Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear power


Putrajaya snubbed cheaper energy savings scheme for nuclear plans, forum told

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 24 – Putrajaya “ignored” a proposed energy savings scheme that could have saved Malaysia billions of ringgit and scrap any need to construct nuclear power plants here, a former civil servant claimed.

Energy efficiency activist Zaini Abdul Wahab, 40, told a forum last night that the government was well aware of alternative options to the two nuclear power plants it was planning to build in Malaysia.

“Because I know for a fact that it was mentioned in Parliament and in many seminars by the agencies, by having just a 10 year programme on energy efficiency, the only money required from the government is less than one billion (ringgit), average [RM100,000] a year, we can avoid capacity of at least 3GW of power demand, equivalent to three nuclear power plants,” he told a 60-strong crowd at a forum here last night.

Zaini, who has worked with the Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry (Kettha) and Sustainable Energy Development Authority (Seda) during his eight-year service, claimed that the government had “ignored” the proposed programme, which would have purportedly translated into billions of savings as Putrajaya would not have to fork out money to subsidise nuclear energy.

“But they ignored that. As for now, they ignore that. That’s my first argument why I’m against nuclear, because they have the options, they ignore that,” said Zaini, now an energy management consultant in the private sector.

Zaini, who was not listed as a speaker but was invited to address the crowd, said there was a need to be “realistic”, however, and that he expects nuclear plants will eventually be introduced in a few more decades to meet power demands.

His arguments echoed the stand of Prof G. Lalchand, a speaker at the same forum.

Lalchand, a former Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) staff, told the crowd that he was not anti-nuclear, but he believes that nuclear plants should only be a last resort in another decade.

“We do not need nuclear before 2025, in the meantime, the chances are there for energy efficiency to drop the demand from consumers to the same as the nuclear power can generate,” said Lalchand, who is both an engineer and an academic, adding that it would be cheaper

Nodding to major disasters involving nuclear power plants such as the US’s Three Mile Island’s 1979 accident, Ukraine’s Chernobyl 1986 accident, Japan’s Fukushima 2011 incident, Lalchand said that such accidents had always prompted the raising of safety standards.

“That’s why I said it should be as late as possible to get more safe,” he said, when explaining that a delay in Malaysia’s rolling out of nuclear power plants would enable the use of newer and safer technology.

Until then, Lalchand pushed for energy efficiency ? where users maximise the work done through the energy used ? to save costs and avert the need to build new power plants.

During the forum, another panellist, Datuk Dr Ronald McCoy spoke about the hidden costs in using nuclear technology to generate electricity, citing studies on how the number of cancer-related deaths had risen among those living near nuclear power plants.

According to McCoy, the hidden costs include the maintenance of nuclear power plants, and the disposal of radioactive waste, as well as the decommissioning of plants.

Putrajaya snubbed cheaper energy savings scheme for nuclear plans, forum told
By Ida Lim
December 24, 2014 – MMO


Lessons of Fukushima and Chernobyl – Repost


The explosions and fires at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors, almost exactly on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Chernobyl, have made most of us even more worried about the hazards of nuclear energy (see [1] Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, SiS 50). The nuclear lobby see things differently: the explosion at Chernobyl was due to the poor design and incompetent operation of the reactor under the Soviet system, and hardly anyone died as a result; as for Fukushima, it was hit by a tsunami far larger than anyone could possibly have anticipated, and the good management of its owners, the Tokyo Energy and Power Company (TEPCO) and the brave efforts of the Japanese emergency services ensured that little harm was done.

That story is very far from the truth.

As Fuksuhima reminds us, nuclear power is inherently dangerous. It is also not economical; no nuclear plant has ever operated without a government subsidy and no one seriously expects that any will in the future ([20] The Real Cost of Nuclear Power, SiS 47). The subsidy may be visible or it may be concealed as a cheap loan, a permanent low-carbon premium, an open cheque for the cost of disposing of the waste, or in some other form. Furthermore, we do not need it even as “part of a basket of technologies”: on the most optimistic estimates, nuclear energy could not produce more than 8 percent of the UK’s total energy requirement in the foreseeable future. This could easily be made up by renewables if we choose to invest in wind, solar, biogas and other technologies that already exist and are becoming ever more efficient and cost effective ([21] Green Energies – 100% Renewable by 2050, ISIS publication).

