More Malaysians supporting nuclear energy for power production

More support for Malaysia going nuclear. This letter appeared in Utusan Malaysia on April 23, 2009:

Bangunkan sumber tenaga nuklear
SAYA amat tertarik dengan surat Pencinta Alam di ruangan ini pada 13 April lalu tentang pentingnya negara kita memikirkan untuk mula beralih kepada teknologi yang lebih canggih iaitu tenaga nuklear, dalam usaha negara meningkatkan pengeluaran tenaga terutamanya tenaga elektrik pada masa hadapan.
Umum mengetahui dan menjangkakan segala apa yang ada di dalam bumi seperti minyak dan gas yang kita ada sekarang lama kelamaan akan kering jika sentiasa disedut sama ada bagi keperluan tempatan atau eksport.
Oleh itu, seperti kata Pencinta Alam, masanya sudah tiba bagi kerajaan mula menimbang kemungkinan beralih kepada teknologi nuklear sebagai sumber tenaga alternatif yang lebih murah, bersih dan berpanjangan.
Adalah tidak masuk akal sekiranya kita menanti segala sumber yang ada hampir kehabisan baru kita mula mencari sumber tenaga yang baru.
Dari aspek ini nampaknya negara sahabat seperti Indonesia, Thailand dan juga Vietnam nampak seperti lebih ke hadapan dan berpandangan jauh berbanding dengan kita.
Indonesia dan Thailand dikatakan telah mengorak langkah kearah penggunaan teknologi nuklear dengan masing-masing bercadang memulakan pembinaan logi nuklear mereka dalam masa terdekat dan akan beroperasi secara komersil sebelum tahun 2020.
Begitu juga Vietnam yang menurut laporan akan memulakan pembinaan pada tahun 2015 dan dijangka mula beroperasi sekitar 2020 juga.
Memandangkan senario ini, negara kita sudah pasti akan jauh ketinggalan dari segi penggunaan tenaga yang lebih murah dan bersih sekiranya kita tidak mula merancang dari sekarang.
Difahamkan sesebuah loji nuklear hanya boleh diwujudkan sekitar 10 hingga 15 tahun selepas perancangan mula dibuat kerana memerlukan kajian yang amat teliti dan menyeluruh.
Saya yakin negara kita mempunyai cukup tenaga pakar yang berpengalaman dan berwibawa untuk melaksanakan tugas tersebut.
Umpamanya Agensi Nuklear Malaysia bukanlah satu badan baru, bahkan telah diwujudkan sejak tahun 1972 lagi dengan nama Centre for Application of Nuclear Malaysia atau CRANE, dan kemudian dikenali pula sebagai Tun Ismail Atomic Research Centre (PUSPATI).
Pada hemat saya kewujudan badan ini tidak mencapai hasrat yang diinginkan kerana kerajaan tidak begitu serius ingin memperkenalkan teknologi nuklear, mungkin kerana bantahan segolongan rakyat.
Saya rasa ada baiknya kita memikirkan semula alternatif ini sebelum masalah seperti kenaikan harga minyak dan lain-lain berlaku lagi yang sudah pasti menjejaskan ekonomi rakyat yang memang sudah tersepit sekarang akibat krisis ekonomi global.
SOKONG PEMBAHARUANShah Alam, Selangor

Going nuclear could be an option

Seems to me there is a growing support for nuclear energy. This appeared in the New Sunday Times today (April 19, 2009)

Going nuclear could be an option

By: Ashraf Abdullah

ASK anyone what makes him or her most proud about being Malaysian, and the answers that come readily to mind include the Meranti trees, the unique animals, the extraordinary vistas of our mountains, forests and beaches.

Yet, on the other hand, for most of our history, we have taken our rich biodiversity for granted -- as if it was so extensive and so vast that no action of ours could damage it. But we now know that many of our rivers have become polluted, and our unique species of flora and fauna are threatened by deforestation.

Every day, the impact of our actions is painfully visible. We know that climate change is causing the ice on the North Pole to melt, even in winter. Due to the rise in sea levels, the island states around the world are sinking, slowly but surely.

I make no apology for saying this, but the truth is the world is now facing the most human-inflicted damage since time immemorial. It took us so long to notice this. It is rather frightening that many scientists are now calling the current era as the Earth's 11th hour.

But all may not be lost. More and more countries and their leaders have now begun to embrace new policies to protect the earth from climate change caused by greenhouse gases. Green technology has suddenly taken pole position in the governments' decision making process.

