Cecilia Kok, The Star 30 May 09;
MOST of us will remember how nuclear power has always been associated with bandits in our favourite cartoon series. So powerful is that technology that they tend to use it as a threat to conquer the whole world.
In real life, the devastating effects of nuclear technology have been recorded in history when Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed during World War II.
As dangerous as it is, however, this powerful technology has been the most sought-after solution for energy security in many countries, particularly those in Europe.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the top 10 countries with the highest nuclear share of total electricity generation are all located in the European region. France, for instance, generates 76% of its electricity from nuclear.
The idea of having a nuclear power plant in Malaysia sounds great, isn’t it? The advantages of nuclear-generated electricity have been much touted.
The nuclear plant can generate a stable flow of electricity to users at low prices (rates are presumably cheaper than power generated from other sources such as coal and gas) and it does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
It also seems to be the answer to our concerns over the depletion of fossil fuel, which is currently the main source of electricity generation in Malaysia, and the volatile prices of raw materials such as coal and crude oil.
Presently, the major components of Malaysia’s electricity generation mix are natural gas (60%), coal (24%), hydro (8%) and biomass (4.2%).
Malaysia’s nuclear ambition is apparent when Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) announced over the week that it would sign an agreement with Korea Electric Power Corp next month to engage the latter’s assistance in conducting a preliminary study for developing a nuclear power plant in Malaysia.
TNB’s view is that nuclear-generated electricity is the most viable long-term option to address the growing demand for power in the country. Hence, its plan for the country’s first nuclear power plant to begin operations in 2025.
The head of TNB’s nuclear unit Mohd Zamzam Jaafar was quoted as saying that the state-owned utility company is currently scouting for suitable sites for the nuclear plant.
The question is ... do we really need to pursue nuclear energy?
There are many implications of having a nuclear power plant in the country. Of utmost concern is the safety issue, and whether we have the technological capability to deal with any unforeseen incidences that could arise from nuclear energy development.
Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in his blog, raised his concerns about the danger of pursuing nuclear energy and urged the authorities to give this option a second thought, citing we do not know enough about nuclear energy to be able to manage it well.
Risky pursuit
Like any other technology, nuclear power has its own risks and rewards, says Ravi Krishnaswamy, director of energy and power systems practice at Frost & Sullivan Asia-Pacific in Singapore.
In his e-mail to StarBizWeek, Ravi says he believes that the safety features of nuclear power plants have increased multi-fold over the last several decades, especially after some major nuclear power plants accidents such as the Three Miles Island in the US in the late 1970s and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986.
He cites the examples of countries in high seismic zones such as Japan and Taiwan that have successfully operated nuclear power plants for several years without major incidents.
To date, the nuclear share of total electricity generation in Japan and Taiwan is 25% and 20%, respectively.
However, Ravi points out some of the shortcomings that Malaysia faces in the pursuit of nuclear energy option.
These include the lack of trained human resources and capability in handling the technology, the risk of mishandling and theft of radioactive nuclear material, the problem with radioactive waste disposal and the health hazards that could arise from exposure to radioactive nuclear material such as cancer and birth defects.
When it comes to nuclear energy, it takes just one accident to leave an adverse effect that could last for multiple generations, says an officer at the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia (Cetdem).
Citing the case of the Chernobyl disaster, he says there are still ongoing health effects from the incident to this day.
He also points out that the severe release of radioactivity not only affected people living in Ukraine, but also those living in other countries in Europe as the radioactive dust clouds were blown to the region.
Radioactive particles can be easily carried by water and wind. So, even if the nuclear power plant is located offshore, the radioactive effects can still reach people living on the mainland, and neighbouring countries, the officer at Cetdem says.
At what cost?
According to Frost & Sullivan’s Ravi, the viability of nuclear power cannot be seen only in the context of capital expenditure or potential dangers.
He explains that the viability of the initiative is normally evaluated in relation to the country’s energy mix, domestic resources availability, electricity demand growth, fluctuations in supply and cost of other fuels, and whether the country’s economic and industrial growth can justify the creation of an elaborate nuclear power infrastructure.
However, while most of the factors seem to support the development of a nuclear power plant in Malaysia in the long term, the Government still has to consider whether a nuclear initiative is justified in terms of the economies of scale, Ravi says.
“Countries like India and China have huge populations and limited domestic energy resources, hence could easily justify the development of an expensive and elaborate infrastructure for nuclear power ... and not just nuclear power generation plants, but also fuel and spent fuel processing, fuel mining and heavy water plants, among others,” he explains.
These countries, he adds, could potentially obtain at least a quarter of their electricity generation from nuclear and still have sufficient demand to build and replace nuclear reactors every 10 years. Not so for Malaysia. So, in terms of economies of scale, Ravi thinks having a nuclear power plant does not work in the favour of the country.
(The nuclear share of total electricity generation in India and China at present is 3% and 2%, respectively.)
Meanwhile, the officer at Cetdem says there are huge hidden costs involved in the development of nuclear power plants. These include costs of decommissioning, storage of spent fuel and handling of radioactive leakages, as well as the environmental cost.
“Vast amount of resources will have to be diverted towards the maintenance of nuclear power plants, and such costs could be expensive,” he says.
In terms of human resources, he believes there is a need to train a generation of nuclear scientists who know enough about dealing with nuclear waste and accidents.
He argues that nuclear is not a sustainable energy, as the sector requires the mining of uranium, which is a very polluting industry.
He adds that if there is a rush by countries to build nuclear energy, it could result in a sudden increase in demand for uranium, and hence the spike in the price of the commodity.
The debate on whether Malaysia should pursue its nuclear ambition is likely going to continue. But pundits say there are other renewable energy sources such as solar PV, biomass, wind and hydro systems that Malaysia could harness. And these, instead of attracting criticisms, will draw much support from many quarters.