The nuclear industry is asking us to give it large sums of money to build power plants that we do not need and cannot afford, at great risk to our health and safety. If we use the money to develop renewables instead, we will have low carbon energy that is safe, economical, and genuinely sustainable. Countries that shift their investment from nuclear to renewables now will reap the further economic benefit of becoming leaders in the key technologies of the twenty-first century.

Lessons of Fukushima and Chernobyl
Prof. Peter Saunders
ISIS Report 03/05/11


Nuclear power plants under ETP?


While the government has looked at several locations as possible sites for nuclear power plants, it has yet to decide if the plants will be built any time soon, said Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

“Until today, only site selection studies have been done using digital maps of the peninsula, without any fieldwork being done thus far,” he said in a written reply to Sim Tong Him (DAP-Kota Melaka, left).

The proposal to build two nuclear power plants has been listed as one of the Entry Point Projects under the government’s Economic Transformation Programme in the oil, gas and energy sector.

Detailed studies into future energy needs and preparations are needed before such plants can be built, Najib added.

Some of the areas that are being looked into include:

Studies on the legal framework and a national nuclear monitoring policy;

Feasibility studies as well as a plan on how to develop nuclear power infrastructure in Malaysia;

An information campaign on the proposal to reach all stakeholders and get their feedback; and

A study on setting up a new entity to own and operate nuclear plants in Malaysia.

The government’s proposed construction of two nuclear plants to generate electricity has garnered opposition brickbats as well as triggered protests from pro-environmental groups that raised the spectre of the rare earths disaster in Bukit Merah, Perak, as their rallying cry.

Sites found, but decision pending on nuke plants
Oct 2, 2012 – Malaysiakini


NUKE POWER OR CALAMITY: Can greedy BN be trusted not to MESS UP?

Is the MNPC (Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation) planning to go nuclear to produce power? The MNPC is said to be preparing a Nuclear Power Infrastructure Development Plan by 2013 to deliver Malaysia’s first nuclear power plant by 2021.

It was reported that a pre-feasibility study on nuclear energy for electricity generation was completed in 2010, while construction of two nuclear power plants has been identified. Apparently, the government is expected to finalise plans to build two units of nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 2 Gigawatts by 2014 in spite of the present 40 percent energy reserves the country has.

Purportedly, the government is tacitly pursuing with the idea when a few possible coastal and inland sites were named. The assigned contracts is said to be worth RM21.3bil that would easily escalate to more than RM60 to RM80 billion before the project could be completed.

Quietly opting for nuclear energy

Is the government discreetly opting for nuclear power plants without any due process? Are the people informed or aware of the pros and cons of this nuclear scheme?

Disengaging the stakeholders – the people – the project may land up like what has happened to the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) – a rare-earth refinery plant located 25 kms from Kuantan, Pahang – now ready to operate despite all the protests against its operation.

Snubbing any consultation with the public, non-governmental organisations and rights groups representing various fields have come together to voice their dissension over the government’s implicit plan to build the nuclear plants.

Many energy experts opine that there is no urgency in embarking on a nuclear energy project when Malaysia enjoys a 40 percent energy reserves. The financial resources made available for the nuclear plant can well be diverted to more research into exploiting many other forms of renewable energy which are environmentally safer.

It appears like the government has not deliberated on the realities of nuclear power economics. How much of taxpayers’ money will be required to make nuclear power economically realistic? Is it wise to invest billions in expensive nuclear energy when investments can be made in alternative renewable energy and energy efficient technologies?

The Lynas debacle has now made citizens more aware of the danger of radioactive wastes. And certainly there are more lasting and terrifying environmental hazards from a nuclear mishap, as what occurred in the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters, and later in March 2011 in Fukushima.

For this reason, a coalition of NGOs (Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear (MyCAN) are already objecting against the government’s plan to opt for nuclear energy by constructing nuclear power plants in the country.

NUKE POWER OR CALAMITY: Can greedy BN be trusted not to MESS UP?
24 July 2012 – Malaysia Chronicle


Abandon nuke plan, govt told

An anti-nuclear civil society warns that the proposed two nuclear reactors posed lethal accident and health risks.