In Malaysia, a new ministry has been set up to develop green technology. As they do this, the argument on whether nuclear power should replace coal and gas for power production, has surfaced once again.

Supporters of nuclear energy are of the view that it is the perfect alternative for coal and gas because it is much cheaper, more efficient and environment-friendly. On a global scale, nuclear power currently reduces carbon dioxide emissions by some 2.5 billion tonnes per year (relative to the main alternative of coal-fired generation, about two billion tonnes relative to the present fuel mix).

Carbon dioxide accounts for half of the human-contributed portion of the global warming effect of the atmosphere.

Nuclear power has a key role to play in reducing greenhouse gases. Every 22 tonnes of uranium used saves one million tonnes of carbon dioxide relative to coal.

Coal and gas are also depleting faster than one would have imagined five decades ago. The detractors, on the other hand, mostly overcome by paranoia following the unfortunate accidents in Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island, United States, in 1979, argue that nuclear reactors are dangerous and not cost-effective.

This is not so. I think they have turned the other way on the positive attributes of nuclear energy and have been overwhelmed by a false perception of danger. In private, some members of the green movement will acknowledge this, but they know also that their supporters are so adamant that nuclear energy can bring the greatest of hazards that a change of mind would be almost impossible.

The fact is an energy shortage in the next decade is inevitable. "Brownouts", or lowering the operating voltage to prevent a blackout, are already common in some countries, including the United States. In Malaysia, 60 per cent of its power is currently generated with the use of gas, while coal is used to produce another 30 per cent.

Hydroelectric dams throughout the country produce about seven per cent of the country's electricity.The ever increasing thirst for gas and oil will soon see the depletion of these natural resources as well as coal. What happens then? Malaysia's best choice will be nuclear power.

Currently, nuclear power provides over 15 per cent of the world's electricity, almost 24 per cent of electricity in OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, and 34 per cent in the European Union. Its use is increasing.

Uranium is also cheaper and the amount used to produce electricity is very small compared to coal and gas. To produce 1,000MW of electricity for a year, two million tonnes of coal are needed compared with only 30 tonnes of uranium. The risk factor which most so-called pressure groups use as their main argument to stall nuclear energy programmes, is minimal.

The fact is, there have been only two major nuclear accidents known to man. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents are the only two incidents in more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. Nuclear power plants today are safer.

In Chernobyl, there were 46 casualties, and most of them were firemen. The incident was the result of a radiation leak.However, the incident is not likely to recur as the technology used in Chernobyl has been or is being phased out by Ukraine. This is one of the conditions imposed by the European Union for countries seeking EU membership.

In the Asean region, Thailand and Indonesia have plans to build their own plants. When their nuclear reactors are operational, Malaysia would be exposed to the same risk as if it had its own nuclear reactor.

There is risk in everything we do. We are living in an era where the world has shrunk by jet travel and telephonic communication. Plane crashes can kill hundreds of passengers each time, but do we stop flying and opt for sea travel instead? We can, but it will only be less efficient and greatly hamper productivity.

Then again is sea travel any safer? The Titanic, which according to its manufacturer was "unsinkable", sunk after hitting an iceberg.

Nuclear energy in Malaysia inevitable

This letter appeared in http://www.malaysiakini.com/. I have reproduced the entire letter below. You can also read it here.

