wait…, I have an idea, Gua Musang in Kelantan or somewhere in Pahang might be ideal since there are ample of lands to re-propose for other usages despite the state government totally ravaging and deforest them for short-term profit. It is at least benefiting the peninsular if it is for energy bill, so to speak. Definitely not sarcastic. For East Malaysia, obviously not an issue, the current and former Chief Ministers there probably not knowledgeable enough to comprehend the opportunity to setting up nuclear waste land. When they learn about this potential and opportunity to make money, they will announce big projects.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/world/asia/lanyu-taiwan-nuclear-waste.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
yes, governance is absolutely a sticking point. Even to your points relating to expertise is very much a consequence of governance, and past conditions dictating your available choices (in this case, a nuclear reactor isn’t designed to be usable for all kinds of atomic power generation, their designs are always use-case specific. which is why the economies that committed to them using the technologies of post-ww2 cannot pivot so easily, as say China, who is still I think investing on scaling up thorium salt reactors – I think, I’m not sure what’s the state of the science right now.) Those current reactors are absolutely dirty, you will not find me disagreeing. Which is why I state specifically on the weaponisable part – there’s a political reason why nuclear energy sector threw its chips down almost immediately in the consumer market… because the waste is useable.
because the other problem with those economies, is because of their energy requirement, look at where they’re pivoting: coal & gas. Nuclear (ideally) is still one of the cleanest options, if we can figure out how to utilize the developments in the last 30 years. BUT, at the same time, I would also argue with myself and agree with you that the urgency has been reduced, since renewable energy tech has really improved in leaps and bounds.
… except for one problem that’s a genuine political and environmental concern - the rare earths and minerals needed to manufacture the photovoltaic cells, for example. the mining activity here has absolutely contributed to political instability and refugee crisis.
so to sum up, my arguments:
Don’t get me wrong. You are obviously more knowledgeable in nuclear energy that I do. I am just the average person pointing out the obvious and recall the numerous disasters [1, 2] that vividly paint the importance of having the expertise. Japan is about to release nuclear waste water into ocean [4] despite international watchdogs and environmental groups protest because Japan has no other options.
I am rather pessimistic on our country state of nuclear energy technology and readiness, even with the technology transfer from foreign enterprise, it comes down to every single engineer, technician, and operator. When we look at the current civil servant and public service, it is very unconvincing to go with this route without taking a huge risk.
[1] Chernobyl, SSR (Soviet Union) [3]
[2] Fukushima, Japan [3]
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
[4] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/04/asia/japan-fukushima-wastewater-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
On that part i agree. The examples you cite are also of a piece of what I mentioned about existing retail-side tech, so no arguments there. Fukushima especially exposed that even in systematic disciplined Japan, staff was cutting corners. And govt response since leaves something to be desired, speaking as someone who was in Tohoku a few years after.