Nuclear Power Plants in Ninh Thuan Province
From: Rie Nakamura
Date: Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Dear colleagues,
There is increasing concern amongst scholars and researchers about
Japanese government involvement of setting up nuclear power plants in
Nihh Thuan province in Vietnam. Unfortunately the number of scholars
and researchers openly discuss their concern in Japan is still small.
In order to share the information regarding the Japanese involvement
in Vietnamese nuclear project, I am attaching a translation of the
article in Tokyo Shinbun which appeared last year. I appreciate, if
you take a moment to read it and share it with your colleagues.
Thank you.
PS: Due to the slow internet connection at our university, I could not
access to Vietnam Studies email for a quite some time. If there has
been a discussion regarding the Nuclear power plants in Ninh Thuan
province and Japanese involvement, I apologize for redundancy.
--
Rie Nakamura, Ph.D.
Visiting Lecturer
College of Law, Government and International Studies
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Sintok 06010 Kedah, Malaysia
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:17 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
On the same topic:
“I don’t know anything about nuclear plants,” said Pham Phong, 43, a grape farmer who, in one of the most telling examples of rising incomes in Southeast Asia, upgraded from a cheap Chinese-made motorcycle to a shiny new Japanese Yamaha late last year. “But I saw Fukushima on television, and I’m worried.”
Calvin Thai
Independent Researcher
----------
From: Nguyet Nguyen
Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:11 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Not to mention that Viet Nam will expose itself to great military
dangers just by having nuclear reactors on its land. An attack on a
nuclear plant (very simple explosives would do it) would be just as
damaging as having a bomb exploded. That was why many said that it was
a blessing the terrorists of 9/11 didn't try to target a nuclear power
plant in the states.
----------
From: Jo
Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:37 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
You are ever so right about that! One wonders which of the sponsoring
nations, who offered to build these, has agreed to take the spent fuel. I
would be surprised if Japan offered, since ironically they have all the
"spent fuel" (and more) that they can deal with right now.
Joanna Kirkpatrick
Film rev. ed.
Visual Anthro.
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I am opposed to nuclear power in Vietnam, but the spent fuel is not a major issue. Vietnam would send spent fuel back to the seller country, which is probably Russia. (I used to work on spent nuclear fuel issues in a previous career, and particularly with Russia.)
Storage during cooling is an issue, but not a big one. And preventing someone from putting a bomb into a storage tank is not a big deal.
My bigger concerns are geology (Vietnam is in an earthquake-prone region), tsunamis, the problems with the unreliable grid, which would cause cooling problems in case the plant has to shut down), and the major issue: Vietnam has no structure of an INDEPENDENT REGULATOR. Having a regulator that is also the operator (as would inevitably be the case in a one-party state) is a recipe for big problems. Of course, many similarly structured countries have nuclear power, and it's always a problem.
But this is not just about Vietnam. NO COUNTRY can rule out a catastrophe, and in my assessment, nuclear is simply no longer worth it. It is VERY EXPENSIVE and if one invests all the money into alternatives, one can easily produce the same energy, especially if one is not on a nuclear path yet (as for ex. France is). This is a prestige project for Vietnam, nothing else.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
----------
From: hoang tuan dung
Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 1:09 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
For those who love and care about the future of Vietnam, should we write a petition to the government to delay or oppose this project while these nuclear power plants have not been constructed? Since once they are constructed, there is not much that we can do anymore...
Best regards,
Td
Environmental Researcher,
Hanoi
----------
From: Jo
Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thomas,
I agree with everything you said here. I just didn’t care to write at length. Happy that you added your expertise.
I suspect that the new push for nuclear in various countries now without it, especially in countries that could benefit greatly from solar and wind energy, has to do with masked motives to gain weapons or weapon capacity.
Joanna Kirkpatrick
Film rev. ed.
Vis. Anth.
----------
From: Carl Robinson
Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I think it's fine to be discussing this topic but - with the exception of Thomas Jandl's - the contributions seem very alarmist and emotional. Someone is even floating the idea of a "petition" on this subject. (Well, what about other petitionables in Vietnam, then? Endless examples exist there and I never see anyone proposing petitions.) Of course, everyone is upset after Fukushima and some countries have discontinued their programs but overall nuclear power has worked remarkably well and accident-free. And with the rising cost of energy, many developing countries are indeed looking at nuclear programs, eg India, and Vietnam is just one more on the list. Of course, prestige -- building face or "xi dien" -- plays a role as Vietnam has plenty of gas to meet its power needs. In the same area proposed for the nuclear plants, Vietnam is already developing a huge wind farm. Solar is still relatively undeveloped but who needs hot water anyway?! (Solar itself still has a long way to make itself truly useful in a household sense.)
