Translated by Doubao app
Source: Lianhe Zaobao, published 7 November 2026, 13:00, reporter: Chai Wei‑qian
AI Summary
- A preliminary Singapore study found no obstacles to constructing a deep‑geological nuclear‑waste repository, though the Energy Authority stresses further research on local geophysical conditions is required.
- In 2023, the Energy Market Authority and National Environment Agency commissioned SKB International to conduct a desktop study evaluating multiple deep‑geological‑disposal concepts for high‑level radioactive waste.
- Expert Nian Jialiang from a think‑tank notes that land scarcity is not the biggest hurdle; the critical factor lies in underground rock formations and long‑term geological stability for safe nuclear‑waste disposal.
- The world’s first nuclear‑waste repository, Finland’s Onkalo facility, is expected to become operational by the end of this year. It will store nuclear waste 400‑500 metres below ground.
Building a deep‑geological nuclear‑waste repository constitutes one key prerequisite for evaluating Singapore’s potential adoption of nuclear power. While preliminary research has uncovered no barriers to such a repository, more thorough geophysical investigations are needed to fully assess the technical feasibility of deep‑geological radioactive‑waste disposal.
Singapore has not yet decided whether to deploy nuclear energy. Nevertheless, it has invested resources in building relevant expertise and conducting research, including work on nuclear‑waste management.
Responding to Lianhe Zaobao’s enquiries, the Energy Market Authority disclosed that in 2023, together with the National Environment Agency, it engaged SKB International to study the impacts of nuclear‑waste management for densely‑populated Singapore and identify optimal radioactive‑waste storage and disposal practices.
This desktop study drew upon publicly‑available geological datasets to assess multiple deep‑geological repository designs for high‑level radioactive waste. These repositories adopt a multi‑barrier defence‑in‑depth concept, typically featuring three layers of protection: engineered barriers, rock‑mass barriers and geological barriers, to prevent radioactive material leakage.
According to the study, should Singapore opt for nuclear power, the total volume of resulting radioactive waste would be relatively small. Conventional nuclear‑plant waste‑management strategies are also applicable to small‑modular reactors. Overall radioactive‑waste‑management risks are low and can be further mitigated via radiation‑shielding and sealed‑container engineering.
Even though the preliminary desktop study found no impediments to deep‑underground repository construction, the Energy Market Authority emphasised: “Comprehensive technical‑feasibility evaluation for Singapore will require more in‑depth research on local geophysical conditions.”
Authorities point out that Singapore has not made up its mind on nuclear‑energy deployment. It is therefore premature to discuss how site surveys and land constraints might affect repository construction. Should field investigations prove necessary in future, abundant international experience will be available for reference.
Field surveys generally evaluate rock‑soil conditions, groundwater flow and geological stability to verify safe repository construction and operation, alongside assessing land‑area requirements for such facilities.
The Energy Market Authority reiterated: “Singapore will keep strengthening relevant capacity‑building. This includes collaborating with international specialists to deepen understanding of various nuclear‑waste‑management options and their suitability for Singapore.”
Expert: Nuclear‑waste management is a long‑term accountability issue, not one lacking technical solutions
Dr Nian Jialiang, co‑founding chair of the independent think‑tank Singapore Centre for Strategic Energy and Resources, commented that if Singapore pursues nuclear energy, near‑term on‑site storage and waste‑management infrastructure will likely be domestic. Long‑term disposal strategies will, however, depend on further geological‑condition evaluations.
“Land scarcity is a practical challenge but not the paramount obstacle,” he said in an interview. “If nuclear‑power capacity remains modest, the physical volume of waste produced will be limited. Far more critical are underground rock strata, groundwater regimes and long‑term geological stability for secure waste disposal — hence the vital importance of follow‑up geological surveys.”
Dr Nian warned against conflating “long‑term nuclear‑waste challenges” with “absence of technical solutions”. “Nuclear waste presents a problem requiring sustained accountability, yet viable technical answers do exist.”
South Australia explored hosting a shared international repository in 2016, but the proposal faced political and public opposition. While shared repositories are technically and economically plausible for nations generating limited volumes of nuclear waste, Dr Nian observed that they still confront political‑legal liability, cross‑border‑transport and public‑acceptance hurdles.
A regional shared repository may represent a future option for Singapore, but the Republic cannot assume other countries will take its waste. “The more responsible approach is first to build domestic safe‑management capacity, while remaining open‑minded about international cooperation,” he argued.
World’s first nuclear‑waste repository set to open by year‑end
Finland’s Onkalo repository — the world’s first permanent nuclear‑waste facility — is scheduled to enter service before the end of this year. Waste will be emplaced 400‑500 metres underground.
Most countries currently rely on interim storage: spent fuel assemblies sit inside shielded canisters within water‑filled cooling pools to block radiation and dissipate heat, pending permanent‑repository completion. After at least five years of pool cooling, assemblies may be transferred to dry‑cask storage systems.
For example, the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in the United States operates a standalone spent‑fuel dry‑storage site occupying approximately 0.21 hectares. It holds 84 dry‑storage casks, sufficient for 16‑19 years of spent‑fuel output from that plant.
Surry’s installed capacity stands at roughly 1.6 GW. At full‑load annual output, it generates about 12.6 TWh of electricity — equivalent to 22 percent of Singapore’s total yearly power consumption. Were Singapore to operate a comparable nuclear plant, the land footprint for waste management would be modest.
Note: This translation strictly follows the content of the Lianhe Zaobao news report provided, preserving facts, expert quotes and technical parameters as they appeared in the original Chinese text. Image captions and hyperlink‑related sidebar recommendations from the source web page are omitted.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment