The hidden costs of going nuclear


Nuclear power is being pursued without due process, as if Malaysians care only about electricity. And it is this lack of due process that could very well be the costliest result of going nuclear, warns Ken Yeong.

A huge explosion struck the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan today following a major earthquake and tsunami

The recent establishment of the Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation is yet another indicator that the government is moving ahead with nuclear power.

Despite earlier assurances that public consultations will help determine the nuclear power decision, this critical process appears to have been bypassed.

Public opposition to nuclear power has been small compared to the proposed 100-storey Warisan Merdeka tower or GM mosquito field trials, for example.

Perhaps most Malaysians agree with the Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry that nuclear is the best option for cheap, reliable and low-carbon power.

But there is more to nuclear power than our Tenaga bills might reflect.

The Ministry, being entrusted with the stewardship of renewable energy and its myriad options in solar, wind, geothermal, marine and others, should compare in depth, nuclear power with renewable energy for 2020 deployment.

It should also compare nuclear power to energy efficiency, efforts to reduce the energy required to produce products and services and the most cost effective solution to meeting energy demand now.

The government only stands to gain the people’s support for nuclear power if it is measured favourably against energy efficiency and renewable energy and its higher standards in an independent feasibility study.

The analysis of nuclear power needs to be grounded on three main considerations.

1. Malaysia needs to diversify its energy mix, as gas and coal reserves are dwindling and costs are rising.

2. The country now has 40 per cent more power than it needs – an amount that will meet projected demand even in 2020.

3. Malaysia is seeking to become a developed nation in an era of climate change and sustainability.

The potential danger of nuclear power is relatively well documented, but perhaps less well known is the debilitating costs of nuclear.

Economic costs

Firstly, nuclear power is not going to be cheap. Various studies estimate the cost of nuclear electricity to be higher than Malaysia’s national average of RM0.30/kWh[1].

Wall Street and independent energy analysts, whose cost projections have been the most accurate to date, put nuclear power at an average of RM0.50/kWh[2].

A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study – noteworthy for being pro-nuclear power and the first of its kind – states that potential nuclear power cost improvements are only theoretical, but not demonstrated today[3].

In fact, actual projects in South Korea and Japan have seen a 25 per cent increase in average costs[3] and in Finland that figure is 90 per cent.

And, the cost of nuclear power is trending upwards. Since the 1970s, nuclear has experienced, for the same amount of power generated, a five-fold cost escalation in the US and three-fold in France, countries with the most vibrant nuclear power usage[3].

Most nuclear plants worldwide have suffered significant delays, contributing to cost overruns endemic to the industry.

As a result, the financial uncertainty of nuclear power is so severe almost all projects require extensive government backing in terms of loan guarantees and subsidies. Wall Street has made it clear that nuclear projects cannot be funded in capital markets[3].

READ MORE:  WAO mengecam pemberhentian kerja penyelia penerbangan MAS yang 'berlebihan berat badan' (Malay/English)

Malaysia’s reputation for mega-projects with its associated cost overruns, delays, corruption and leakages, will only exacerbate the already huge financial risks due to the country’s inexperience in nuclear power.

Expecting private investors to fund 90 per cent of the nuclear project, as envisioned by the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), appears naively optimistic at best.

Realistically, in the very likely case of a cost blowout, the government – and ultimately taxpayers – will have to bail out any private investors, potentially to the tune of RM50 billion, according to an upper range estimate by Standard & Poor’s[4], far exceeding the government’s proposed RM21.3 billion budget.

Furthermore, nuclear power’s extreme complexity in set-up, as well as operations and maintenance, will require large corporations, most likely foreign – representing a wasted multi-billion ringgit chance to invest in homegrown small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Malaysia’s growth engine.

Social costs

The government estimates 2,600 jobs will be created by the nuclear power project.

A comprehensive study by the University of California, Berkeley, revealed that energy efficiency and renewable energy in the form of solar photo-voltaics (PV or solar panels), solar thermal, wind and geothermal will yield, on average, 2.7 times more jobs than nuclear[5].

Clearly, investing in nuclear power is not the best way to create jobs.

Nuclear power jobs are also highly-skilled, benefiting the well-educated and trained. This is to be desired as Malaysia strives to be a higher income economy.

However, consider the distressing situation that 34 per cent of Malaysian workers, or 1.3 million, earn less than RM700 a month, below the poverty threshold[6].

