The Enigm@ Chronicles

web services, new media, web2.0, malaysian politics & etc…

Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

Will Malaysia Go The Way Of Nuclear?

25 July, 2008 (23:01) | point out

The question of energy has taken a forefront in local news this week, in light of the various announcements and also due to exposing of hidden secrets that would see the state of Serawak building up to 12 more dam’s in the coming future.

Bad as that may sound , I for one am equally if not more concerned with the statement made by the Energy, Water and Communications Minister Datuk Shaziman Abd Aziz Shaziman Abu Mansor following on the heels of the announcement from the Malaysia Nuclear Agency.

To sum it all up here’s what was said:

Dr Muhd Noor, Deputy Director of Malaysian Nuclear Energy:

With prices of fuel escalating drastically, there have been calls for Malaysia to consider nuclear energy as it is cheaper in the long run.

Typically, it takes 15 to 20 years for a nuclear power plant to be completed.

We cannot rush into nuclear energy as there are a lot of construction management issues. There is a lot of effort and know-how that need to be translated into a real plant.

The longer Malaysia waited, the costlier it would become to implement it. Currently, the estimated construction cost of a 1,000MW nuclear power plant could vary from US$1.5bil to US$3bil (RM4.8bil-RM9.6bil).

He, however, admitted that setting up a nuclear power plant had its challenges such as high capital expenditure, long project implementation and liability and a long payback period

Datuk Shaziman Abd Aziz:

The country shouldn’t reject the possibility of using nuclear energy in the future.

The implementation of nuclear fuel facilities takes time by at least 12 to 15 years. Acts and regulations have to be tabled.

My Corncens

Being a simple layman myself, here’s what I find perplexing.

  1. Malaysia energy provider TNB already is purchasing a 40% surplus of energy from the Independant Power Providers (IPP) and have agreements in place for continued purchase for a period up to 30 years.
  2. The state of Serawak is on the path of plundering the vast natural reserves of it’s forest in a deluded attempt to build up to 12 hydroelectric dams.
  3. Nuclear energy is a long term investment that on the face value only, could cost the country anywhere from RM 4.8 billion up to RM 9.6 billion. I cannot stress the importance of the term face value - as we are well aware that initial estimates such as this always end up being bloated to double or triple of the original cost.
  4. Malaysia being Malaysia, we should be marginally aware of the classical case of our 3rd world mentality that always see major screw ups on most projects undertaken. When it comes to nuclear energy, any type of screw up is definitely going to be costly!
  5. Most importantly, I must ask the powers that be what about using ‘green’ power i.e. sun and wind power as potential renewable energy sources. Being situated on the equator Malaysia is prime position to embark on solar energy initiate and in addition to that we have long coastlines that make wind turbine energy generation is distinct possibility.

As the famous saying goes, a picture can speak a thousand words, so I leave you with the following images.

Will this …

Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Power Plant in Malaysia?

 

equate to this ….

can anyone say chernoblye

Can anyone say Chernobyl?

or will the government of the day wise up and go for …

Solar(photovoltaic) panels provide clean and free energy

Solar(photovoltaic) panels provide clean and free energy

and also for …

Wind turbines for Malaysian coastlines

Wind turbines for Malaysian coastlines

For your reading:

  1. 20 years for a nuke plant - The Star
  2. Don’t reject possibility of using nuclear energy: Shaziman - The Star

Tags: , , , ,

Related Posts:


« Serawak is Planning to Plunder Natural Forest to Build Dams
HWM & GameAxis Promo at PC Fair 2008 »

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    In my opinion, solar cells are very costly and not worth the long term investment with our current economic power.

    Our country is not so suitable for wind power. We need different weather condition, such as in Denmark. Wind energy cannot cover most of the electric demand in our country. I think it is easy to talk about green energy, than really implementing it.
    • ^
    • v
    I think your Chernobyl analogy is not accurate.
    nuclear energy is cleaner than you think.
    the waste of nuclear fussion has about 10 to 20 years only but nuclear fission has longer half life, which is a bit more "dangerous", but the waste quantity is far lower than coal fuel, which cost more harm to the world through global warming.
    This diagram will illustrate the comparison of waste amount. Nuclear energy wins hand down.

    http://www.fzk.de/fzk/idcplg?IdcService=FZK&...

    ion terms of safetiness, nuclear fission plants are now in 3rd generation phase, which is highly safety and anti-melt down. 4th generation plant is in development phase and will be even more safety.

    you comparison of Chernobyl with nuclear bomb is highly misleading. Do you know that when the plant of Chernobyl "exploded", the firemen who rushed into the plant to put things in order were not aware that there was a nuclear fallout as if nothing big happened? They died about 3 weeks later.

    It is understandable for most people to have a distorted view on green energy and nuclear energy since green energy is over tauted and nuclear energy over demonized.

