|
A DEBATE
appears to be ensuing in the country regarding the
safety of nuclear energy, with scientists at the Energy
Summit Wednesday giving opposing views on the use of
nuclear power.
This
occurred as a cocktail of options was presented at the
second day of the summit, underscoring the country’s
search for alternative clean and sustainable sources of
energy amid rising oil prices—once reaching $100 a
barrel—and the concern for climate change caused by
greenhouse gases.
Among
the options offered at the summit were renewable
energy—including solar, wind and hydrothermal—and
nuclear power.
Dr. Jose
Juliano of the National Academy of Science and
Technology said the government “must plan ahead” in
looking for sufficient supply of cheap, safe and
reliable energy source.
He said
that as of January 2007 there are 435 nuclear power
plants in 30 countries, a situation many described as
the “renaissance” of nuclear energy. There was a
“stunted growth” in the use of nuclear energy in the
1980s and 1990s owing to the Chernobyl and Three Mile
Island nuclear power plant accidents. Scientists,
however, said that the safety issues that occurred with
the two accidents are now addressed by new designs of
nuclear plants.
According to Juliano, France gets 78 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power, followed by Lithuania
with 69 percent; Belgium, 57 percent; South Korea, 45
percent; Switzerland, 32 percent; Japan, 29 percent; the
US, 19 percent; Russia, 16 percent; and China, 2
percent. Earlier wire sources said China has plans to
build 30 nuclear power plants by 2020.
In his
presentation Juliano showed that nuclear power may be
the most expensive in terms of investment cost, but this
cost tapers in terms of generating cost because a
nuclear plant could run for 20 to 40 years. His graphs
showed that the cost of electricity in nuclear
power-dependent France is lower than the oil-dependent
Germany from 2000 to 2005. He added that the cost of
nuclear energy in the European Union is competitive with
wind energy.
At the
same time, he said that nuclear power emits no carbon
dioxide so it does not produce greenhouse gases.
Jualiano
admitted that although there is still no final
repository for nuclear waste, these are being addressed
by safety measures adapted by respective countries based
on international standards under the guidance of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Dr.
Kelvin Rodolfo, a geologist and now a “Balik Scientist”
from the University of Illinois, expressed opposition to
nuclear power, citing safety and waste issues.
“Civilization has been around for 6,000 years, but
nuclear waste is still potent for up to 25,000 years. So
it is a little bit arrogant of us now to be saddling our
successors with it,” he said.
He added
that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is situated
in an earthquake belt which is active every 2,000 years,
the last time being 3,000 years ago. “That area is
overdue for an earthquake,” he said.
Rodolfo
opts for the use of hydrothermal power. “I would rather
have hydrothermal than nuclear,” he said. “We have a lot
of geothermal sources. In the world the Philippines is
No. 2 [in hydrothermal power sources]. We can easily be
No. 1 in just a matter of five years.”
Jualiano
told the BusinessMirror the countries which use nuclear
power “are working together on the proper way to
dispose” or to store nuclear waste.
He added
that spent uranium could also be converted to plutonium,
another source of nuclear energy. “If you use that
[uranium] as another fuel, you can produce a lot of
energy from it. You can contain it.”
At the
same time, experts have claimed that BNPP—mothballed
since 1986 owing to strong protests due to safety
claims—was spared by the strong earthquake that jolted
Central Luzon in 1990 and the Mount Pinatubo eruption in
1991.
IAEA
experts are currently in the country assessing the
feasibility of whether BNPP—dubbed as a “Mercedes-Benz
of nuclear power plants”—can still be rehabilitated for
possible use. The government last year said it is
considering its option to use nuclear power.
Jose Ma.
Lorenzo Tan, vice chairman of the World Wide Fund for
Nature-Philippines, said the government must create a
platform for renewable energy so the country could
benefit from its advantages, and urged the passage of
the renewable-energy bill pending in Congress.
He said
the global response to climate change must be systemic.
“The new world order is taking shape in leaps and
bounds,” and “renewable energy presents new business
models.”
Rep.
Juan Miguel Arroyo of Pampanga, in his speech at the
summit, also pitched for the approval of his bill in the
House of Representatives for clean, renewable and
alternative energy resources.
He also
urged the approval of his bills pending in Congress
amending the Energy Power Industry Reform Act (Epira)
for the open access and the entry of more retail
competition in the power sector.
Tan said
renewable energy provides mature technologies in use
worldwide. He cited the presence of the wind farm in
Ilocos and the presence of the “best solar panel plants
in the world” in Batangas and Laguna.
He said
renewable-energy sources provide better profit, better
energy utility, reliable source and stable power cost.
Stable power cost is important in business, especially
in economic zones, which suffer from 17 percent of power
loss.
Tan also
pointed out that renewable energy is
“environment-benign”—it provides for a clean ecosystem
that makes people enjoy better water and food supply.
Atty.
Miguel Trinidad of Solar Power Philippines Mfg. Ltd.
said the company plants in Laguna and Batangas have the
“most powerful solar cells in the world.”
He
highlighted its biggest benefit, with solar power having
“unlimited supply” of energy, thereby reducing the cost
of energy.
However,
he said difficulty in sourcing polysilicon raises the
cost of solar power.
He said
the Philippine has to develop infrastructure for solar
grid connectivity to be able for its to capture a “solar
economy.” |
