Do First, Worry Later

As I was enjoying my “nasi lemak kukus” for “buka puasa” one day, I noticed an article in the newspaper wrapper with the head line “Govt gives go ahead for nuclear power plant by 2021”. Reading intently on the articles ended up with my mother’s lecture for not helping her with the cleaning up the dishes, but I say it’s rather worth it.

The article starts with: Malaysia announced on Tuesday (4^th May 2010) aiming to build its first nuclear power plant by 2021, saying it is the only solution to the country's growing energy needs. It got me thinking. Wait a minute, the only solution? What happened to solar or hydro power or even bio-mass? Don’t these alternatives deserve to be considered as well before venturing into something controversial like nuclear power?

Not wanting to be prejudice to the government’s “good” intention I continued reading. Apparently the minister responsible (Minister for Energy, Green technology and Water), dear Mr. Peter Chin, announced that by 2021 we will have our first nuclear plant. He said the nuclear option will be the solution to Malaysia's energy needs, and indicated the government was not keen to debate with critics, saying the priority was to reassure those living in the vicinity of the eventual site. "No point engaging (with all stakeholders). Only when the site is identified we will engage those affected. There must be a sincere debate on energy security," he said. No point engaging to all stakeholders? Only those affected? I thought when it comes to nuclear power, everyone will be affected. Remember Chernobyl? The whole country is affected even hundreds of miles away from the disaster.

The country's first 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant, under the state’s energy firm Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) will be constructed at a cost of 3.1 billion dollars. Currently, half of Malaysia's power plants run on gas, and the rest on coal and hydropower. Chin described Malaysia's existing energy mix as "unhealthy".

"Energy demand keeps increasing. Going into the future is to go nuclear. That is the only viable option," he said. Three times the words “the only and viable option/solution” came out from this short news article.

I am not against new technologies that can help us to improve our way of life and furthermore at the same time can reduce the burden to the environment. My concern is more on the irresolvable uncertainties surrounding nuclear power’s safety and its impacts to the environment. Is the nuclear power plant is much more ‘greener’ than other non-nuclear energy generating technologies? This article had prompted me doing a little more digging about nuclear power. There are some facts I found from an article titled: The Radioactive Gravy Train: The Trouble with Nuclear Power in Malaysia, by Yin Shao Loong supports my concerns.

Economy

Based on 2007 figures, it is true that Malaysia is overly reliant on coal and gas. The Malaysia’s five-fuel policy (oil, gas, coal, hydro-power and renewable energy e.g.: biomass and solar power) was supposed to be about diversification, but the fifth fuel, renewable energies, have suffered from neglect. Although uranium still wins out by a weight-energy factor of around 375 times that of coal, but fuel is not the only cost involved in generating nuclear power. Based on a survey by the UN in 2000, operation and maintenance costs for nuclear plants in the US were around three times those incurred for fossil-fuel plants. 70% of the cost bulk goes to construction and decommissioning of the plant only. Raw uranium accounts for about 2% of generation costs. Even so, since more and more countries are setting up nuclear power plant, like other limited resources, uranium would also be an import and it too is subject to market fluctuations just like coal.

There is no operational nuclear power plant in the ASEAN region today yet. However, all of the 10 member nations except Brunei and Laos, have active plans for adding nuclear power into the electricity-generating mix. In terms of scale, Vietnam has the most aggressive nuclear power ambitions, eight plants by 2030! Indonesia plans to have four nuclear plants by 2025. Thailand has plans to develop two nuclear plants to generate by 2022. Singapore, which generates the majority of its power from increasingly scarce gas, has a feasibility plan for nuclear power under way. And it just came out from my over analyzed mind about the commencement of the Malaysia first nuclear power plant in 2021, a year after became a fully developed country (Wawasan 2020). What a stylish way to show to our neighbors that we have become a fully developed nation.

