Should Malaysia Pursue Nuclear Energy?

In Japan, they are closing reactors. In South Korea, they are building new ones. In France, they are extending existing ones. In Vietnam, after years of delay, they have just decided to revive a programme that was once cancelled. ¹

In Malaysia, we are asking whether we should start thinking about starting.

Not because we are ready. But because the question may no longer be avoidable — if we intend to honour a carbon-neutrality pledge by 2050 while keeping the lights on for a growing economy. ²

The Problem Driving the Question#

An Energy Mix That Has Not Changed Enough#

Malaysia relied on natural gas (38%) and coal (35%) for most of its electricity generation in 2022. ³ Solar capacity is growing, but solar operates at a capacity factor of around 16–20% — meaning installed solar panels only produce power approximately one-fifth of the time. ⁴

Baseload power — electricity that must be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless of whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — still comes from gas and coal. Replacing these sources with renewables requires either expensive large-scale battery storage, or a new low-carbon baseload source. ⁵

A Pledge That Must Be Met#

Malaysia committed at COP26 to carbon neutrality "as early as 2050." ² This means in fewer than 25 years, Malaysia must phase out most of its fossil fuel use. Renewables like solar and wind are part of the answer. But are they enough for baseload?

This is what drove the 2023 NETR to list nuclear energy as an option that needs to be "studied" — not a commitment, but an acknowledgment that the question requires an answer. ⁶

Side A: Malaysia Must Take Nuclear Seriously#

Argument 1: Weather-Independent Low-Carbon Baseload#

Solar and wind are intermittent. They produce electricity when conditions allow, not when factories need it. A system relying entirely on solar requires significant storage capacity to cover nights and overcast days. ⁴

Nuclear power produces electricity continuously — with a capacity factor of around 85–90%, compared to 16–20% for solar in Malaysia. ⁴ For heavy industry, data centres, and the baseload needs of an industrial economy, this is a meaningful difference.

Argument 2: SMR Technology Is Different from Old-Generation Reactors#

Small modular reactors (SMRs) differ from the conventional reactor designs associated with Chernobyl and Fukushima in terms of scale, safety design, and upfront cost. The latest-generation SMRs are designed with "passive cooling" systems that allow the reactor to shut itself down without electricity supply or human intervention. ⁷

Several Asian countries are evaluating SMRs — including Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand. ^{1 5} Malaysia can learn from their early experiences before making its own decision.

Argument 3: Peninsular Malaysia's Geology Is Favourable#

Peninsular Malaysia lies outside the Pacific Ring of Fire. Earthquake risk in the Peninsula is among the lowest in Southeast Asia. ⁸ This is unlike Japan (Fukushima), Indonesia (Lombok), or the Philippines — all of which face significant seismic and tsunami exposure.

Geological risk is not zero, but it can be managed with careful site assessment. Sabah and Sarawak represent a different case, with higher geological risk, and are not suitable for reactor siting. ⁸

Side B: Malaysia Is Not Ready#

Argument 1: The Regulatory Framework Does Not Exist#

The existing Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) regulates radioactive material use in medicine and industry. Its current mandate does not cover the regulation of commercial nuclear reactors. ⁹

Building an independent regulator with sufficient technical expertise takes years — even for countries that already have mature nuclear frameworks. Malaysia is starting from near zero. ⁹

Argument 2: The Waste Question Is Unanswered#

Malaysia has no long-term radioactive waste disposal facility. ¹⁰ Waste from the Asian Rare Earth processing plant in Bukit Merah — which operated from 1982 to 1992 — remains an environmental issue in Perak more than three decades later. ¹⁰

Waste from a commercial nuclear reactor is a larger and longer-term issue — thousands of years in the case of high-level waste. No country in the world has yet opened a fully operational high-level nuclear waste disposal facility. How would Malaysia handle this? ¹⁰

Argument 3: Renewables Plus Storage Are Already Moving Fast#

Solar panel prices have fallen more than 90% over the past fifteen years. Lithium-ion battery prices are declining rapidly. Vietnam, Indonesia, and many European countries that initially considered SMRs have found in many cases that combinations of solar, wind, and battery storage can meet needs faster and more cheaply than waiting for a reactor to be completed. ⁵

TNB already targets 8,000MW of solar capacity by 2035. ⁴ If battery storage continues on its current cost trajectory, what is the argument for adding nuclear complexity and risk?

Argument 4: Construction Cost and Timeline#

Conventional nuclear reactors typically take 10–15 years to build and routinely exceed budget. SMRs are still at the prototype stage for most designs — no commercial SMR outside Russia and China was fully operational in 2024. ⁷ Malaysia cannot rely on technology that is still unproven at commercial scale to meet 2040–2050 energy needs. ¹¹

Where Malaysia Stands: 2026#

The 2023 NETR and the 12th Malaysia Plan provide space for study, not decisions. ^{6 12} No site has been proposed, no tender issued, no budget allocated for a reactor.

What exists: several SMR companies from South Korea and the United States have presented proposals to the Energy Ministry. ¹¹ Vietnam has moved forward with its programme. ¹ ASEAN as a whole remains in the assessment phase. ⁵

Malaysia has time to make the right decision — but that window is narrowing if 2050 is a genuine target and not a political gesture.