GEORGE TOWN: An anti-nuclear civil society coalition has called on Putrajaya to abandon its nuke plans, warning that the proposed two nuclear reactors posed lethal accident and health risks.

In view of the serious long-term impacts of nuclear power production, Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear (My-CAN) wanted the government to invest in safe renewable energy and energy efficiency instead.

The coalition rejected nuclear power as a feasible option for Malaysia and preferred the options of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

“The cost of nuclear energy is escalating while cost of renewable energy is declining world over,” MY-CAN said in a statement today.

My-CAN also demanded the government to be transparent on its nuclear plans by disclosing full details, including potential sites, for the nuclear power plants.

“We call on the government to stop the ongoing nuclear energy implementation process immediately,” it said.

The coalition expressed extreme concern that Putrajaya was going ahead with its nuke plans without sufficient public information, consultation or debate.

It accused the federal government of quietly advancing its nuclear energy plans by ignoring widespread public apprehension on the dangers, as evident in the Fukushima melt-down last year.

The civil society slammed the government’s determination to consider nuclear as an energy option when such technology was rejected by a growing number of countries and carried enormous risks to public health and safety.

Advanced stage

It said the fatal risks included indefinite accumulation of radioactive waste, which cannot be disposed of safely and would remain lethal to future generations of Malaysians for thousands of years.

During a forum last February, statements released by Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC) and Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) revealed that the nuclear power plant (NPP) project had tiptoed to an advanced stage of development:

Abandon nuke plan, govt told
July 20, 2012 – FMT


Nuclear Energy is NOT an Option

Nuclear Energy is NOT an Option

Civil Society Groups’ Public Petition to Stop Nuclear Power Plants in Malaysia

A number of governments around the world have responded to calls from their citizens to end the nuclear age by phasing out nuclear power plants and reversing decisions to build new nuclear power plants

The recent catastrophic nuclear accident in Fukushima has brought Japan to its knees and persuaded many countries, including Germany, Italy and Switzerland, to phase out existing nuclear reactors at the end of their useful life. They have also cancelled plans for new reactors and instead are investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

However, the Malaysian government remains adamant to pursue the nuclear energy path, despite previous calls by concerned groups to scrap its plans. Disappointed with the Malaysian Government’s plans to develop nuclear energy despite the significant concerns that have been raised against the option, civil society groups have joined forces to embark on a public campaign to call on the Government of Malaysia to abandon its plans for the construction of nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is inherently dangerous and not environmentally-friendly. The process of the nuclear fuel cycle itself – from uranium mining and extraction, fuelling uranium enrichment, nuclear power plant construction, maintenance and monitoring of the processing and storing of radioactive waste, decommissioning and cleaning up radioactive contamination – require an enormous supply of energy, much more than other energy sources.

According to international studies which take into account the nuclear fuel cycle, a nuclear power plant indirectly emits between 376,000 and 1,300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Nuclear power releases four to five times more carbon dioxide per unit of energy compared to renewable energy. Thus, the Malaysian government’s decision to opt for nuclear energy to achieve its declared goal of reducing carbon emissions intensity is one that is fundamentally flawed.

Furthermore, nuclear power plants produce ultra-hazardous, highly radioactive waste that will remain radioactive for more than a hundred thousand years. No country in the world has managed to safely dispose its nuclear waste permanently, as currently there is no such technology. At present, nuclear waste is temporarily stored in pools of water or in dry casks, alongside nuclear reactors.

The nuclear industry and proponents in the Malaysian government continue to spread disinformation about nuclear energy and are on a public relations exercise to persuade the public to accept nuclear energy, while failing to address the fundamental and yet unresolved issue of the handling of the nuclear waste, wastewater from the nuclear reactors, and other health and safety aspects.

The Malaysian government should seriously consider the health and safety risks of nuclear energy. Human error and unpredictable events are unavoidable, making nuclear reactor safety uncertain. The history of the nuclear industry is littered with minor and major accidents. Even without accidents, a nuclear power plant is dangerous to health.

In a 2007 meta-­analysis of 17 research papers, covering 136 nuclear sites in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, the United States of America, Germany, Japan and Spain, the incidence of leukaemia in children under nine who live close to the sites, showed an increase from 14% to 21%, while death rates rose from 5% to 24%.