My main point of agreement would be Vietnam's own capabilities and regulations. Knowing and even admiring the Vietnamese ability to keep mechanical things going, I'd seriously worry if something ever did go wrong. Construction quality and on-going maintenance are real problems in Vietnam. Just re-visit a new hotel six months later and see how everything is falling apart. Plus, the entire way society runs these days -- where you never make your own decisions and always have someone else to blame -- further complicates the mix.
Best,
Carl Robinson
Former AP Correspondent, Saigon 1968-75
----------
From: Rie Nakamura Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:40 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
What Fukushima accident revealed was that nuclear is too pricy and too
risky to generate electricity. The word "upset" is underrating
incredible problems we are facing and our children and grand children
are going to face in Japan. If we examined the causes of the Fukushima
accident, they are mostly due to the ill management of the technology.
Thus Nuclear power is not accident-free. Nuclear accident damage
people in presence and people in future. It may be known that the 2nd
and 3rd generation Hibakusha (those who exposed to the atomic bombs)
in Japan are still discriminated against at the time of marriage and
employment. I was told that planned nuclear reactors will provide 10 %
of national electricity supplies in Vietnam. Vietnam should think
carefully if they want to put their people's future in danger for the
10 % electricity supply.
Rie
--
Rie Nakamura, Ph.D.
Visiting Lecturer
College of Law, Government and International Studies
Universiti Utara Malaysia
Sintok 06010 Kedah, Malaysia
----------
From: Pietro P. Masina
Date: Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:38 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
There is another point to take into account. To produce nuclear power Vietnam will have to import very expensive technologies in an industry with very limited spillover effects. If the choice to enter the "nuclear club" has status motivations, there a major contradiction here. Vietnam would become more dependent on foreign technology and in a way it would reduce its national sovereignty. Investing in alternative energy not only would be safer, but also may support industrial development in the country, generate much more employment, and eventually make the country more self-reliant.
Best egards
Pietro
Prof. Pietro P. Masina
Dept. of Social Sciences
University of Naples "L'Orientale"
Largo S. Giovanni Maggiore 30
80134 Naples - Italy
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 8:40 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Agreed, Pietro, but that is the difference between dominant discourse and reality. Vietnam wants to be a "modern country." And in the dominant discourse, that comes with certain trappings. A computer industry, software etc., focus on university degrees over apprenticeships, nuclear power over hydro.
I can't count how often I have heard friends say "Vietnam is a modern country now" in the context of the question why Vietnam would even want to spend billions on foreign nuclear technology when it has what it needs in its own hands. On the other hand, if one wants to make an argument against nuclear, nationalism -- another dominant discourse -- may be the one argument Vietnamese may be receptive to. Instead of saying "This is dangerous and you don't have the regulatory system for such a high-risk endeavor," one should probably focus on the "This just makes you more dependent ... on foreign loans, foreign technology, foreign experts, foreign fuel, and the ability to send that fuel back to the seller."
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
----------
From: Carl Robinson
Date: Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Good discussion here, especially Thomas Jandl's suggestion of some "reverse psychology" on the Vietnamese. Too often, they see the trappings as more important than the reality -- eg, the PM's boast that Vietnam has more PhD's in its government than any other in the world. Doesn't make 'em work any better.
Fyi, here are a couple latest news stories on this issue. Some 14 nuclear reactors by 2030 sounds pretty damned frightening !
http://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnist/vietnam-s-nuclear-dreams-blossom-1.55686.
Best,
Carl Robinson
Brisbane, Australia.
----------
From: Jalel Sager
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:18 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
And with the rising cost of energy, many developing countries are indeed
looking at nuclear programs, eg India, and Vietnam is just one more on the
list. .... Solar is still relatively undeveloped but who needs hot water
anyway?! (Solar itself still has a long way to make itself truly useful
in a household sense.)