Nuclear Waste

A 1,000 MW light-water reactor plant like the Malaysia is going to build will produce 371 to 573 tonnes of waste per year. During its operational life, a nuclear plant will produce hazardous waste that needs to be stored securely from any contact with humans or the general surface environment for thousands of years. Thousands of years, why? Well, due to the high radioactivity level, the nuclear industry regards it as favorable to store waste fuel for at least 40 years before further processing, in order to let radioactivity drop by a thousand-fold. Deep underground storage has been proposed in order to deal with spent fuel and vitrified waste, but presently no country has agreed detailed plans for their type and location. The nature of the spent-fuel waste which contains plutonium which is weaponisable also means that the waste facilities need serious security measures in place to guard against nuclear weapons proliferation. No wonder the US government went berserk when Iran announced their nuclear power plan.

At the end of its useful lifetime, the same containment measures are required for a nuclear plant when it is decommissioned. This means that the decision to build a nuclear plant, which can at most provide 50 years of electricity, will make areas of a country hazardous zone from around 200 to several thousand years! While fossil fuel-based plants generate great amounts of toxic pollution, they do not have the same ‘scorched earth’ effect as nuclear does. In the UK, the nuclear industry has preferred to seal disused reactors and leave them for 135 years before decommissioning. This effectively means pushing the problem and cost of to future generations. Doesn’t seems like a sustainable technology to me at this point.

Huge Water Demand

A nuclear reactor requires vast amounts of water for cooling, which is why they are typically sited near bodies of water such as lakes, rivers or the sea. This water is used to cool the steam leaving the turbines in the massive hourglass-shaped condenser towers that are a signature feature of power plants. A 1,000 MW plant, like Malaysia’s, consumes 476,500 gallons of water per minute. The hot condenser water is typically discharged back into the original water source, meaning the lake, river or the sea itself. This can have a negative impact on aquatic life such as coral and other marine animals, and this is in addition to the hazards posed to life-forms when the large quantities of water are sucked into the cooling system. Physical blockages of this system have caused nuclear power plants to shut down, and they can take five days to start. The water leaving a nuclear plant often contains significant radioactivity level. Well-designed nuclear plants usually have a treatment system, but radioactive water is typically discharged into the environment once it falls beneath legal limits. I guess that sooner or later, we will be start seeing three eyed fish in our restaurant menu or perhaps a "Godzilla" terrorizing our poor fishermen.

Radioactivity and Human Health

Last but not least, the health impact of radiation to humans. In 2008, the German government completed a study indicating that a 1.6-fold increase in solid cancers and a 2.2-fold increase in Leukemia among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear power stations. The results have been accepted by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection. The US National Academy of Sciences has concluded that there is no safe level of radiation. Even at low exposures, negative health impacts such as cancers can result. Leukemia, blood disorders, spontaneous abortions, stillbirth, and increased chances of heart diseases, diabetes mellitus, arthritis, asthma, and allergies are some of the common ailments associated with radiation poisoning. Since the location of the Malaysia’s new nuclear power plant is confidential, I bet some of you already beginning to consider of moving to different countries.

It is true that nuclear power does not have anywhere near the greenhouse gas emissions of coal and gas. However, nuclear power does involve the release of greenhouse gases in the mining and transport of fuel (uranium), so it is incorrect to claim that no greenhouse gases are released in its life-cycle. More to the point, nuclear power produces considerable and long-lasting quantities of other pollutants. It is not ‘clean’ and it is not safe to humans or the environment since even small doses of radiation can be harmful. I think the government or perhaps the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water, should really try its five-fuel energy diversification policy first before going for nuclear power. If Germany with limited sunshine can be a global solar market, why not Malaysia with all-year sunshine? Why Malaysia must just have only viable option to go for nuclear for our future energy needs? Renewable energy is abundant, unlimited and easy to harvest. Further more, it is free. No cost for mining or refinement, the only cost involved is construction, operation and maintenance. What’s not good about that? But I guess, being the typical government, as Mr. Yin puts it, “Jump in head first, worry about brain damage later”. Being typical me to simplify things, i prefer "do first, worry later". Cheers