While energy efficiency and renewable energy jobs would need upgrading of workers’ skills, it is nowhere near as big a jump as nuclear jobs, and having RM21.3 billion is a golden opportunity to boost this group’s chances of career development, instead of fuelling feelings of disenfranchisement.

In Hot, Flat and Crowded, Thomas Friedman suggests climate change offers a fresh chance of doing things more sustainably and fairly, in a big way.

Increased energy autonomy to the people is one such foundational shift, modernising mindsets on power consumption.

As consumers can choose when and at what cost they consume electricity, they can optimise usage with increased savings while reducing their carbon footprint.

Nuclear power largely misses out on this opportunity due to its business-as-usual model of inefficient centralised power generation and ownership and the need to maximise consumption to recoup its massive infrastructure, operations and maintenance costs.

Nuclear is only a new way of doing the same old thing, and is thus a stumbling block to Malaysian society’s progression with the greening times.

Safety and security

Most Malaysians who object to nuclear power fear the public service’s poor maintenance culture might allow a repeat of the deadly Chernobyl nuclear disaster.

To be fair, the global record on catastrophic nuclear accidents since Chernobyl in 1986 has been strong, partly due to improved operations.

However, effective and independent regulation, a management committed to safety and a skilled workforce – factors necessary for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant[3] – are not Malaysia’s strong suits.

Yet power plant accidents are not the most feared fallout from nuclear power – that distinction belongs to nuclear weapons proliferation.

The fuel used in nuclear power plants, uranium, is the same material or the precursor to that used in nuclear bombs. As more nuclear power plants are operated, more materials for nuclear bombs become available.

READ MORE:  We are Malaysia (music video)

Even the pro-nuclear MIT study concedes proliferation is a grave consequence of a worldwide expansion of nuclear power, saying “with modest nuclear infrastructure, any nation could … acquire material needed for several [nuclear] weapons”[3].

Compounding this situation is a nuclear black market that has grown to be sophisticated and audacious, involving movement of equipment and even blueprints for nuclear bombs.

At the uncovering of this black market in 2003, the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reacted with shock at how international safeguards had proved wholly inadequate[7].

Hence, the international security climate today is rightfully one of apprehension: what separates nuclear power from nuclear weapons is mostly intention.

Some say nuclear arms act as a deterrent to all-out war, but who wants to gamble on the likes of North Korea being able to obliterate other countries?

And it doesn’t stop there: proliferation experts have warned that North Korea and Iran’s nuclear advancements will spark arms races, and that’s just among countries[8] [9]. Could we be seeing the rise of military motives disguising and incubating as civilian nuclear power programs now?

Nuclear, whether fuel, bomb or power plant, is also the terrorist’s dream weapon, as the al-Qaeda’s gameplan has shown even before 9/11[10].

Many scenarios of attack on a nuclear power plant are plausible and have occurred in the past, while other buildings within the site complex other than the reactor can be targeted to result in a nuclear catastrophe[11].

By choosing nuclear power, Malaysia is voting in favour of an industry with devastating side-effects, not just for Malaysians but globally – a move that is at best, unnecessary.

Environmental costs

Nuclear power violates the sustainability principle that civilisation needs to embrace for its continued survival.

The mining of uranium fuel causes severe damage to land often inhabited by indigenous people whose lives are closely entwined with their environment.

Communities like the Navajo Indians in the US[12] and Malaysians in Perak’s Bukit Merah-Papan[13] continue to suffer from hazardous waste from mining of radioactive minerals.

The problem of discarding spent nuclear fuel has dogged every nation employing nuclear power. There is yet no long-term solution.

Proponents of nuclear power might cite Finland’s Onkalo, the world’s first permanent geologic repository, as the answer[14].

But a repository like Onkalo costs RM12.5 billion to build, nuclear waste must be isolated for at least 100,000 years, and we have to tell an extremely distant future generation to monitor said repository – a feat the US Academy of Science deems impossible.

Humanity has never handled such mind-bending timelines as we know very little beyond even 100 years. So-called permanent repositories are really a leap into the unknown.

The long timeline – 10 years at least – to bring nuclear power on stream and the inevitable channelling of resources away from swifter yet more long-term and more effective low-carbon power solutions such as renewable energy, will mean climate change remains inadequately addressed in the interim.

