Should Malaysia have a nuclear plant?

Question

The government has been mooting the construction of a nuclear plant in the country for a while now. Bearing in mind the disturbing developments in Japan, what do you think of the idea now? Is it safe to build a nuclear plant in Malaysia considering that we are relatively safe from most natural disasters? Or is a nuclear plant here a tragedy waiting to happen?

Answer 1

That depends in if Malaysia feels that other low carbon forms of energy can not be used.



The advantages of nuclear power are that it provides huge amounts of power, while wind power can not compete fully. However there is an argument that can be made that more investment should be made with solar power as well as energy efficiency.



And while your question mentions natural disasters, remember that not all disasters are natural as terrorism can cause problems as well.

Answer 2

It's probably safe.



I don't know the geography of Malaysia, but the only reason the Japanese plants are having so much trouble is due to the double whammy of a major earthquake followed by a tsunami.



The power plants have a backup system to operate the water pumps. And then they have a backup for that backup, as well.



In this case, the earthquake knocked out the normal systems, so the plants went to their backup systems. Then those backup systems were knocked out by the tsunami.



So they ended up with Plan C (using batteries), which is temporary, since no one foresaw an extended period of time where both the normal system and backup system were non-operational.



I expect that in the future, regulations are going to change so that nuclear power plants will be required to have enough batteries to operate the water pumps for a couple of weeks; the time it takes for a nuclear reactor to cool down after it is shut off.



I live within the evacuation zone of a nuclear power plant (in the US). Coincidentally, that power plant uses the exact same reactor as the Japanese plants.



There are a ton of safety precautions involved. The telephone book has a huge section on what to do in a nuclear emergency (including where to go if evacuation is ordered). Schoolchildren bring home packets of papers each year for their parents to sign, detailing where the school would take their children in an emergency.



The Department of Health hands out free potassium iodide pills every few years (again, in case of emergency). There are sirens strategically placed in the evacuation zone, so that if something goes wrong, residents will know immediately. The sirens are tested once a month, on the first Monday at 2pm.



Despite what is happening in Japan, I still consider nuclear power to be safe. Honestly, if something were to happen, my biggest worry would be for my pets. (And I'm quite irritated by the fact that the designated emergency shelter happens to be my workplace; the last thing I would want to do in an emergency is go to work.)

Answer 3

I vote yes. i think nuke power is inevitable. How much longer can we depend on coal / gas plant? Until 2050 at least, or maybe if significant oil reserve can be found it would last 10-20 years longer. However rising hydrocarbon prices means that govt would have to increase tariffs. Unpopular since we malaysian want everything cheap - water, electricity, petrol, cooking oil, rice, sugar, flour etc. and what about carbon footprint?



Hydroelectric? Too much issues - just take a look at Bakun. Solar energy? Maybe in the day ok, at night how? yes, recent technology have emerge that can fix this problem, but is it dependable? Can it power a third of the nation? Biomass - reliability issues. Tidal wave - still infant tech. Geothermal - is it possible in Malaysia? Wind farm? Probably good enough, but still, can it provide reliable power 24/7? Can it generate megawatts of electricity all the time like hydroelectric dam or coal plant?

Future tech suggests an outer space power plant. The plant beam back the energy it collected to earth station through microwave or something. (google it). Can we afford this technology?



some would argue that we should do r&d and invest big in alternative energy. It takes time and money to develop one, with no guarantee of success. (really aah? malaysia r&d producing reliable alternative energy? a feat that even the developed world still can't quite achieve.... hmmm, anyway - malaysia boleh maa). In the meantime where are we going to get our cheap electricity? Please consider nuke energy.



Safety? there's a big question mark there. we're not in the pacific ring of fire so chances that something like the Fukushima Daiichi happening here, quite slim. more likely we would become Chernobyl where faulty design and human error causes meltdown disaster. Hmm, maybe we shouldn't built and operate a nuke plant. maybe we should let a german company with an all german employee built and run it. So far they have no nuke incident right?

Answer 4

No Nuclear Power Plant in Malaysia. We have many other safer alternatives that include Bakun , thus why endanger the Rakyat? Although one may claim we are not in earthquake country now but there are no guarantee in future as the ‘plate’ is ‘moving’ and with the evidence of more and more quake happen or felt in Bukit Tinggi as reported. We don’t want Chernobyl tragic or Japan disaster to happen in Malaysia. Although person can say to have implement many safety measure but natural (& ‘human’) disaster is not predictable any slight ‘mistake’ / error / negligent / ‘wrongdoing’ (Rakyat can see for themselves of the ‘good track record’ of the many ‘infrastructure’ project eg. road or building crack, leak or collapsed) could put our life as well as our future generation in danger and ‘Malaysia / Malaysian’ becoming ‘extinct’. Japan such a high tech & advance country with high skill and discipline also facing difficulty in handling the crisis, how do u expect we can? VIP / Rich people can migrate but we the ordinary people are the one will be suffering. The Government must put its stance on this issue to abort the idea and not wasting public funds (even if TNB’s own funds also consider Rakyat’s money) and make a better use of money for the Rakyat rather then using it to conduct survey or study as the Rakyat is Not Agreeable. If the people up there don’t want to change the idea then the RAKYAT will CHANGE this people using PEOPLE POWER. Again, I appeal to the Government not to consider the plan at all and Please not to put the Rakyat at risk.

Answer 5

I vote for Yes



1) Malaysia are away from any red dot Volcanic activities.That the best part.

Check http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Pacific_Ring_of_Fire.png



2) Building Nuclear Plant can save a lot of Space better then Building A big Dam. Natives on Sabah and Sarawak can still happy (animal) head hunting on their ground



3) Malaysia have continuous flow of river and that might be a big help for Nuclear Plant cooling system



4) Nuclear waste . Check This website



http://www.ehow.com/way_5332363_ways-dispose-nuclear-waste.html

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5627481_nuclear-waste-disposal.html



In advancement of the World technology, More option will offer to dispose Nuclear Waste

Answer 6

The government should only consider to go for nuclear power, when they have mastered on basic skills on planning and developing of infrastructure all around cities. Moreover, they must also pass the basic maintenance task on those infrastructures, such as roads and public transport. If you have chance to walk around places outside KL like subang, puchong, penang state, and even sabah and sarawak. You can notice that, the government has not capable of maintaining the simple infrastructure and do simple planning, eg: bumpy roads everywhere, and failed flood mitigation plan. And don't forget that Malaysia has being independence for 1/2 of century under the leading of the same government since the beginning. Can you imagine the nuclear plant is being managed by a group of peoples that do not like to care much of the consequences of their action, but more concern about their salary earnings. Malaysian do not have enough that kind of mindset to manage the plant, and neither have the skills to. It's just like a boy wanting to play a grenade before even knowing how to play a smallest fireworks.

Answer 7

No, definitely not. We do not need a nuclear power plant to show we're an "advanced" country; so many other factors determine whether or not we are one. Just because other first world countries are beginning to get (or already have) nukes, doesn't mean we need to imitate them.



Secondly, nuclear plants produce large amounts of radioactive waste, which cannot be destroyed. The only option is to store them somewhere far away from people. The question is, which part of Malaysia will be targeted next for destruction? Already our rain forests are in jeopardy due to so many developments going on, now we're going to clear out another 964652301879119523 kilometers of forest to place a giant radioactive chunk of metal that generates electricity we already have? Or are we going to Sabah/Sarawak and tell the Orang Asli: "Sorry, but we need to make a nuclear plant we don't really need; could you move your house over to xxx?"



Thirdly, it's not like it takes a couple million Ringgit to invest in a nuclear plant; hundreds of millions of Ringgit (or even more) are needed to clear land, prepare construction materials, get the raw radioactive elements, build the radioactive waste dump site, clear more land for it, etc. etc. etc. and not to mention hiring the expertise from other places (I doubt Malaysia has anybody in that field at the moment?). Are the taxpayers willing to pay so much Ringgit for a little bit more electricity when it could be used to, say, upgrade our public transport/upgrade education infrastructures/health subsidies/etc? If we need more electricity, just emulate Japan: get the rakyat to reduce energy consumption. I'm sure we can save about 50% of our electricity now if we're all more energy-efficient. No need to waste so much precious Ringgit that could be used to pump the economy and so on, when all it takes is a simple step: switch off the light you're not using.



