THE current debate on the merits, or otherwise, of the possible development of nuclear energy in the country is healthy. The government has said the country cannot afford to be too dependent on fossil fuels — oil, gas and coal — for power generation, and that besides hydropower, the government may consider options such as nuclear energy.

Basically, it means the government has not ruled out the use of nuclear energy in the near future. In other words, the nuclear option should always be kept open.

It is not only in Malaysia but the world over that governments, environmentalists and non-governmental organisations are hotly debating the politics and economics of nuclear power. Asean is not an exception. At the 12th Asean Summit in Cebu, the Philippines, leaders stressed the importance of seeking alternative sources of energy, including civilian nuclear energy.

Nevertheless, there remains strong opposition from some quarters. Sahabat Alam Malaysia, for one, has declared that nuclear power is not a safe or environmentally sound and prudent fuel option due to the use of uranium, a highly radioactive material. SAM also pointed out that there has yet to be a safe way to dispose of hazardous waste, namely plutonium, from nuclear reactors.

It further cited the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine which killed hundreds of people, and the 1979 partial meltdown of the radioactive core at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania as disasters that could happen on our doorstep should Malaysia decide to go nuclear.

If nuclear power is really that risky and dangerous, as some quarters make it out to be, why are some leading developed and developing countries increasingly going for it? In 2005, there were 443 active nuclear reactors worldwide, accounting for one-seventh of the world’s power needs.

Power generated by nuclear plants constitutes a substantial portion of the total electricity output of France (78 per cent), South Korea (40 per cent), Germany (28 per cent), Finland (27 per cent), Japan (25 per cent), the United Kingdom (24 per cent) and the United States (20 per cent).

China, which has nine reactors, has indicated it wants to increase its nuclear capacity from 6,600MW to 40,000MW by 2030. India is adding nine reactors to its stock of 15. Finland is building its fifth reactor, while France has plans to increase its nuclear capacity. The UK and the US plan to make it easier to start new plants.

In Southeast Asia, Vietnam and Indonesia are leading the way. Vietnam has submitted a feasibility study to the International Atomic Energy Agency for its first nuclear plant. Indonesia has the green light from the IAEA and expects its first nuclear plant to be in operation by 2016.

Other countries showing interest include Turkey, Poland, Nigeria, Namibia and Ghana. This renewed interest in nuclear energy has been described by some as a “nuclear renaissance”.

In Malaysia, it has been reported that plans are underway to acquire a 2MW nuclear reactor to replace the 1MW plant in Bangi, and that the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry intends to bring together 66 local scientists to carry out research and development in nuclear power.

Undertaking deeper research and development in nuclear science is the way forward. Malaysia should intensify its collaboration with the IAEA to enhance capacity building, especially in training and building up a core group of homegrown nuclear scientists.

Expert advice from our scientists will help the government make informed decisions about using nuclear energy as part of the country’s energy mix.

Tenaga Nasional is already making intensive preparations should the government decide to go nuclear by establishing a special unit manned by key experienced personnel.

We need to be realistic about the use of nuclear energy. As our population and economy expand, our demand for electricity will soar. However, our supply of oil and gas to generate this electricity is expected to decline. Current supplies are expected to last another 15 years only. Supply from renewable sources of energy — solar, hydro and biomass — may not be adequate to take up the slack. Global warming will also put pressure on our choice of fuel. So going nuclear may be necessary.

It is, therefore, prudent that we keep our options open for nuclear energy at this point in time.

POLA SINGH, Kuala Lumpur

Source: NST – November 14, 2008