THE government plans to table the Atomic Energy Regulatory Bill in Parliament later this year. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mah Siew Keong recently urged critics of nuclear energy to keep an “open mind” on the proposal.
The minister claimed that the nuclear debate revolves around three groups — those who are vocally for it, those who know absolutely nothing about it and those who believe in it as long as it is not in their backyard.
However, there is a fourth group who have carefully thought about nuclear issues over a long period, thoroughly researched the subject of nuclear energy — its economics and finances, its hazards and disasters, its false promises and untested premises, its misinformation and mythology — and come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe and, therefore, not an option for any country.
Nuclear energy carries inherent health, security and environmental risks. Amory Lovins, an energy expert, has called it “the greatest failure of any enterprise in the industrial history of the world”, with a litany of financial disasters, including a loss of more than US$1 trillion (RM3.1 trillion) in subsidies, abandoned projects and other public misadventures.
For the sake of open-mindedness, I would strongly urge the minister and his cohorts in Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) to study the recently published World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014. In 139 pages, it analyses the rapid changes in nuclear economics, the technology revolution in the power sector, and the impact of renewable energy on the financial viability and status of nuclear power. The report predicts that the use of renewable energy will increase rapidly, that investment in renewable energy sources will be dominant, and that investment in solar and wind power will exceed investment in fossil fuels or nuclear power.
Cheap nuclear energy is a myth. Misleading claims that it is cheap are often based on unverifiable bottom-line results or “justified” by analyses with hidden assumptions that are highly favourable to the nuclear industry. The total economic cost of nuclear energy is difficult to determine.
The nuclear industry is in decline worldwide. Today, only 31 countries are operating 388 nuclear reactors, compared with 438 in 2002. Several nuclear reactor projects have been indefinitely delayed or cancelled.
Only 14 countries have plans to build new reactors. Sixty-seven reactors are classified as “under construction”. Forty-nine of them have met with significant delays, ranging from several months to several years. Eight of them have been “under construction” for more than 20 years, including one in the United States that began in 1972.
The cost of constructing a reactor largely determines the final cost of nuclear electricity, particularly when numerous construction delays and cost overruns impact budgets significantly. Estimates of investment costs have risen in the past decade, from US$1,000 to around US$8,000 per installed kilowatt.
Germany, Sweden and the US are closing down reactors because projected income does not cover operating costs. Debt levels remain very high amongst European nuclear power companies. The two largest French groups (EDF and GDF-Suez) and the two largest German utilities (E.ON and RWE) equally share a total of more than US$173 billion in debt. Since 2008, Europe’s top 10 utilities have lost half of their US$1.4 trillion share value.
Accidents are inevitable in nuclear power plants. Between 1952 and 2009, there were 99 minor nuclear accidents worldwide, each with the potential to develop into a major disaster. Major nuclear reactor accidents are not common, but when they do occur they can be catastrophic, as in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The meltdown of three nuclear reactors in Fukushima in March 2011 has brought Japan to its knees, reinforced worldwide fears of nuclear accidents, and highlighted the nuclear industry’s failure to prevent accidents and near misses.
The truth is that no one in the world really knows how to deal with the Fukushima accident. It is a wake-up call for all 30 countries operating nuclear power plants and for those governments still planning to build nuclear reactors, such as Malaysia. Chernobyl and Fukushima have made it clear that there is no such thing as nuclear safety or a fail-safe nuclear reactor. Human error and unpredictable events are unavoidable.
Nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, making nuclear power inherently and irredeemably hazardous. There is still no way to safely and permanently dispose of the waste. This is the most dangerous and unacceptable feature of nuclear power plants.
The nuclear industry’s so-called solutions to radioactive waste only exist in theory. None of these so-called solutions exist anywhere in the world. Nuclear power plants continue to store their radioactive waste temporarily under water, in pools located alongside reactors.
Last year, renewable energy emerged as a safe, flexible, easily deployed energy source, with a lower carbon footprint than nuclear power. Many governments have recognised that fact and have sensibly started to develop and rely on renewable energy.
Spain has generated more power from wind than any other source — wind power generates 21 per cent of its total power and exceeds nuclear power. It is the first time that wind has become the largest electricity source over an entire year in any country. Excluding large hydro-power, Spain, Brazil, China, Germany, India and Japan produce more power from renewables than from nuclear power.
Global investment in renewable energy — excluding large hydro — amounted to US$214 billion last year, four times the 2004 total of US$52 billion. Since 2000, there has been a 25 per cent annual growth rate for wind and 43 per cent for solar photovoltaics (PV), while nuclear power declined by 0.4 per cent.
In June 2009, the Malaysian government singled out nuclear energy as one of the options for electricity generation to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels, to meet future energy demands, and achieve energy diversification. MNPC was assigned to spearhead, plan and coordinate the implementation of a nuclear energy development programme that is expected to culminate in the delivery of Malaysia’s first nuclear power plant by 2021.
MNPC argues that nuclear energy is a valid energy option, if there are suitable sites for nuclear power plants, strong community support and international safeguards applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which promotes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy but is seen to be a creature of the nuclear industry with obvious conflicts of interest.
There is a lot of disinformation about the virtues of nuclear energy, and the government and nuclear proponents need to answer some serious questions.
Where is the strong community support in the country for nuclear energy? Where is the process of genuine dialogue, debate and consultation with the people of Malaysia? Where is the evidence that nuclear energy is cheap, clean and safe? What is the real cost of nuclear energy? What about the enormous subsidies required? And, most critically, how are you going to manage the safe disposal of nuclear waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years?
There are times in the history of a country when important decisions must be made correctly and democratically, with considerable care, honesty and wisdom, because such decisions will have a lasting and crucial impact on the country’s future. Whether to opt for nuclear power is such a decision.