The scientific journal Nature put it this way in 2007: “To avert catastrophic global warming, why pick the slowest, most expensive, most limited, most inflexible and riskiest option? … nuclear generation is just an impediment to sustainable electricity.”[15]

READ MORE:  The making of Malaysian identities


Malaysia’s choice of nuclear power has to be scrutinised in light of prospects of the technology.

The impact of the multi-billion ringgit investment can be just electricity, or electricity with well-orchestrated long-term spillover benefits.

Does nuclear power have a future of vibrancy and continuity in Malaysia? A look at the global situation is instructive.

The pro-nuclear MIT study stressed that all four critical problems of cost, safety, waste and proliferation must be overcome before nuclear power can flourish, but latest developments are not in favour of three out of the four[3].

Today, a crippling global shortage of skilled nuclear power workers threatens the safe operation of plants.

The scenario of 30 per cent global electricity supply from nuclear power would exhaust current uranium reserves in less than 20 years[15].

New generation nuclear power reactors known as Gen IV reactors that are expected to produce a hundred times the energy now achievable, are not expected till 2045 and remain theoretical today.

The future of nuclear power is fraught with uncertainties, at best. Malaysia may be about to invest billions in a dead-end industry.


Energy efficiency and renewable energy, on the other hand, do not suffer the safety, waste and weapons proliferation woes that plague nuclear power.

In addition, the cost of electricity from some forms of renewable energy, like concentrating solar thermal, could be as cheap as RM0.15/kWh by 2020[1] – far lower than the average RM0.30/kWh Malaysians now pay.

A long-term strategic outlook on Malaysia’s energy needs is sorely needed to modernise the power sector.

This is not an easy task, but the potential rewards could be game-changing innovations like smart grids for efficiency and cost savings, nanotechnology for revolutionary performance jumps in solar PV, and a green power manufacturing and R&D hub, just to name a few.

Significantly more jobs for Malaysians are in the offing for truly green power too.

Finally, a Stanford University study last year found that 100 per cent renewable energy can be achieved globally by 2030 with the only obstacle being political will[16].

Contrast that with a 2009 report commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety, which concludes “there is as yet no obvious sign that the international nuclear industry could eventually turn the empirically evident decline into a promising future”[4].

A single nuclear plant does not a country’s future determine.

Rather, the assessment process on nuclear power indicates a country’s state of affairs; a signpost to its ultimate destiny.

We Malaysians have not been well informed nor engaged by our government on accepting nuclear power despite its immense costs and far-reaching consequences.

Nuclear power is being pursued without due process, as if Malaysians care only about electricity.

And it is this lack of due process that could very well be the costliest result of going nuclear.

Ken Yeong is eager for humanity to reclaim its role of stewards of the earth and usher in a new era of sustainable progress. He is currently in Melbourne hoping to pursue a postgraduate degree in environment.


















Sign Aliran's 'Save our Democracy" petition
Sign Aliran's petition calling for a review of the decision to grant Riza Aziz a DNAA
Thanks for dropping by! The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Piper Morasca
11 Apr 2011 3.31pm

We have actually already been researching into solar for approximately a calendar year and my spouse and i last but not least made the commitment primarily on the mix of governtment incentive programs and additionally very cost efficient financing. We will have been looking into solar energy for roughly a yr and as a consequence my spouse and i last but not least made the actual decision primarily based upon the blend of the governtment incentive opportunities along with tremendously cost-effective capital. I genuinely cannot believe precisely how affordable everything turned out so my spouse and i will have already been another solar energy family for around one 4 weeks and furthermore every little thing seem like it all is actually working out very good. We are able to basically view exactly how much electrical power we aer reducing each and every day in addition to it is simply quite extraordinary. I alway considered that solar energy was probably promoted through a great deal of hoopla nonetheless My spouse and i may well convey to anyone the fact that it is without a doubt the bona… Read more »

11 Apr 2011 6.37pm
Reply to  Piper Morasca

What exactly did you do Piper? And can you share the cost saving figures with everyone else? I too agree we should not take the high ticket way to energy generation by going nuclear. Besides, its just going to cause a massive loss of capital for Malaysia. Lets pull in all the smart people we know, wherever they are, and go with alternative energy as the saviour of our future. Just the challenge may be akin to JFK’s call to Americans to go to the moon within the decade.

