Think nuclear and the Chernobyl disaster comes to mind. Since the world's first nuclear plant went into operation in 1951 in Idaho, nuclear power has been a divisive and explosive issue. Few can choose not to take sides. Which side are you and how well informed are your views?

Written by Jules Ong on 23 Jun 2010 with 2 comments. Contribute!

This month's Talking Points tackles the issue of nuclear power following the recent announcement by the Malaysian government to set up a nuclear reactor. It is the first country in South East Asia to do so, a sensitve matter in the Asean grouping which has always espoused a nuclear-free zone.

Malaysian Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Peter Chin said the plant would start operating from 2021 with plans to use it as an alternative energy source by 2025.

A middle-income country rich in natural resources, Malaysia derives electricity from a combination of fossil fuels and hydropower. The question is, does Malaysia need nuclear energy?

And does the world need another nuclear plant?

Pro-nuclear arguments

Nuclear is a clear energy alternative to fossil fuel

Nuclear energy is vital following the increase in the world fuel price and our limited oil reserve. It is the source of 17% of the world electricity need and is witnessing a resurgence as country after country decides to go nuclear. This resurgence is driven not just by the continuing development in many parts of the world, but dwindling resource of fossil fuels, limitations of hydro electric resources, environmental concerns (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, green house gases from burning of fossil fuel) and the under capacity of alternatives (solar, wind and biofuel) to supply the bulk of industrial need.

Nuclear is safe!

The nuclear industry has an excellent safety record, with some 12,000 reactor operating for years spanning five decades with minimal risk of accidents. Since Chernobyl, nuclear facility management and technology has progressed by leaps and bounds. The Chernobyl disaster was basically irrelevant to any western reactor, or any that might be built today.

Nuclear helps to offset carbon emissions

Currently nuclear energy saves the emission of 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 relative to coal. For every 22 tonnes of uranium used, one million tonnes of CO2 emissions is averted. Doubling the world's nuclear output would reduce CO2 emissions from power generation by about one quarter.

Nuclear is a technology driver for many developing countries

Nuclear technology has been the driver of high technology growth in the economy (Korea, Japan, China). This cascade effect will also unleash high technology industrial development for Malaysia. The Malaysian Nuclear Agency has been operating for more than three decades and accumulated a wealth of technical capabilities and experience. Going nuclear will help Malaysia achieve high income nation status.

Anti-nuclear arguments

Nuclear energy poses too high a risk to be considered as a safe alternative

Accident risks

In the worst nuclear accident ever, the World Health Organization (WHO) found that the radiation release from the disaster was 200 times that of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs combined. 30 lives were directly lost during the accident, but thousands of cancer deaths were reported as a result of the radiation released.

Proliferation Risks

Plutonium is a man-made waste product of nuclear fission, which can be used either for fuel in nuclear power plants or for bombs. In the year 2000, an estimated 310 tons (620,000 pounds) of civilian, weapons-usable plutonium had been produced. Less than 8 kilograms (about 18 pounds) of plutonium is enough for one Nagasaki-type bomb. Thus, in the year 2000 alone, enough plutonium was created to make more than 34,000 nuclear weapons.

Nuclear wastes contamination

The mining of uranium, as well as its refining and enrichment, and the production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, and equipment, thus posing a health hazard to humans and animals.

A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays which takes millions of years.

By pursuing the nuclear path, nations would slacken in developing sustainable energy production that does not pose the accident risks inherent in nuclear energy production. These sources include bioenergy, geothermal, wind, solar, hydrogen and tidal.

THORIUM - a safer alternative nuclear fuel?

Since most of the arguments against nuclear are based on the risks of accidents and environmental contamination, thorium is a tantalizing possibility as an alternative fuel for nuclear power generation.

Thorium is naturally occurring and a slightly radioactive metal. It is believed to be three to four times much more abundant than uranium with a much slower half-life - three times the life of the earth. Compared to uranium, nuclear plants using thorium produce less hazardous waste.

Thorium reactors can be designed so that they do not produce weapons grade fissile material, thus eliminating the fear of converting energy generation nuclear plants into weapons of mass destruction.

However, wastes from thorium nuclear reactors is not entirely safe and there is cause of concern over the health impacts from long-term exposure, as in the case of Asian Rare Earth storage of radioactive wastes in Bukit Merah, Malaysia.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Contribute here!

vin

Guest

Monday, 28 June 2010 at 2:26 PM:

according to an author reported on Datuk Chin's comment, our government will approve on anything that is bad for our country.......
is solar safer, better, cheaper in a long run?

reza

Wild Asia Staff 05-Jun-2004 Posts: 21

Thursday, 01 July 2010 at 12:36 PM:

Not sure if solar can cope with our demand ... as for safer? Not sure....I guess we need to see how solar panels are manufactured or disposed off at the end of its life cycle. I do think the answer lies looking at our energy users and with tariffs that will promote efficient use of energy by consumers big and small (especially big). If this was in place (hard at first) am sure industries will respond ... just look at what happened when energy prices shot up (suddenly everyone was looking for alternative fuel or energy saving devices).