On the occasion of Earth Day tdoay, the Environment Protection Society Malaysia (EPSM) expresses its deep concern on the increasing momentum within some government agencies to use nuclear power as a source of energy in the future. Of equal concern are these agencies’ positioning that nuclear power, in addition to supplying energy, will help the country address the issue of climate change by reducing reliance on gas and oil.

These thrusts have gained support from developments at the regional level. In November last year, the heads of state and governments of Asean agreed on ‘cooperating for the development and use of civilian nuclear power…’ at the Third East Summit in Singapore.

EPSM urges extreme caution on any decision to move forward with nuclear power. Such a move would be directly against the trend in the European Union which has the highest level of political commitment in the world for environmental and climate change issues. Countries such as Germany, Sweden, Belgium and Spain have already decided to phase out their existing nuclear power projects. The trend is clear - in 2007 the addition of wind power capacity in Europe totalled 8504 MW, while at the same time the net capacity of nuclear power decreased by 1203 MW.

Finland’s nuclear industry has been touted as a good model by the Malaysian nuclear authority. Yet, Finland’s new nuclear reactor is mired in controversy. After three years of construction, the project is running two years behind schedule, leading to heavy economic losses. The contractor has been heavily criticised by the Finnish nuclear safety authority for having failed to meet safety standards. In addition, the project’s financial arrangements are being investigated by the European Commission because of suspected illegal subsidies.

Transitioning into nuclear power must trigger alarm bells for a host of reasons. Firstly, with the technology concentrated in the hands of a few companies mainly in Europe and the United Sates, it would lock Malaysia into a dependency relationship at the dictates of the supplier. As getting out of the industry (decommissioning) would be even harder than getting in, Malaysia would be forever vulnerable to the supplier.

Secondly, nuclear waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years and there are still no fail safe solutions to store it. Thirdly, with regard to safety, an unanticipated environmental disaster similar to Chernobyl in Russia in 1986 can never be ruled out. This bears serious consideration in Malaysia which is touted by no one less than our prime minister for its First World infrastructure and Third World maintenance.

Fourthly, in this era of heightened security, the existence of a nuclear facility will make it vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And if the current situations concerning nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran are used as examples, going nuclear would attract unwanted and unwarranted external scrutiny on Malaysia.

Fifthly, a nuclear power plant will never meet its capital and operational costs through the sale of energy. It will warrant huge subsidies, probably running into billions, which ultimately will have to be borne by Malaysian taxpayers. Further, this industry is well reputed for its lack of transparency.

Irrespective of these concerns, how much can nuclear power really contribute as a solution to climate change? Even the International Energy Agency, in its World Energy Outlook 2007 report, only suggests a small role for nuclear power in its ‘Alternative’ scenarios section. In contrast, this same report suggests a much larger role for renewables and energy efficiency which, together, are stated to displace six to nine times more fossil fuel emissions than nuclear power.

It is the thrusts of renewables (such as solar, wind, biomass and micro hydro) and energy efficiency (reducing consumption and demand) that the EPSM urges the Malaysian government to focus on if it is truly serious about addressing our anticipated energy crunch in the future. Such a strategy will also have the dual benefit of dealing with climate change and reducing our country’s climate footprint which is on the rise.

Given this context, the EPSM also cautions against calling for the implementation of a carbon tax as an economic instrument to address climate change. Such a tax will play into the hands of the nuclear industry and let it in via the back door. The alternative would be to push for an environmental tax instead.

Based on these considerations, EPSM calls on the government to reject nuclear power as a potential source of energy for Malaysia. It should not unwittingly play into the hands of promoters of an industry whose main motivation, as some commentators have argued, may simply be to get rid of its obsolete technology.

The writer is vice-president, Environmental Protection Society of Malaysia.