As a final note, I'd also like to point out that nuclear power never should be considered unless it's a last resort. The amount of waste generated over time will be immense and if something goes wrong, another Chernobyl can happen, this time on our very own land. Who are we to say that we have enough experts to prevent that from happening? For that matter, even the wisest genius cannot totally prevent it from happening; something might just go wrong. We don't want rotting, zombie Malaysians stumbling around in the next 50 years, thank you very much.

Answer 8

Unfortunately the answer is YES. Malaysia will require Nuclear power in the next 10 years or more. This is beacause our consumption is increasing. Unless there is ready and cheaper altenative available Nuclear is our best bet. The Japanese plants are and were 100% safe. Japan was fully prepared for an EARTHQUAKE but they were not prepared for a TSUNAMI. This is where the backup diesel generators got taken out or else the fuel rods would have stabilised by now. Malaysia should use Japan's tragedy to make nuclear plant more secure and take all the uncalculated or unimaginable into account when going ahead to build one. The only thing that worries me is SECURITY within our country.

Answer 9

In light of the Japan earthquake, I will answer from a geographic point-of-view. From that p.o.v., I would say, "It's risky".



Peninsular Malaysia is very close to the fault line where the Eurasian Plate meets the Australian plate. Since that is by far Malaysia's most populous "half" (the Bornean "half" being rather sparsely populated save for Sabah), in light of current events in Northern Japan I would say they should not build a nuclear reactor there. Now, if Malaysia could find a way to route their power from Borneo to the peninsula (can you do this with undersea cables like you can with fiber optic cables??) and then build a power plant in their Bornean region, perhaps they could safely pull off a nuclear power plant, since Borneo Island is not too near any tectonic plate intersections.

Answer 10

Malaysia should have a nuke plant but not now as there is little need for a big plant in this country's early stages. Maybe in the future, the Malaysian government would actually succeed in bringing experts and Malaysian talent back home, then Maybe people would have more trust in projects of this scale. Further more i do not think Malaysia has the resources to spare since the government is adamant on raising prices of commodities.

Answer 11

Malaysia does not have the standing of developed nations to have, maintain and operate a nuclear plant. We borrow technology, nuclear technology is foreign and high risk to the geographical position in South East Asia. What will Malaysia do should our neighbors start their nuclear projects? Start a nuclear protest? ASEAN has signed a treaty on non-nuclear in her region. I think our government is over zealous in this matter. If nuclear Boleh ! Than disaster is also Boleh !!

Answer 12

NO. 100% NO. We are safe from natural disaster. Why should we build a nuclear plant which post a great risk to Malaysian ? Think of rakyat. Not political gain. YBs. A developed country can't handle it. You think Malaysia can ? You must be kidding.

Answer 13

Definitely NOT! look at how KL LRT is every time there is heavy rain. if this country can't even overcome the problem with rail tracks and trains, i fear for the maintenance and safety of a nuke plant in malaysia. what the other comment mentioned is right, malaysia is free from most natural disasters and i am sure the people certainly do not want to start having man-made ones now

Answer 14

All it takes is JUST one MAJOR " Problem " to contaminate our beautiful malaysia.

Mankind can do all it can on prevention BUT nothing can challenge NATURE.

Experts comment that its safer to travel on aeroplanes than driving a car BUT all it takes is one MAJOR problem to crash a plane and kill all its passengers.

Likewise, Experts say it is safe to use nuclear BUT there is always the " IFs it happens ". Nothing can contain a Nuclear Disaster. If it happens it will destroy us malaysians . And malaysia is just a very SMALL country .

Also for such a small country where do we contain the Nuclear Wastes ? Will it leak and cause health problems to our FUTURE Generations ?

Why risk our beautiful green country ?