In regard to costs and energy sources, this comment is not quite accurate.
Chinese solar panels have fallen to historic lows of $1 per watt (which is why US solar companies started to fold) and solar farms would be a near perfect solution for Vietnam, with its intensive daytime peak summer loads. Further, it would likely make far more sense to focus on distributed technologies such as solar than large centralized ones, which will require extensive, expensive grids. Yes, there are baseload and grid integration issues to consider with solar and wind power, but I submit they are being solved elsewhere and are far easier to handle than the nuclear package. Further, in line with Thomas Jandl's comments, this is a technology the nation can manage (and manufacture) on its own, A-Z.
In the US, nuclear energy has proven far more expensive than its proponents claim, time and time again, just to build (before accidents). The economics of nuclear are such that they don't even work without vast government subsidies and guarantees. (Attached paper)
In short, solar would likely be the cheaper solution here, perhaps as part of a package with wind and smaller gas plants.
I think this type of "modern" mindset is actually backward-looking, and, as noted below, probably serves strategic and political considerations far more than practicality or broad national interest. I am reminded of the SUVs that plague the cities.
Jalel Sager
Energy and Resources Group, UC-Berkeley
----------
From: George Dutton <dutton@humnet.ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:32 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Speaking as someone with solar panels on my roof generating more electricity than my household uses on an annual basis (ie. it can be very useful in a household sense), I second Jalel's comments. If governments are going to engage in subsidies (such as here in the US, where subsidies dramatically lowered the cost of my own system installation), then it seems solar subsidies might make a lot more sense. The primary problem with solar seems often to be political will rather than logistical hurdles. High-tech nuclear just has much more political cachet than (seemingly) low-tech solar . . .
George
_______________________________
George Dutton
Vice Chair and Associate Professor
UCLA Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
290 Royce Hall
Box 951540
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540
<Hultman_2007.pdf>
And with the rising cost of energy, many developing countries are indeed
looking at nuclear programs, eg India, and Vietnam is just one more on the
list. Of course, prestige -- building face or "xi dien" -- plays a role
as Vietnam has plenty of gas to meet its power needs. In the same area
proposed for the nuclear plants, Vietnam is already developing a huge wind
farm. Solar is still relatively undeveloped but who needs hot water
anyway?! (Solar itself still has a long way to make itself truly useful
in a household sense.)
----------
From: David Brown
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
An interesting thread.
Current nuclear reactor designs are far less accident-prone than the '2nd generation' Fukushima design; in particular, they are designed to shut down -- and stay shut down -- without reliance on batteries or an external power supply. Presumably any design the Vietnamese select will have state of the art 'passive safety' features.
Vietnam has relied -- indeed, over-relied on tapping the nation's hydroelectric power potential to meet baseload power needs. That reliance, and failure to invest sufficiently in other capacity or in energy-saving technologies, has rendered Vietnam chronically short of power in the dry season. The result is rolling blackouts and over-reliance on expensive oil or gas-fired peaking plants for much of the year.
Baseline power is the power required to meet minimum needs. Peaking power is what's supposed to fill the gap between minimum and maximum demand. Typically, a peaking plant will operate only a few hours a day, while a baseload plant operates 24/7.
Vietnam's current alternatives to hydro to meet baseload needs are (1) investment in energy-saving technologies coupled with appropriate economic incentives (e.g., subsidies for introduction of the technologies funded by a surcharge on electricity use); (2) coal-fired power plants; and (3) nuclear power plants.
Solar power, wind power, and power generated by harnessing temperature differentials in sea water all could contribute to the national energy mix. With one exception, they are not currently competitive. However, as Jalal Sagar points out, costs are falling; in a decade or two these technologies could be competitive with coal or nuclear. Thus they ought to be more actively pursued in Vietnam as they should nearly everywhere else.
The exception is solar hot water. Already family-sized tube-type batch heaters are being installed in large numbers on roofs in Vietnam's cities; this simple technology is highly cost-effective and well-suited to climates where water never freezes.
Barring discoveries of huge pools of gas in the South China Sea (and multinational agreement on how to share them), increments to Vietnam's baseload power supply in the next few decades must come either from coal-fired power plants or nuclear power plants. The arguments advanced by other contributors to this thread about the nation's underdeveloped safety culture are surely cogent, even if their doubts about the technology itself are in several cases overwrought, to my mind. On the other hand, nuclear power generation does not, repeat not, contribute to the atmosphere's carbon load. It's truly Hobson's choice.