    Just pointing out some misleading stuffs, not to hit the author.
    This post is inaccurate. sorry.
    • ^
    • v
    My thanks to Relax for the insightful comments.

    Firstly let me say that your points are very much valid. I did do some research on nuclear fission energy when writing this post, and I think you will agree with me when I say that proponents on both side of the arguments have made various astute and valid points for their respective cases.

    In fact I'd go as far as saying that yes nuclear energy is probably a good choice - in absence of 1 criteria. And that criteria is this country Malaysia itself. We cannot deny that we are the embodiment of the saying 'First world infrastructure, Third world mentality!'

    Time and time again we have made a muck of various initiatives undertaken. Just take the Bakun Hydroelectric dam as an example. Bloated costs, plagued with various problems, construction defects, massive environmental damages ... and the list goes on. My point here is if building a dam is such much out of our league, what more about building a nuclear energy facility?

    Admittedly my reference to the Chernobyl incident was in hind-sight a tad jumping the gun so to say. Yet I believe if we do venture into nuclear energy generation, what guarantee is there that a Chernobyl like event isn't remotely possible. Someone has to say out the possibility least we all remain ignorant.

    And as most people would point out that the proper experts and professionals can be brought in for the required jobs of building the nuclear facilities, then I say yes that is true, but how much will that cost us. Already out economy has been and is still currently being literary screwed by the government of the day. Money is thrown into 'Mega' projects that at best are questionable in their returns and benefits to the country and its people.

    Nuclear energy is a project that will taken years if not decades. How much money will be wasted in this initiative? Can our country and it's fragile economy bear the brunt of such an investment?

    Hence I return to my argument for the use of green energy. It's available, it's clean and it works right now - not 20 years time! In fact technological advancements are making green energy more cost effective and a more and more plausible option.

    As for the possibility of green energy being a valid option for Malaysia, I'm the first to admit that I am no expert on the matter - yet we do have an abundance of natural sunlight for solar energy and we are a country with vast tracts of coastlines that are possible locations for wind turbines. To state out of hand that green tech is not suitable for Malaysia is akin to judging a book by it's cover. In the end I do believe that green power is a better alternative to nuclear power.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you for your reply.

    A complete installation of solar energy system for one house alone, cost about 10000 USD. Can Malaysians afford that kind of money? The cost of getting elec. from the grid is far more efficient. You can try to live off the grid, and see if you can afford it as an average joe. Regarding green energy and living off the grid, I recommend you to watch "Off the grid with Les stroud", somewhere on youtube.

    http://wisecurve.com

    Anyways, energy problem is complicated and there is no perfect solution. The government is just doing what it has to do, and some costs are, unavoidable, which is normal in this issue. We cannot have 100% problemless solution, so bashing nuclear energy or other not so politically correct policies, is over simplistic.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi, found your blog while searching for info on nuclear energy in Malaysia. I'm for one agrees with the recent government move to consider nuclear as one of the fuel option in the future. I would like to share some of my opinion to your concerns.

    1. 40% surplus supply i,e. reserve margin in TNB system.
    - currently yes, there is excess supply, but u must remember that our demand for electricity do grow every year. Couple with retirement of old generation sets, our excess electricty will we used up in due time. To be able to met the future demand, new power plant needed to be built. Now the question is what type of power plant we should built.?

    Inital investment on Nuclear Power Plant is indeed high but the operation costs is relatively low. Countries that have large nuclear power in their system such as France has managed to keep their electricity tariff relatively stable and affordable as they donot depend on fossil fuel to generate electricity.

    While it is good to go for green energy, the technology available would not allow us to utilize it in a big way such as a coal power plant or nuclear power plant did.

    But, I do agree with you on our mentality, maybe when we go nuclear we can instill the nuclear discipline mentallity in our people

    God bless

    Thank you
    • ^
    • v
    All very well thought out arguments indeed. However I cannot ignore the various concerns that nuclear power will bring to the table - nuclear waste disposal, the potential environmental impact, contribution to heating up our oceans & the general high risk of such an endeavour.

    As I understand it the time frame for building and setting up a nuclear plant in the 20-30 year time frame. I just shudder to imagine the immense cost and expenditure that our economy will have to shoulder before we can even enjoy any of the benefits that are decades away.

    In the end, my point on the whole matter is that green energy is ready, available and perpetual! Malaysia should take the initiative to make strides in this new field and maybe even become a pioneering example of clean energy implementation. The advances made in solar panel technology alone has been in the leaps and bounds in the last 5 years. Whose to say that in the next 5 years solar energy will be cost effective enough to allow for mass implementation.

    The possibility are endless in green tech. And just imagine the amount of jobs and businesses that can be generated by this industry alone. Green tech can be better for our country and economy in the long run.
    • ^
    • v
    Jasraj,

    The name of the KTAK minister is Dato Shaziman Abu Mansor not Shaziman Abdul Aziz. Nanti marah dia o u salah tulis dia punya nama .....
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus