Nuclear power is no longer a bad word in light of the skyrocketing price of fuel and depleting world oil reserves. But the question is, should we and can we go nuclear? NURRIS ISHAK and CHAI MEI LING write.

THREE years.

This is how long Malaysia would be a major oil exporter, and by 2011 we are expected to be a net importer, say industry experts.

And when the world finally runs out of fuel, what options do we, as energy consuming and petrol-dependent citizens, have?

Nuclear energy is not yet on the cards, says Malaysian Nuclear Agency's Jamal Khaer Ibrahim.
However, escalating global oil prices and depleting national reserves, coupled with the need to reserve stock for future generations and sectors like transport, where it's difficult to replace oil as fuel, mean that we can no longer stave off this option.

At present Malaysia gets its electricity from natural gas, followed by coal and hydropower. But these three power generators have their problems.

Gas prices for the power sector recently rocketed to RM14.31 per million British thermal unit from RM6.40. Malaysian gas fields will be depleted by 2027.

And Malaysia is almost totally dependent on coal imports.

Peninsular Malaysia can still depend on hydropower from Sarawak, says Jamal, with the maximum transmission of around 5,000 Megawatt-electric, the Bakun hydropower project included. But this will not be sufficient by 2020,

"There's also a geographical supply and demand mismatch between Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak, with 670km of South China Sea in between," says Jamal who is the director of planning and international relations division.

All these point to nuclear power as an imminent alternative, he adds.

Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak announced that Malaysia might consider generating nuclear power to meet its long-term energy needs.

Science, Technology and Innovation Deputy Minister Datuk Fadillah Yusof says the ministry will submit a paper, drawn up jointly with the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry, to the government on the use of nuclear power.

Fadillah says nuclear power is the cheapest way to produce energy and that nuclear plants are now also very safe. There have beenno accidents in nuclear power plants in the world in the last 20 years, including in earthquake-prone countries like Japan, she adds.

Last August, nuclear safety issues were prominently featured in talks among Southeast Asian energy ministers as more countries look to nuclear as an alternative energy amid soaring oil prices, diplomatic sources say.

Nuclear power proponents, in welcoming the government's move, say that the advantages of having nuclear reactors outweigh the cons.

Its economic viability is definitely attractive, though the capital cost of building a reactor doesn't come cheap - for a 1,000 Megawatt-electric nuclear plant, it can cost between US$1 billion and $2.5 billion.

In comparison, a coal power plant costs up to $1.5 billion, while a gas-fired plant costs between $500 milllion and $1 billion.

However, in the long run, a nuclear power plant proves to be a cheaper alternative due to its low operating cost.

In a report last week, it was stated that petroleum-derived energy costs 9.63 sen per kilowatt, gas-derived energy 6.75, and nuclear energy only 1.72.

"That's why there's no drastic increase in electricity tariff in advanced countries like Japan, where one-third of its electricity comes from nuclear energy," says associate professor Dr Muhamad Samudi Yasir.

Unlikely as it may sound, nuclear energy is also more environmentally friendly.

Industrialised countries turn to nuclear power in their bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change .

Major improvements in nuclear power plant technology have made modern plants much more attractive to investors and policy-makers, says Jamal.

"Compared to the operating life of earlier generations of nuclear plants of 25 to 40 years, modern plants can last up to 60 years.

"Also, the construction period has been significantly shortened from 15 years to just 3 to 6 years."

Strict inspection by international bodies like International Atomic Energy Agency on nuclear energy stations and technological advances made since the Three Mile Island incident (1979) and the Chernobyl incident (1986) also means that the modern-day plants are much safer.

Samudi, a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's nuclear science lecturer, says while public perception towards nuclear power plants is negative, technological advancement over the years will put to rest these worries and fears.

"Accidents involving nuclear reactor are very, very rare.

"Almost every month, there is a death in the coal mines, but why are people not so sensitive to that? The negative perception stems from the bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that's all."

"If you know where the danger lies, you know how to avoid and solve it. We, in this field, are not afraid to deal with radioactive materials, because we know fully well how to handle them.

"The problem is when we do not know anything."