by tnb's estimate, malaysia should require nuclear around 2030 or 2035 depending on how well bakun is performing.

why nuclear?

1.it is a lot more cheaper than coal/oil/gas. i dont exactly remember the figure, but it cost around 2 us cent to generate 1 MW using nuclear.
2.it is highly efficient at full load (very suitable for baseload use
3.malaysia has nearly exhausted all of its potential hydro sites. there is another 2 or 3 hydro projects in the pipeline, but thats about it.
4.unreliability of supply of conventional fuel. where 1 fill of nuclear material can run a plant for around 18 months, you more or less need a constant supply of fuel for a thermal plant.
5. alternative power has low space efficiency. (wind/solar)

micro solar as in germany and other countries has been suggested but high starting cost and long breakeven point is unlikely to see much consumer taking it up.

and the nuclear material used in power plant cannot be interchanged with weapon grade nuclear material. nuclear plant waste nuclear material can be recycled into usable nuclear material.

other than chernobyl, no other failure of nuclear plant has been reported. some nuclear plant have survived huge earthquakes and some has been designed to withstand a plane crashing into it.

efficiency wise its quite good, but space wise its not. when a nuclear plant or any thermal plant can be placed in a relatively small area, you require huge area for solar and wind.

no major nuclear plant incident that cause huge damage to environment/surrounding population/staff

and quality is one of the few things you wont have to worry much about. TNB is a relatively capable GLC and their QC/QA/HSE/procedure is very good in recent years. for the first nuclear power plant, confirmed it would not be done by our local chiakia contractor but by pros from france/italy/japan/korea etc.