Another scientific study, published in the European Journal of Cancer Care in 2008, revealed that leukaemia death rates in American children living near nuclear power plants have risen sharply in the past two decades.

Besides environmental, health and safety issues, developing nuclear energy also faces challenging economic hurdles considering nuclear energy’s high capital costs, construction cost, availability and prices of fuel, engineering expertise, radioactive waste management, security and accident liabilities, and decommissioning, among other issues.

To conclude, nuclear energy is clearly not cheap, clean or safe. The nuclear option should not be considered at all as a solution to Malaysia’s energy needs.

This public petition demands that the Government of Malaysia applies the Precautionary Principle enshrined in the 1992 Rio Declaration, abandon its plans to build nuclear power plants, and instead earnestly implement its energy efficiency and renewable energy programmes, which are safe, economical and sustainable.

Dr Ronald McCoy
Malaysian Physicians for Social Responsibility
On behalf of the Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear (MyCAN)

The full petition can be accessed at:

The petition can be signed at:

Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear Release: Nuclear Energy is Not an Option
09 May 2012 – WWF Malaysia


Govt still planning for nuclear plants?!

The biggest nuclear disaster humanity has ever witnessed

On 26 April 1986 01:23:45 a.m., at the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Nuclear Power Station, the RBMK reactor of block No.4 suffered a catastrophic failure during a routine test. Only 56 deaths have been “officially” attributed to the disaster, however, documentation shows that well over 600,000 men women and children were directly affected by the fallout. In total, the fallout produced by the exposed burning reactor core would be 400 times greater than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. The deadly toxic molecules were spread across 100’s of miles with nearly 60% of the pollutants falling on Belarus. The radioactive plume touched almost every European country including Sweden, Italy, Hungary, The Netherlands, Britain, and France.

It is without question, the biggest nuclear disaster humanity has ever witnessed.


Gov’t identifies 7 sites for nuclear plants, say NGOs

A coalition today revealed that the government has secretly pushed for its nuclear power plants project and has preliminarily identified the potential sites for them, despite objections from the ground.

The government, through the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC), has identified seven sites for twin-unit nuclear power plants, said Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear (MyCan) spokeperson Dr Ronald McCoy.

The seven sites are located in four states – one in Kedah and two each in Perak, Terengganu and Johor, he said in a press conference.

McCoy said five sites are located near the coastal areas, while two sites are located inland – Tasik Temenggor in Perak and Tasik Kenyir in Terengganu, as a massive amount of water is needed to cool down the twin reactors.

He said the coalition had obtained this accurate information within a month, but was not able to reveal its sources and the exact potential areas to protect its sources.

Despite the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, he said, the Malaysian government went ahead to secretly proceed with its nuclear power plant plans, apparently not able at all to learn from previous bad experiences.

In Dec 2010, the government said it had planned to build two nuclear power plants that would generate 1,000 megawatts each, one by 2021 and the second a year later.

McCoy (left) also said some countries has cancelled their nuclear plant plans after the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan, and thus Malaysia’s move would be rather backward.

MyCan is a coalition comprising of 15 NGOs, and their statement made during a press conference today was endorsed by 29 NGOs.

Gov’t identifies 7 sites for nuclear plants, say NGOs
Jul 19, 2012 – Malaysiakini

The dawn of A Better Malaysia!
Rafidah Aziz, Hannah Yeoh, Ambiga at TTDI ceramah


Mahathir in Putrajaya ceramah


What happened to 1MDB’s money? – CNBC Video
Nuclear lessons for Malaysia (Part 1) (Part 2)
BN govt is directing attention to distant past and distant future, in order to distract people from present misdeeds and poor governance
Felda - A picture is worth a thousand words
How the 1MDB Scandal Spread Across the World (WSJ)
We cannot afford ridiculously expensive RM55 Billion ECRL!
All that is necessary
for the triumph of evil
is for good men
to do nothing.

- Edmund Burke
When the people
fears their government,
there is TYRANNY;
when the government
fears the people,
there is LIBERTY.

- Thomas Jefferson
Do you hear the people sing?