Nuclear energy in Malaysia inevitable

Syed Munir Syed Qadri

I refer to the Malaysiakini report M'sia does not need nuclear energy which quoted the president of the Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility (PPSC) Dr Ronald McCoy as saying that Malaysia does not need nuclear energy for power generation.He argued that nuclear is dangerous and is not cost-effective. I beg to differ. While I respect his views, I think Dr McCoy chose not to look at the positive attributes of nuclear energy. I am sure a man of his bountiful resources is well aware that many countries have been using nuclear energy for power generation for a long time.They have done this with maximum risk management. Nuclear energy is inevitable especially for a country like Malaysia which is rapidly industrialising. Its population growth continues to be on an upward trend. The demand for electricity in Malaysia is increasing by the day. Currently 60 percent of Malaysia's power is generated with the use of gas, while coal is used to produce another 30 percent. Hydroelectric dams throughout the country produce about 7 percent of the country's electricity.Coal and gas are depleting resources. Continuous exploration will eventually lead to their total depletion. While it can be argued that uranium is also a depleting resource, the amount used for power generation is extremely small. To produce 1,000 MW of electricity for one year, 20 million tonnes of coal are needed compared with only 30 tonnes of uranium. Accordingly, the waste produced by nuclear power is comparatively very much smaller.Furthermore, coal-producing countries are increasingly becoming conscious of their own energy security and may impose a ceiling on the exports of coal. In addition, as Malaysia is totally dependent on these countries to import the coal, they could have the tendency to hold us to a ransom. Quid pro quo demands would be made.McCoy also argued that most nuclear reactors were heavily subsidised and no one knew the real cost of constructing nuclear reactors. There is no documented proof to this claim. Uranium is bought on the market at sellers' price.I also disagree with McCoy that nuclear reactors can only last for two decades, thus the cost of constructing nuclear reactors is extremely high. I think the fact and figures that McCoy has been relying on are outdated and do not take into consideration recent breakthroughs in the development of nuclear energy. The truth is that nuclear technology enables existing plants to operate for more than 30 years. For example, in the US there are over 100 plants, with the last ones ordered in 1979 and completed in 1980s. New technology is said to allow nuclear reactors to operate longer for as long as 60 years.McCoy also raised the issue about safety, arguing that nuclear energy can be potentially disastrous as ‘Malaysia is a small and narrow country'. He added that a nuclear accident puts not only the entire country but also the Asean region at risk.South Korea, Japan and France are today benefitting from nuclear energy. China and the US have an abundance of coal but are deriving benefits from nuclear power.Asean countries are already planning to use nuclear energy for power generation. Our neighbours Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are planning to build two nuclear plants each. Are we going to tell them not to? For these countries, nuclear is necessary for continuous survival.If Thailand and Indonesia build their own plants, the risk associated with it would be the same as Malaysia having its own plants.But the risk from nuclear is minimal. People throughout the world have been overcome by paranoia following the unfortunate accidents in Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island, US in 1979. But the fact is, there have been only two major nuclear power plant accidents.In Chernobyl, there were 46 casualties, and most of them were firemen. The deaths were associated with a radiation leak. However, the incident is not likely to recur as the plants like those used in Chernobyl have been or are being phased out. This is one of the conditions imposed by the European Union for Eastern European countries seeking EU membership.Malaysia has an extremely good track record in managing high-risk industries. It uses the highest standards in managing industries like the chemical industry, power production, oil and gas as well as aviation. Accidents have been kept to a bare minimum.I am sure Malaysians, if properly trained and incentivised, are capable of operating nuclear power plants safely and efficiently.As I sign off, I urge Dr McCoy and the likes to adopt an open view of technology and embrace them as they come. This includes nuclear technology. Like the wise man said ‘the only thing constant is change'. In order to face challenges of the 21st century, we have to accept and adapt to changes. It is said that mankind faces global warming and climate change challenges and nuclear is seen as a possible saviour. This would be another story.

Masa untuk beralih kepada teknologi nuklear

I found this interesting piece in the "Forum" page of Utusan Malaysia today (April 13, 2009):

MASANYA sudah tiba bagi negara kita menimbang dengan serius kemungkinan beralih kepada teknologi nuklear sebagai sumber tenaga alternatif yang lebih murah, bersih dan berpanjangan.
Bahkan, kita tidak mempunyai banyak pilihan memandangkan sumber asli seperti minyak dan gas semakin berkurangan.

Pergantungan kepada arang batu untuk penjanaan elektrik pula lama kelamaan akan membawa padah akibat bekalan arang batu jangka panjang yang tidak menentu serta harga yang akan terus melambung.

Selain itu, usaha ke arah memperkenalkan tenaga daripada solar dan angin tidak berkesan kerana mempunyai keupayaan yang terhad.

Kita mungkin masih mempunyai lebihan tenaga elektrik buat masa ini, tapi keadaan tersebut tidak akan berpanjangan akibat keperluan yang semakin meningkat selaras dengan kepesatan pembangunan negara serta pertumbuhan penduduk.

Oleh itu seharusnya kerajaan menimbang memperkenalkan tenaga nuklear secepat mungkin memandangkan itulah jalan yang paling baik untuk masa depan negara lebih-lebih lagi kini lebih banyak negara yang bercadang beralih kepada tenaga nuklear untuk menjana tenaga elektrik.

Jika jiran-jiran terdekat seperti Indonesia, Thailand dan Vietnam sanggup berubah mengikut keadaan dan keperluan semasa, adalah amat memalukan jika kita tidak sanggup atau pun tidak bersedia berbuat demikian.