I am personally all for NOT building a nuclear plant ............!

Can't there be other Options ?

Answer 15

Of course NOT. Malaysians are noted for their corrupt and zero-maintenance culture. Coupled with self-serving politicians who approve billion dollar projects to cronies with no experience just to enrich themselves, we Malaysians will probably end up with another sub-standard infrastructure built at one tenth its reported cost, with the other 90% going into some politician and his cronies' pockets. Remember the RM300m stadium which collapsed? How about Highland Towers? Numerous collapsing schools? A Parliament that leaks? Even simple items like street lights are so poorly maintained, does anyone want to take a chance on our people building and maintaining a nuclear power plant? We'd probably have better luck having Homer Simpson run the plant!

Answer 16

I'll answer with a question of my own.. Does malaysia REALLY need a nuke plant? Doesn't the Bakun Dam give enough power? So much so thats its actually going to waste if it isn't tapped into.... And screw the misspellings... Besides, do we have the materials? I.E the raw uraniums needed.... The technical expertise needed... Not to mention the centre needed to enrich said uraniums after its been used... why enrich? Coz After its used, it is just waste radioactive material.. Hence enrichment to make it a viable resource again... All these cost money... Tons of money to be exact... Not to mention the possibility of the uraniums being hijacked as terrorist weapons.. *hey, if we can lose a jet engine WITHIN the army, what makes u think a nuke plant (essentially a civilian facility, yes high level but civillian nonetheless) is any safer?* so My answer would be No... Its just a waste of time and money.. not to mention giving corrupt officials the chance to line their pockets... When we start having another Kuala Lumpur, then I'll give it another thought... Till then, a resounding NO

Answer 17

No need. We have abundance source of material. Need only to improve the efficiency of the existing power plant. I believe that the bakun dam has more than enough juices to light up the one Malaysia. Nuclear energy is still consider not safe as what happen if such tragedy occur? Have we carry out preventive measure or risk analysis if such incidence occur?

Answer 18

NO!!!!

1. Nuclear power is expensive. While it is very difficult to get accurate figures on the cost of nuclear – because nuclear power stations have generally been given big support from government and little is known about the true cost of decommissioning and disposal of waste – it seems that it is significantly more expensive than some sustainable alternatives. Nuclear power is very difficult to cost because, if the figure is to be meaningful, it must cover mining, building the power station, running costs for the full life of the power station, protecting the nuclear material from possible theft by terrorists, decommissioning costs, and costs of disposing of the radioactive wastes and protecting them from disturbance for many years.



2. Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water for cooling. If natural water bodies such as lakes, streams and the ocean is used, then the release of large quantities of warm water back into the environment can cause environmental damage. (Compare to wind, tidal, wave and solar power that do not necessarily require any cooling water at all.)



3. Climate change demands quick action. Planning and building a nuclear power station is slow, it takes at least 15 years.



4. Renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal could be built by private industry without government subsidy (so long as there was a 'level playing field') while no private company would be willing to touch nuclear power without big government subsidies.



5. Nuclear power stations would be a target in any war. A bombed nuclear power station would spread more radiation around than would any nuclear bomb – because there are many tonnes of highly radioactive material in a nuclear power station. Wind turbines and solar panels, because they are spread over a big area, are much more difficult to destroy by bombs, and would not spread pollution if they were bombed. Only a small section of the top, at most, of the deep wells that are the most expensive part of a hot dry rock geothermal power station could be destroyed by bombing; these could be relatively cheaply and quickly repaired.



6. As it is used at present nuclear power is a very inefficient use of uranium. Only about 1% of the energy available in the uranium is used. See Fast Nuclear.



7. The world's high-grade, shallow uranium deposits have largely been mined-out. The remaining deposits are either low-grade or deep, or both, so are expensive to mine.

Answer 19

For the previous answer, I don't think that you can say nuclear plant should be built in Borneo. For your information, Borneo is one of the oldest tropical islands in the world, which still has diversified flora and faunas here. Currently, even in Sabah, electricity supply is not enough. Building Nuclear Plant there means that this will endanger the nature in Borneo and it's not a good solution. The best way is to design another method of electricity generating, which is enviromental-friendly...