15 Mar 2011 3.43am

Malaysia must first honestly study the abundant renewable energy availabe in view of its favourable geographical location. Power generation efficiency is another serious matter that need to be recognised and rectified. Hydro, Biomass and Solar potentials need to be understood and optimally exploited. Nuclear energy should come in only as a last resort. For an appreciation of the renewable energy available from Oil Palm biomass in Malaysia please see:

13 Mar 2011 5.48pm

meme mine, your call for system change is not realistic, but is actually what’s needed. energy efficiency is a little step in this direction, by cutting back on consumption.

unless you know the climate scientists personally, it’s unwarranted to say they’re sitting on their hands. scientists, except for maybe Nasa’s James Hansen, are usually low-profile people who cannot stomach publicity. much like the rest of us.

13 Mar 2011 5.28pm

A non-partisan Malaysian economist,

We all wish we had something practical in the meantime as you said, but nuclear is not one of them. Many non-nuclear aligned commissions around the world have come to the same conclusion: nuclear is too slow to implement to make any difference to curb emissions, it is too economically risky for large-scale roll-out, uranium reserves will not last beyond 2050 if 30% of the world electricity goes nuclear and the weapons proliferation is too big a risk. And all that while renewable energy is economically feasible, ready to implement, safe and good for the economy.

Remember that we only need more power in 2020 and beyond, and it’s not true they’re all in Borneo. We can easily implement energy efficiency now to meet 2020 targets, and renewables are implemented in stages, so nobody is talking about replacing all the country’s 22,000MW now.

And certainly, nobody is comparing to fossil fuels. That’s plain regressive.

meme mine
meme mine
12 Mar 2011 11.20pm

The voter’s perception up until now has been that while unstoppable warming may not necessarily really happen, anything less will still deteriorate the planet to a state of being unlivable. But since Obama did not even mention the climate change crisis in his State of the Union Address, and the neocons have pulled IPCC funding, expecting this new mass of former believer voters to still support climate change would be a new state of denial in itself. Our mistake was clinging to the worst case scenario, maintaining a state of panic and expecting fear to be sustainable forever. For what ever reason, the CO2 concern is , was and will be completely groundless. It’s all too obvious that climate change mitigation is now unsustainable and the billions we spend on climate change could have all gone to 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education and general social reforms for the last 25 years of the CO2 science. Our attempts to control the climate for a quarter of a century could have gone to control the obvious problem, population control. The other wrong… Read more »

A non-partisan Malaysian economist
A non-partisan Malaysian economist
12 Mar 2011 10.58pm

Those are valid arguments…but they come with some strong counter arguments, though. 1) Might be true that costs for generating a single unit of energy via nuclear means may have increased, but the costs of fossil fuel since 1970s have spiked up even faster. 2) Malaysia’s geographical disadvantages causes two problems with your arguments…first the high level of precipitation (rain) and cloud cover from being in the tropics make solar energy less viable as a source of energy; similar arguments for wind as well…second the surplus energy level that you’ve mentioned (40% surplus of national demand), is largely confined to Borneo – i.e. the hydroelectric dams in Sarawak – and the costs of transmitting energy (if Indonesia even allows it) would far exceed the projected costs of nuclear energy generation. 3) 1 Chernobyl accident versus the various oil-spills since 1986, and you can see a comparison on which one does more damage to the environment. (I mean, let’s keep this in perspective, if we want to argue on which is more environmentally friendly…which both really aren’t, but nuclear has arguably done a better job) 4) It… Read more »

16 Mar 2011 11.46pm

To counter the flimsy economic arguments: 1). the long-term cost of nuclear energy – including the fact that permanently safe nuclear wastes storage is still unknown and not available; and long-term radiation leaks/explosion and consequent damage to human health and ecosystems are irreversible – is certainly higher than any energy so far. 2). solar energy is feasible and being used as part of a mixed energy policy in geographical regions of the world with high precipitation (snow) and long grey dark wintertime. Malaysian rain clouds are only for a small number of days or hours! And in coastal and offshore areas of these regions, wind power is also feasible. Malaysian coastal areas have enough wind (e.g. due to the difference in temperature of sea and land, seasonal winds) to also make wind energy as part of Msian mixed energy policy. 3. see point 1) above. Please update yourself on the half-life of the nuclear materials – hundreds of thousands of years! Which means, their radioactive effects is just as long, irreversible and widespread. Compared to nuclear accidents, oil spills effects are of geologically different time scale.… Read more »