SINGAPORE: Singapore has said it will study the possible deployment of nuclear power, given recent advancements in small modular reactors (SMRs) that offer new safety features and require less space. Interest in SMRs is rising among governments and energy companies in the rest of the region too.

Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand have all expressed interest in SMRs – both floating and land-based. In Indonesia, the first application for hosting a floating SMR, a demonstration project to be located near an island in Central Bangka close to South Sumatra, was submitted in February after about two years of pre-licensing consultations.

Russia has been operating a commercial floating nuclear power plant with two SMRs, the Akademik Lomonosov, in Arctic waters since 2020. China started up a land-based SMR in Shandong province in 2023, with another expected in Hainan by 2026.

Other countries, including the United States, Argentina, Canada and South Korea, are actively developing SMRs, with companies like Core Power, Kepco E&S, NuScale, Seaborg Technologies, Thorcon, Westinghouse and others leading efforts in floating designs.

Tech companies are also racing to secure nuclear energy. In October 2024, Google inked a deal to buy electricity from at least six SMRs to power its data centres. Oracle is designing a data centre to be powered by three SMRs. Many energy-intensive industries, including mining and chemicals, are also interested in such options.

Unlike conventional nuclear plants that often generate over 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity, SMRs typically produce up to 300 megawatts but have shorter construction times, lower upfront costs, enhanced safety features and smaller safety zones. They are also scalable: Adding additional SMRs is much more feasible than expanding a conventional plant.

Given Singapore’s current generation capacity of over 13 GW, a single SMR’s contribution would be so small that it can be constantly fed into the grid as baseload. In the long term, this raises the question of how many SMRs could safely be accommodated.

Still, nuclear power is one of the options for reducing Singapore’s carbon emissions and achieving its net-zero target in 2050. A domestic power plant would also enhance energy security, given Singapore’s heavy reliance on fuel imports of natural gas, its future demand for hydrogen and ammonia, and its growing energy demands.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR A TROPICAL ISLAND

For Singapore’s green energy transition and climate adaptation efforts, comparing floating and land-based SMRs in the country’s specific context is essential.

The Akademik Lomonosov operates in a very cold climate, which enhances its cooling efficiency. It serves as a cogeneration plant, generating electricity and utilising much of the heat created in the process for district warming. Singapore’s tropical climate means that air cooling would be less efficient than heat release into comparatively colder waters. The country’s small water reservoirs and rivers do not encourage a location inland.

Additionally, such a nuclear cogeneration plant using heat for seawater desalination is another reason why an efficient SMR would have to be located either at the coastline or on the sea surface. It could also provide steam for industrial purposes, as Singapore’s existing natural gas cogeneration plants already do to Jurong Island’s chemical industry.

A floating SMR can be built in a shipyard – as was the case in Russia – and towed by tugboats to its destination, facilitating installation and eliminating the need for landscaping. Breakwaters and some seabed preparation for mooring would be required to keep it safely in place. It would likely be available faster than a land-based version. Similarly, maintenance, decommissioning, and refuelling – whether by delivering and switching out modular reactor cores or by towing the plant to a site for radioactive waste disposal – or even potential resale to another country would be easier.

Floating nuclear plants face vulnerabilities such as typhoons and icebergs, but those are no concerns in Singapore’s waters. However, a marine environment still brings challenges, particularly cost increases. The wear caused by continuous wave motions, corrosion, and the demand for efficient filtration systems to prevent marine organisms from colonising water intake systems add to construction and maintenance costs.

In the Akademik Lomonosov’s case, the official budget quadrupled from an estimated 9 billion roubles to approximately 37 billion roubles. In the US, a land-based SMR project in Idaho was stopped because of cost overruns. A detailed environmental impact assessment and a rigorous affordability study will be essential.

LEARNING FROM RUSSIA’S EXPERIENCE

Whether on land or at sea, SMRs raise well-known questions, similar to conventional nuclear plants. Public concerns about radioactive waste storage and disposal, and the risks associated with potential accidents, like release of radioactive materials into the air or water, are understandable.

The Russian nuclear plant’s first refuelling – performed over 2023 and 2024 by delivering and switching modular reactor cores – was successful. Given Russian experience in refuelling and operating nuclear-powered icebreakers and power plants, there is no reason why it would have encountered major accidents.

However, even if Russia chose not to be transparent and make any incidents public, accidents causing releases of radioactive materials into the air would have been detected. The radioactive materials, or a strong heat increase in the plant, would have been spotted by US and other satellites or by ground-based radiation sensors and monitoring systems located in other countries, as has happened in the past, even for concentrations that posed no threat to human health.

Large-scale accidental releases into the water would also be quickly detected by other countries. International attention is high and Norway, for example, conducted a detailed study on how hypothetical accidents at Akademik Lomonosov could affect its territory.

In any case, nuclear power requires strict safety and regulatory oversight, involving multiple organisations.

Classification societies evaluate the safety of new vessels and have begun issuing comprehensive rules for floating SMRs. 

Together with industry stakeholders, they established the Nuclear Energy Maritime Organisation last year to support national and international regulatory efforts. The International Maritime Organization, responsible for marine pollution prevention and vessel safety, and the International Atomic Energy Agency are also working on floating SMRs and nuclear-powered ships, given the increasing climate change-driven interest in them.

WORTH SERIOUS CONSIDERATION

Selecting a safe and economically viable site would be crucial. 

Deeper waters are preferable for cooling purposes and limited environmental impacts, but a site like Changi could pose risks due to its proximity to the airport and potential airplane accidents affecting the plant. Marine traffic restrictions and protective measures, such as security protocols, would be necessary. 

Proximity to industrial plants on Jurong Island in demand of heat or steam could enhance economic viability, making the nuclear cogeneration plant(s) more cost competitive, and desalination is another option.

If Singapore decides to pursue nuclear power, floating SMRs warrant serious consideration. They offer distinct advantages in location selection, deployment flexibility, absence of landscaping requirements, and potential integration with industrial processes. However, economic feasibility, safety, regulatory requirements, and environmental impacts must be thoroughly evaluated to determine whether they align with Singapore’s long-term energy strategy.

Stefan Huebner is President of the Society of Floating Solutions (Singapore) and Senior Research Fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore. His current research concerns the history and present situation of ocean industrialisation and urbanisation projects.