THE government announced recently that nuclear is still being considered as part of our energy mix.
Based on Awer’s National Energy Security Study (NESS), when we asked respondents if they will support the move by the government to build a nuclear power plant close to their residential area, it is found that 90.52% of Malaysians object such move. The objection from Peninsular Malaysia is 92.03%, Sabah is 84.21%, Labuan is 85.2% and Sarawak is 82.57%.
Similarly, when we asked respondents if they will support the move by the government to build a conventional Power Plant (Natural Gas or Coal) close to their residential area, the objection from Peninsular Malaysia is 39.40%, Sabah is 45.39%, Labuan is 2.63% and Sarawak is 57.89%. We can see in Labuan, the exposure to heavy industrial complexes causes low rejection towards conventional power plants. However, when it comes to construction of nuclear power plant, their rejection is similar to other states.
Thus, building a nuclear power plant in Malaysia is not an easy task. We would like to list eight issues that the government have to address.
Issue 1: Prepare short term, midterm and long term energy mix study and publish it for public knowledge.
Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium are non-renewable energy resource and also will deplete one day. Therefore, nuclear may not be the actual solution. Using nuclear may assist Malaysia in short term and midterm energy mix management only. Based on NESS study, 66.61% of Malaysians opined that the government must study the nation’s energy need (resources and demand) in detail first before constructing a nuclear power plant. Lack of Energy Efficiency initiatives also reflects poor demand side management in our electricity sector. The government must also publish previous reports where a total of RM 76,627,219 was allocated for Malaysia Nuclear Energy between year 2011 and 2015.
Issue 2: Location of nuclear power plant must be disclosed from the beginning of planning.
Based on NESS study, 69.20% of Malaysians opined that the government must reveal the proposed locations for the nuclear power plant first to ensure proper and effective public discussions on issues related to nuclear power plant operation close to their neighbourhood. Public’s acceptance of usage of nuclear for energy must be done with full transparency and not “make-up” consultancies.
Issue 3: Radioactive leakages, emergency response and reporting procedures must be made clear to public.
In May 2014, boiler tube leakages in coal power plants had caused power outages in few states. This has also put our electricity generation sector’s regulatory framework to test. On the other hand, nuclear ‘experts’ always claim that nuclear is safe. If it is safe, why it leaks? Therefore, reports on leakage incidents must be made transparently and clearly to public. The Fukushima incident in 2011 has deteriorated the confidence in nuclear technology tremendously and revealed the dark side of ‘transparency’ in nuclear incidents reporting. Japanese government’s recent blatant release of this ‘safe’ nuclear wastewater from Fukushima to the ocean does not add confidence. If it is ‘safe’, why not use it for Japanese domestic use? Safe limits are developed based on incidents and accidents thus these are not absolute ‘safe’ limits.
Issue 4: Decommissioning cost of nuclear power plant is left to be managed by future generation.
There will be a sharp increase in decommissioning cost of a nuclear power plant in near future when stricter laws and regulations pertaining disposal of nuclear waste and related materials are imposed globally. Unfortunately, project proponents usually claim that usage of nuclear for energy is economical with no real proves provided. Now, who is going to bear the decommissioning cost in the future and what are the estimated cost and its projected increase rate in future?
Issue 5: Capable human capital to manage a nuclear energy facility is vital.
Many reports have also indicated that the leakages or nuclear incidents are very much linked to human errors. Based on NESS Study, 79.34% of Malaysians are not confident that Malaysia has the expert workforce to manage nuclear power plant facility. At the same time, only 2.14% of Malaysians are confident with Malaysian agencies’ ability to regulate the nuclear technology in preventing any untoward incidents. In view of this, what would be Malaysia’s plan to develop such expertise?
Issue 6: Nuclear waste (spent fuel) disposal is the cherry on top of the radioactive cake.
Nuclear waste from the power plants must be safely deposited into waste storage facility. Therefore, the cost and safety of the waste storage facility are main environmental concern. What are the projected cost and its impact to tariff? What about leakages from storage facilities due to unforeseen circumstances or negligence or even incompetency? How much risk factors will be taken into consideration?
Issue 7: Cheap electricity from nuclear energy, is it a reality?
How could Malaysia achieve low electricity tariff via nuclear energy where so many issues need to be taken care of? Furthermore, with increasing pressure on environmental protection from nuclear wastes, cost of generating electricity from nuclear is set to rise.
Issue 8: Low carbon is not the only measurement of sustainability.
The gung-ho about low carbon and Net Zero must come to an end as this is not the only parameter that defines sustainability. Fukushima incident and current wastewater release is very low carbon activity. However, many nations and Japanese citizens (41% of respondents said they did not support in a survey conducted in August by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun) protest it. Thus, the government must get the holistic side of the science to ensure we will not be part of a problem that we will be forced to solve using a new ‘Net Something’ in the future just like climate change and ‘Net Zero’.
The government’s plan to reactivate nuclear energy option as well as develop downstream industry from rare earth elements will face a stronger objection from public. Is the government ready to address issues and objections from the public?
This article is contributed by Piarapakaran S, president of Awer, a non-government organisation involved in research and development in the fields of water, energy and environment.