Answer 20

Nuclear energy has to be developed further, its safety procedures constantly be upgraded and its full potential harnessed so that it would not place undue burden unto poor developing communities... Power and energy industries worldwide are the main catalyst of a nation's developmental progress especially when it involves a large area with a considerable population size... With today's modern technology and an almost complete dependency on electrical appliances to help with one's everyday tasks, the need for other energy sources apart from the typical fossil fuels will only continue to grow at an enormously rapid rate... Computer literacy as well as the popularity of the internet as a communication and information medium is fast increasing exponentially each second... Hydro electric dams maybe a source of clean reusable energy but Bakun is definitely no Hoover dam precisely because its water catchment area is not at a higher elevated position to enable the development of greater potential energy source... Natural water falls are the best source of hydro energy... It surely puzzles u how Iguazu falls in Argentina, angel falls in Venezuela and Victoria falls in Zambia isnt fitted with hydro electric dynamos to harness nature's incredible source of perpetually flowing energy source... The east coast of the Malaysian peninsular too has great potential for wind energy especially during the monsoon season and cold wind passing through the channels of the South China Sea... Energy is practically everywhere waiting to be harnessed and in some cases recycled... Roads in the future can even be fitted with friction energy converters and perhaps finally one day the humble lightning rod can be further developed to channel the awesome power of lightning strikes into energy converters instead of just grounding it back to earth... There is a million possibilities but frankly who the hell actually gives a damn about saving the earth when most people are too busy discriminating and killing one another... Peace and love people... ;P

Answer 21

Any mega project in Malaysia is highly questionable. The foresight is often one nose length in depth and justification is for some questionable interest of certain politicians. What happened to the Bakun Dam? I thought it has enough capacity for many generations to come? If the Japanese cannot handle an overwhelming situation like that with their highly skilled and disciplined people, what is going to happen in Malaysia? Your guess is as good as mine. Wake up !!! Stop putting all Malaysians in danger.

Answer 22

i don't think we need a nuclear plant. Do not use "latest technology" or "technology transfer" as an excuse to bring dangerous things in our country. We already leave in peace and harmony. Why do we need to invite disaster into our life? We could not even maintain our own car good enough, are we sure that we can maintain a NUCLEAR PLANT?



Please think about it MALAYSIA....

Answer 23

Not agree.....because the govt will be have more RASUAH going on if they construct a nuclear plant....as the same case with "why M'sia bought a submarine for don't know how many billion and is totally no use at all?"

Answer 24

I'm not a big fan of the current ruling government. I'm also an environmentalist in my own way.

We can say anything we want about pollution and danger but the real issue here is we are living in a world that depends on power. Even now as we surf internet, tremendous amount of power is needed to get everything wired and connection through.

Nuclear power is the most dependable and reliable power source compared to petroleum. The waste from the nuclear facility also can be controlled unlike the petroleum waste that being released to the environment by the general public.

We can talk about environment or contamination or pollution but I bet you cannot live without power. Nuclear power is the most practical solution to ensure continuous power supply. You may hate it but it's something you cannot live without

Answer 25

Our heroes championing the" NUKE PLANT" HAS MADE FLIP-FLOP STATEMENT. Organise a campaign for the international "NUKE PLANT" builder to built with ONE RINGGIT cost provided the plant is build beside the house of whoever the Energy Minister is.This is for safety purpose. Here we have bright sunshine giving free energy "SOLAR", but they chose not to develop into an economical energy. Those temperate countries use NUKE as alternate energy because they don"t have what we enjoy the whole year through Sunshine Days. We want our future generations not to suffer the pains and agony the Japanese is experiencing NOW. May Almighty help save Japan , I fear if the crissis is not contain, it would be a Regional or Global Crissis. NO TO NUKE PLANT!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 26

Better not! we thought Bakun was built to cater the whole of malaysia for the next 20years???

and our QC is not up to standard when it start working on ground. Better play with something safe eg wind power, or solar power.....where enivornmetal risk is zero! nuclear power in long term will cost our country a fourtune ....if u know the truth of the trading business....