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:18 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I don't think that it is fair that nuclear power does not contribute to climate change. Uranium mining is a dirty story in itself.
I would add biogas to the mix in Vietnam. Vietnam spends a lot of money and effort in electrifying villages far off the (already unreliable) grid. Especially in farming communities, minimal investment can provide families or farms with reliable biogas from the available manure. As an added benefit, the process breaks down pathogens and leaves behind a slurry that is a fine fertilizer.
I understqand that this would not fuel Vietnam's growing industry, but it could reduce the need to electrify remote rural areas through a grid that then saps energy away from the urban and industrial ones.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
----------
From: David Brown
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Re biogas, right you are, Thomas. One of the most impressive contributions of the NGO community to Vietnam's poverty alleviation/development efforts has been the proliferation of small farm-sized biogas generators. Over the past five years, more than 100,000 have gone into operation under the leadership of SNV, the Dutch aid agency, in partnership with MARD.
----------
From: Carl Robinson
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:06 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Can someone please clarify something about Vietnam's Oil & Gas Industry? Just how self-reliant are they? How much is oil and how much is gas? I've had the impression that they had a surfeit of gas but perhaps that's just from personal knowledge about its first offshore pipeline into Baria, north of Vung Tau, which was all gas which just burned off until they finally rigged up a power plant. I presume like many countries in the region, their oil -- which is probably light and high in sulfur, no? -- does not all its needs and they still need imports. I've followed bits & pieces of news on the industry, eg first-ever locally-built offshore rigs, new fields tapped, export contracts etc -- but it's hard getting an overall view. (Much more attention is paid to the South China Sea dispute with China & others than what's already happening out there.)
At the same time, I was surprised to see in a feature piece in yesterday's The Australian newspaper that Vietnam was Australia's third largest provider of oil imports last year, after Malaysia and Indonesia. Last year, Vietnam shipped us 3.9 billion litres of oil !
One of my stranger memories from the waning days of South Vietnam -- that strange post Paris Cease-fire Agreement period between 1973 and 1975 -- was being flown out of Saigon on a helicopter to a floating oil exploration rig in the South China Sea, believe late '74 or early '75. I was pretty seasick but still recall how optimistic the explorers were based on their early work. But by then, it was too late to have made the Vietnam War one about oil .
Best regards,
Carl Robinson
Brisbane, Australia
Former Saigon AP Correspondent, '68-75
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Carl,
Vietnam is a net exporter of crude and a net importer of refined oil products. This is due to lack of refining capacity. Dung Quat refinery just came on line after decades of political wrestling, and is still not at full capacity, unless I missed more recent developments.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
----------
From: Carl Robinson
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Yes, Thomas, and they built the refinery in the worst possible place -- Quang Ngai's Typhoon Alley! And, you're right, there was plenty of political wrestling, mostly over needing to make sure Central Vietnam got its share of big government-funded projects. Logically, it should've gone into the Baria-Vung Tau area with domestic exports out of there. Any overall summary pieces anyone knows about would be useful.
Another interesting tidbit, Vietnam is talking to Australia about exporting coal there for its new power plants, particularly in the south.
Best,
Carl Robinson
----------
From: Jalel Sager
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
My point was actually that solar and wind are now competitive with nuclear on a $/watt basis, at least--and that nuclear has never shown itself to be a sure-fire cost-effective option--it is wracked with uncertainties, even before accidents. Further, according to the nuclear industry, every new reactor design is safe. Yet the industry also knows that accidents are not a matter of "if," but of "when" and with what frequency. And you can often double or even triple their projected delivered electricity cost (planner may say $.05/kWh, but it could be $.10, it could be $.15). That uncertainty, along with extremely long lead times, is part of the nuclear package; wind and solar are much more predictable in terms of cost. I would add gas to the list, but that has an uncertainty around the fuel price, as does nuclear.
As George Dutton points out, the type of subsidies nuclear requires from the government would likely make solar a clearly superior option. Cost comparisons should take this into account.