Kemalangan di Three Mile Island, Amerika Syarikat dan Chernobyl, Ukraine yang melibatkan reaktor nuklear masing-masing berlaku lebih 30 dan 20 tahun dahulu dan selepas itu langkah-langkah keselamatan yang lebih baik telah diambil.

Selain itu, kecanggihan teknologi juga membuatkan penjanaan tenaga nuklear menjadi lebih efisien dan selamat.Kejadian di Three Mile Island pada tahun 1979 tidak mengakibatkan sebarang kehilangan nyawa atau kecederaan atau kecacatan kepada para pekerja mahu pun penduduk berdekatan, sementara kemalangan di Chernobyl, Ukraine yang ketika itu sebahagian daripada Kesatuan Soviet, mengakibat 47 kematian melibatkan ahli bomba dan operator janakuasa (32 maut serta-merta) akibat terdedah kepada radiasi.

Namun saya percaya, dunia telah belajar daripada kesilapan lalu dan bersedia mengorak langkah untuk bersama-sama memastikan semua negara dapat menjana tenaga nuklear yang lebih murah, bersih dan selamat.

Memang sesuatu yang baru tidak mudah terus diterima rakyat lebih-lebih lagi tenaga atom yang sering kali dikaitkan dengan kemudaratan dan perkara yang negatif.
Namun kerajaan tidak harus tunduk begitu sahaja bahkan harus memastikan ia dapat dilaksanakan jika itu adalah yang terbaik untuk rakyat dan masa depan negara bagi jangka masa panjang.

PENCINTA ALAM
Kuala Lumpur

Nuclear energy - the way forward

By A.M.O, Kuala Lumpur.

This letter appeared in the New Straits Times on April 4, 2009. What do you think? You can read the full letter below or here.

AS recently as two years ago, we were looking at the possibility of going nuclear for our power generation, probably in view of the soaring prices of oil in the world market.

When the oil price goes up, gas and coal prices rise in tandem and vice versa.Ordinary Malaysians were also forced to fork out a lot more to fill their tanks, while at the same time, looking at the prospect of higher electricity tariffs and rising prices of goods. Suddenly, there was an unexpected slump in oil prices and, correspondingly, prices of gas and coal.

Today, talk about having to go nuclear has died down and things appear normal again. But let's not forget, fossil fuel is a depleting resource and things could change for the worse. I am deeply concerned the government seems to be easily losing its focus when, in fact, it should be giving serious consideration to exploring nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy which is cleaner, competitive, climate-friendly and sustainable for base-load electricity generation.

Although the plan, if pursued, would materialise in 15 or 20 years' time, it would need proper planning and early preparation right from now. Most importantly, the government must have the political will to make it happen.Since nuclear energy is little known to the masses, and often associated with negativity, public opposition is certainly something which cannot be avoided.

What needs to be done is to provide accurate and up-to-date information to educate the people on the matter, as they would oppose it because they are uninformed or misinformed about nuclear energy.We may have a surplus of electricity at the moment. But let's not forget that our population is growing and despite the economic downturn, the property sector has not shown any sign of slowing down.

We may have sufficient oil, gas and coal at the moment, but these are depleting resources and getting much more costly to extract. Depending on fossil fuel for our electricity supply could prove to be expensive and environmentally damaging in the long run. Putting up the infrastructure for renewable energy such as solar and wind power appears impossible at the moment.

Recently, it was reported that Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil company, will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind and solar energy because it is not economically viable.Hydropower is another source of electricity generation but building dams means inundating vast forest areas.

Transmitting power from the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam, which should be the largest in Southeast Asia and will produce 2,400 megawatts of electricity when completed, is still bogged down by uncertainties.The reason could be that the cost of laying the undersea cable to supply electricity to Peninsular Malaysia from Sarawak has soared beyond imagination.

It is also understood that Tenaga Nasional Bhd is finding it much more difficult to secure coal supplies from Indonesia. Detractors of nuclear energy would certainly refer to the Chernobyl disaster at every opportunity, but the incident in Ukraine more than 20 years ago was a result of flawed reactor design; moreover the plant was operated by inadequately trained personnel without proper regard for safety.

Today, the Russians have learned their lessons. An authoritative United Nations report in 2000 concluded that there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to most people exposed.

This was confirmed in a very thorough 2005 to 2006 study. I think it is time to seriously look into the prospect of putting in place infrastructure to gear the country towards introducing nuclear power as the energy of the future, especially as other nations, including our neighbours Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, are examining nuclear power as a viable option in the long run.