Answer 27

NO NUKE.....!!!!!! Microwave over frequency is danger. Nuclear plant in Malaysia? We are eventually dying softly. Everyone of us living surrounding by the e-smog. Don't you think it is 'good' enough to kill us slowly and gently? For the sake of some people want to make their money, may be yes.

Answer 28

Let see for other alternatives. Nuclear is cheap and advance but it is too risky. How about the government do some Research & Development for other renewable energy. Example like solar power, wind, water current by the sea and many others. Just put the risk to zero.

Answer 29

Yes...until now all renewable energy (solar, wind, etc) cant produce mass amunt of energy unlike nuclear. And less pollution on earth. Current world population are consuming 220,000 gallons of petrol per minute!!! less pollution, less green house effect. We all have to learn from Japan and make it safer than existing current plant.

Answer 30

No, not really. I think this is the decision then by Dr M and he already explained why. This include the difficulties in disposing the waste coming out from the nuke plant as the radio-active materials are not easily decompose. Others include pollution, safety, and, etc. Me and Dr.M seem to have same opinion on the matter.

Answer 31

It's a big NO! Does the country really want to risk its nations precious lives just because of the profits that they expect to make from this? Hasn't what happened in Japan taught us a big lesson? Wouldn't it be wrong for the firm to dispose its own waste at others country?

Answer 32

no, we should not build the nuclear plant in malaysia. we will make objection till last... it not a fool... High danger disaster if anything happened...

Answer 33

Why not, if you can be adequately prepared for worst scenerios despite all good that the plant can do for our country? / Of course preference should be to upgrade our self as a first world country in many other basic / fundamental aspects before investing /funding into this.

Answer 34

Malaysia must first honestly study the abundance of renewable energy availabe in view of its favourable geographical location. 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: http://www.rank.com.my/energywise

Answer 35

from my point of view malaysia already have isue of political.....u know what i mean ....then if malaysia want to build a nuclear that will be bad idea cuz it gonna destroy our eviroment by the way if goverment want to protect thier country they should work together dont care what races or from which country u from...we should help thoese who needed.....

Answer 36

If the politicians and their future generations have to live near to the nuclear plants, I am all for it.

Answer 37

You can dream and nobody bothers but if you put it out into plan and take actions; we surely care and question. Has Malaysia a proven record of a responsible man or is it another dare dreamer without substances ? How much contingency has Malaysia to do such a daring act, please excuse me if my comment is forthright. I only wish to live healthy and safe with everyone.

Answer 38

i think they shouldn't because if you have a nuclear plant then that pollutes the earth more. and it also can have a nuclear problem just like japan even without tsunami . Some people have to walk around with face masks on because it affects their health... and why bring that danger to Malaysia? why take the risk? The risk isn't worth taking.. but then again.. that's just my opinion

facts:



Risk of cancer



There have been several epidemiological studies that claim to demonstrate increased risk of various diseases, especially cancers, among people who live near nuclear facilities. Among recent studies, a widely cited 2007 meta-analysis of 17 research papers was published in the European Journal of Cancer Care. It offered evidence of elevated leukemia rates among children living near 136 nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, United States, Germany, Japan, and Spain.[15] Elevated leukemia rates among children were also found in a 2008 German study that examined residents living near 16 major nuclear power plants in Germany. These recent results are not consistent with many earlier studies that have tended not to show such associations. But no credible alternate explanations for the recent findings have so far emerged



Radiation



The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health effects of radiation. This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light---186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can cause genetic diseases in progeny.



Radiation occurs naturally in our environment; a typical person is, and always has been struck by 15,000 particles of radiation every second from natural sources, and an average medical X-ray involves being struck by 100 billion. While this may seem to be very dangerous, it is not, because the probability for a particle of radiation entering a human body to cause a cancer or a genetic disease is only one chance in 30 million billion (30 quintillion).



Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called "radioactive". These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems. We will discuss these separately, but all of them taken together, with accidents treated probabilistically, will eventually expose the average American to about 0.2% of his exposure from natural radiation. Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days.





it isn't a good idea... unless Malaysia wants to harm their population and environment.. but i'm sure they don't

Answer 39

of the over 400 nuc plants operating; only two have failed in the last 26 years. one was deliberately wrecked thru bureaucratic idiocy(chernobyl). one failed due to poor design of the backup water power source(fukushima). the latest 3rd and 3rd plus generation power plants have basically eliminated all of the weak points of 1st and 2nd gen designs. 3rd gen plants are also simpler, and more efficient. i live in illinois(u.s.a.). we have about ten nuc plants. not one has failed. nuc plants are being built all over the world.don,t believe all of the negative press about nuc plant safety. France is 83% nuc, using an advanced 2nd gen design from general electric.

Answer 40

We should not have one, there must be other way to overcome electricity shortage, Even though nuke energy provide much more power and cheaper but the maintenance is expensive also (i never heard my Japanese colleague mention their electricity bill cheap). Plus our nation is quite small and i cant`t think where we can evacuate if problem arise.

Answer 41

Dear Global Friends,



Lessons have been seen and learnt and it is always the innocent people who are being suppressed and get burnt.



As the ancient wisdom says, " Man proposes, GOD disposes "

Note :- If the proposal is against the law of Nature, and not beneficial to the living and non-living beings, then GOD or Nature disposes to protect HER Nature.

Who can conquer Mother Nature ?



Love Mother Nature and get Beloved !!!!

Answer 42

MY opinion is that if the NUCLEAR PLANT is Feasible then go a head,We are a developing COUNTRY.DISASTER DO TAKE PLACE. BUT NATURAL DISASTER IS BEYOND HUMAN CONTROL.

Answer 43

yes. the faulty nuclear plants are so rare, with nuclear power, you can generate very much energy without further polluting the earth.

Answer 44

We should learn from the things happening in Japan....or else when bad things happen, we don't know to resolve it ...Unless we the government wants things to happen like in Japan...Open your eyes all ye Malaysian people....acts now before its too late....BN is people's party right so take a fast action.

Answer 45

our country not suitable for nuclear plant construction.goverment must decide and took the action very carefully.

Answer 46

i would vote for NO.

even though we are relatively save from most natural disaster, we never know what are waiting for us in the future.

Answer 47

In light of the Japan earthquake, I will answer from a geographic point-of-view. From that p.o.v., I would say, "It's risky".

Answer 48

Do you think we have to rely on petrol or coal to run the turbines for generating electricity? If Malaysia have abundant of waterfalls similar to Nigeria falls to make use to spin the turbines, then we don't need the Nuke. Or else we have to be brave enough to build Nuke plant with all the safety measures in place.

Answer 49

NO. why take the risk. if you talk about developing the country, there is many other ways. develop the citizen first.

Answer 50

NO to nuclear plant...............how about wind energy?

Answer 51

yes if the energy consumption is too high and our hydro-electric dam and charcoal power-plant cannot exceeded the needs...even the dam can broke and flooded the entire country..thats also dangerous..btw do you want your house without electricity? i think you can't do a single job without it, literally..:P

Answer 52

Malaysia already have.....

but the small one

Answer 53

definitely YES !!

bcoz were are one of the advance country..

so why not,i think if we have them,our

country will be outstanding !! beside,

nuclear plant is a good thing and

many benefits right ? so why not ?

im juz answering the question..

hekhek^^

Answer 54

Yes..go forward..we need nuclear power for advancements in all areas of development.

Answer 55

no,either its safe,hav got benifits..developments..nothing doing...jus see japan...natural has given lesson to us.first we need peace..i pray to god no tragedy to be happen..to gods loving place.

