A future in nuclear energy? The case of Malaysia — Roger Teoh

JUNE 22 — Should Malaysia build nuclear power plants? Is this the right choice for Malaysia to cope with its energy security and increased demands? Present this question to the general public in the country and the answer will most likely be a unanimous “no”.

The Malaysian government has recently come up with plans to enter the nuclear sector which will see the construction of the first two nuclear power plants in the country by the year 2025. This proposal seems highly likely to go ahead as relevant agencies are now in the phase of evaluating and selecting potential sites for the plants to be built on.

It is perfectly understandable for the general population around the world to fear and associate nuclear energy to catastrophic events, especially after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and more recently, the Fukushima accident in 2011.

Regardless of a series of nuclear disasters around the world, it is important to state that I am not against the use of nuclear energy systems, particularly in developed nations based on factors such as improved energy security and the ability to produce large quantities of energy with zero emissions, mitigating climate change.

Having listed some of the advantages of nuclear energy, does this provide a case for Malaysia to follow suit and get into the nuclear sector? In this article, I would like to highlight and focus on the subject of nuclear waste management, which I believe is the main factor discouraging the use of nuclear energy systems in Malaysia.

There are currently three different type of practices adopted globally in the management of nuclear waste, in this case will be spent nuclear fuel rods. These practices available include direct disposal in a geological repository, reprocessing spent nuclear rods for reuse, and finally interim storage by simply deciding not to decide. Each individual practices bring its own challenges, which its applicability to Malaysia will be analyzed in detail.

Firstly, direct disposal in a geological repository involves permanently storing spent nuclear rods at a stable rock formation deep underground. For the case of Malaysia, this implies that extensive exploration works has to be carried out to identify a suitable geological area. Although this may not sound as a difficult task to do, the main challenges of having a geological repository for high level waste lies in the social acceptability of the general public.

Long lived fission products (LLFP) in spent nuclear rods normally lasts for millions of years before it finally decays to levels that pose no danger to the biosphere and environment. This would mean that a man-made structure has to be constructed to last for millions of years for a geological repository to be rated as perfectly safe.

Although humans have been building structures since the dawn of civilization, the current oldest structure known in human history is the Great Pyramid of Giza, just merely 5000 years old. This undermines the global confidence of constructing a geological repository that would last up to millions of years. Hence, this enormous engineering challenge explains why there are currently no functional geological repository for high level nuclear wastes anywhere in the world at present day.

The US proposed geological repository in Yucca Mountain, which came close to operational was also ultimately abandoned in 2011 even after spending $15 Billion due to public pressures. Hence, what makes the Malaysian government think that they will be able to defy all odds and assure the public that a geological repository is safe should they decide to open one?

Next, reprocessing allows leftover uranium and plutonium that are not activated in spent nuclear fuel rods to be extracted and reused. In addition to that, reprocessing will also be able to separate out toxic radioactive elements, allowing it to be concentrated in smaller volumes and incorporated into forms that are physically and chemically robust.

The United Kingdom adopts this approach in processing their nuclear waste, with large reprocessing facilities located in Sellafield, Cumbria. This would no doubt sound like an interesting and most preferable option for the Malaysian government to follow suit in potentially managing their nuclear waste. However, these plants are very expensive which would be impractical for Malaysia, a potential new entrant to the nuclear industry to invest billions of pounds in the necessary infrastructure to support its activities.

Not only that, the sharp separation of Plutonium also increases the proliferation and terror risk by reprocessing nuclear wastes. Malaysia does not have a good record in keeping and protecting sensitive inventories. For example, even jet engines in the Royal Malaysian Air Force Base can be easily stolen and smuggled out of the country. Based on this reasoning alone, the idea of reprocessing nuclear waste, as well as the credibility of the Malaysian government will no doubt face intense global and public pressure.

Finally, the only option left open for Malaysia is interim storage, simply by deciding not to decide. Spent nuclear fuel rods are temporary stored inside double-walled concrete casks on the surface at the reactor site. This option is adopted by most nuclear operators world-wide as it is currently the cheapest option available. Furthermore, interim storage is also the only option available for most of the countries around the world due to geological repository sites that are still in its initial planning phase, and reprocessing facilities which are rarely available and technologically accessible.

So, what is the catch? Does Malaysia prefer to follow the crowd and embrace the interim storage approach on nuclear waste? By simply deciding not to decide is not a sustainable solution and the difficult question in dealing with nuclear waste still has to be answered in the future. Not only that, this solution is also unfair in terms of inter-generational equity, where leaders know that they do not have to face the consequences of the decisions made by themselves today.

Malaysia is a country blessed with an abundance of natural resources available for use. Instead of going nuclear, I personally believe that the nation should use a variety of renewable energy systems such as wind, tidal and especially solar energy to meet the future demands of energy in a sustainable manner. 


This article is written based on the knowledge acquired upon the completion of the Sustainable Waste Management module taught by the School of MACE, The University of Manchester. Roger Teoh is a third-year student who recently completed his undergraduate studies in civil engineering at The University of Manchester.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.