And yes, Thomas Jandl is correct on nuclear and climate--for one thing, there are significant carbon costs in a nuclear plant during construction. If worried about climate change, you need to account for the carbon on a lifecycle basis, not only on operations. See attached article comparing solar, coal, gas, and hydro for carbon lifecycle costs. This has been done elsewhere for nuclear.
Finally there are the massive externalities. Once the social costs of health, security, and environment are added in, solar and wind become attractive options across the board, even versus coal (see attached report from US National Academy of Science).
Not to say renewable are perfect or costless technologies, and not to say the issues of storage--the main barrier to solar and wind as full baseload generation--are fully resolved. Vietnam, however, may have a solution to this--one of the easiest ways to store energy on a large scale now is through pumping water up into reservoirs during times of oversupply and letting it down through turbines in times of need. The country at hand seems to be well-equipped for this on a massive scale.
To sum up, the eternally recurring idea that renewable technologies are still years away from cost effectiveness is outdated. They are competitive now.
Of course, as good energy analysts often say, far better to save a MW of electricity somewhere than build a facility of any type to generate a new one, so I like option 1 below the best.
Jalel Sager
Energy and Resources Group
UC-Berkeley
Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794
----------
From: David Brown
Date: Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:08 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Carl, a few factoids culled from a presumably authoritative 2010 briefing book:
Energy demand is increasing 3.4% annually
An all things being equal scenario foresees Vietnam as a net energy importer beyond 2015, with energy import dependency circa 25% by 2030
Many major oil fields are maturing, but the potential for new discoveries, especially gas, seems good.
And also (not from the briefing book): most of Vietnam's coal is anthracite, optimal for steel production. It makes sense to export the anthracite to northeast Asia whilst importing bituminous coal from Australia or Indonesia to stoke power plants a-building in southern Vietnam.
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:09 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dung Quat was a political football. I forget if it was the PM or President who was from Quang Ngai at the time of decision-- but everybody knew it was a worst place.Dung Quat is as far as possible from both consumption and production centers. International partners dropped out over all the insanities. And you barely find a Vietnamese official who doesn't acknowledge all this.
And this is exactly why one should be very concerned about a nuclear plant. Dung Quat was a predicted disaster that cost Vietnam a few (many) billion dollars. A nuclear power plant constructed under similar conditions?
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
----------
From: Geoffrey Cain
Date: Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Hot off the presses:
HANOI, Vietnam, March 8 (UPI) -- Vietnam is pressing ahead with nuclear power, a government official said.
Addressing an international conference on nuclear power Thursday in Vietnam, Le Dinh Tien, deputy minister of the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology, maintained that nuclear power is an important power source worldwide, China's state-run news agency Xinhua reports.
--
Geoffrey Cain | Journalist
----------
From: Jalel Sager
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:56 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Very interesting story in today's Financial Times about a renewables/nuclear discussion in Japan similar to the one we are having here. (If anyone is stuck behind a pay wall I can send offline.)
Energy Needs: Thinking small is new big idea
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9afadd0-65df-11e1-979e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1oe9cxHHH
One strength of distributed renewables we didn't mention is their network resilience. That is, a network with many smaller hubs is much harder to bring down than one with a single giant hub. This is important as Vietnam will need to hedge against multiple types of uncertainty in coming years.
From the FT article:
"But his experience last year, he says, woke him up to another potential benefit of smart communities: their resilience in disasters. In a system of local “micro-grids”, damage in one area is easier to contain, and widespread failures less likely.
'We need to build communities that are both protected from natural disasters and environmentally friendly,' Mr Okuyama says."
--
Jalel Sager
Energy and Resources Group
UC-Berkeley
----------
From: Thomas Jandl
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I may be repeating myself here, I don't remember. (So sorry if yes.) But one of my major problems with Vietnam's program is that again (just like with Dung Quat refinery) the government is betting on ONE central plant which on top of it all is quite far from both major urban areas, and then needs to transport the electricity from the plant to the users.
Given Vietnam's notoriously unreliable grid, that's a risky endeavour. Moreover, eclectricity is an ineffcient traveler. WIth Vietnam's geography -- long and skinny -- there is maximum efficiency loss even under good grid conditions.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
----------
From: Nguyet Nguyen
Date: Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
We were repeatedly told in class when I was an undergrad student then when Dung Quat was built was that the refinery would be an economic boost to the poverty-stricken region.