Answer 56

yes

Answer 57

Yes,

Answer 58

I think this question is not ONLY based on safety and environmental concern, but on a "need-basis". Lets have a look at this issue from a different perspective:



1) Power generated from Hydrocarbon (HC) or HC derived source (diesel power plants, gas power plants, coal power plants) will not be running forever, as HC source is finite, and fast depleting. Malaysia is expected to be a net oil importer by 2015. (subjected to discovery of new oil fields). Signs of we are running fast on fossil fuels is oil companies are chasing after small oil fields (lesser than 1.6 billion barrels of oil reserve in a given oil field). These oil fields were never even being considered to be drilled as recent as a decade ago.



2) Alternative energy: Solar is at its infancy stage, and tremendous leap has to be made to enhance photovoltaic potential to its maximum. A good medium sized solar power plant in malacca is operational by 2015, supplying only 200MW. This is barely enough to supply power to a medium sized city with approx. 200,000 households. Lets not even argue about wind power and geothermal power plants as Malaysia has no access to strong winds or even has readily available geothermally active areas.



3) Yes, hydro-electric dams can be an answer, but dams like bakun or any large scale hydro electric power plants need rather large rivers. In malaysia, we have rajang in sarawak, and kinabatangan in sabah. No rivers in peninsula malaysia have the capacity as these two rivers. The power can be transferred via undersea cable, but the cost will be collossal. This is the main reason why no undersea cable was laid from bakun to peninsula Malaysia, and Bakun is practically forced to sell power to Sarawak. Bakun had to sink an area of singapore island to retain enough water to generate 2400MW. The qustion is, can we risk sacrificing so much of of biodiversity in the name of generating power? the math is simple: If malaysia needs 20,000MW energy by 2020, and assuming 100% is coming from hydroelectric power, we need to sink a total area equivalent the size of 8.3 times the size of Singapore island. That is 5831 sq. kilometers.



4) We are talking ONLY about generating power for homes,factories and commercial buildings at this point. But what about aircrafts, ships, electric trains, defence mobility,etc etc? Current hybrid and electric vehicles (EV) are suitable only for light vehicles, such as cars and 4x4. Still then, full EV needs to be plugged into conventional power source to be charged. Imagine 50 years from now, if every household in malaysia has 2 EV's, as is the case today with average 2 cars per family, the power demand would be EXTREMELY HIGH! Where do we generate that kind of power? For the record, we have currently 10 million vehicles on Malaysian roads, with annual increase of 5% in total industry volume (TIV).



5) We are still far off from energy source such as Hydrogen nuclear fusion (conventional nuclear power in todays world is generated from fission principal, using Uranium). Hydrogen power would be the holy grail of ending the impending energy crisis, But the technology is still decades, maybe even 1 or 2 centuries away. Hydrogen power is the equivalent of today's hydrocarbon power, which can be used to generate power by power plants, aviation, shipping, road bound vehicles and all. But as I said, it is still years away before it becomes a feasible alternative to hydrocarbon fuel.



Till we reach a stage where we can say we have discovered a way to entirely replace fossil fuel, (be it hydrogen fusion or any other source of energy), we need to find ways to reduce dependability on fossil fuel, and embrace so-called "risky" technology. Yes, I do agree WE NEED nuclear energy. The benefits and risks of having nuclear energy has been deeply debated by the readers on this page, but our fear is due to our lack of knowledge in this field. All we need to do is enrich our knowledge in nuclear power and its related technology, and most importantly, treat the power with respect. Many may disagree with this statement I'm about to make, but like it or not, there is no other viable energy source to nuclear energy at this point, and we will have to embrace it at one point, wheter we like it or not.



Before signing off, I would like to share a small bit of automobile history I read some time back.



When cars were invented more than 120 years ago, there were many sceptics about this new invention. Most people were asking how are they going to feel safe while driving knowing they are seated barely a feet above a tank storing gallons of easily combustible fuel? An aristrocat even said automobiles are just a "passing fad", and that horse carriages would still prevail after the automobile novelty had worn off.



Today, the world is still driving with fuel tanks barely 3 feet behind them, and horse steak is a french delicacy. ;-))





regards,

shiv

[e-mail]

Answer 59

editor...why malaysia?

Answer 60

you cant afford it ha

Answer 61

I would say "No", please give us a safe and healthy living place