|
SHOULD
we go nuclear?
Energy
Secretary Angelo Reyes raised that possibility on
Saturday when he said the government is studying the
option, including the opening of the mothballed Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP)—if it is still viable—to
boost the country’s energy supply.
Insofar
as possibilities are concerned, the Philippine
government has been studying the matter in the recent
couple of years already.
At the
Asean Summit in
Cebu City
in January 2006, President Arroyo herself said the Asean
leaders stressed the need for member-nations to improve
energy-use efficiency and diversify energy supply
through alternative energy sources, such as biofuels and
“civilian nuclear power.”
But the
recent international report, confirming that
carbon-dioxide emission from fossil fuel causes climate
change, turned the search for alternative cleaner energy
sources to fever pitch. Nuclear power is now among the
popular options to cut carbon emissions because experts
say it virtually emits no greenhouse gases.
The
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it
produces only 2 grams to 6 grams of carbon per
kilowatt-hour, or about the same as wind or solar power,
and less than 1 percent of the amount produced by coal,
oil or even natural gas.
The
situation sees the “renaissance” of nuclear power, with
more countries opting to build new power plants,
including the United Kingdom and China.
What is
giving the Philippine government more push now for its
nuclear option was the result of the IAEA inspection of
the BNPP in January.
Reyes
said on Saturday that the IAEA experts reported that the
plant could be rehabilitated in at least five years at a
cost of $800 million. Based on 2007 data, a new 1,000-MW
nuclear plant costs $1.5 billion to $2 billion.
The
Energy chief said it would take two years to undertake a
feasibility study on the rehabilitation and another five
years to rehabilitate the power plant, as contrasted
with the 15 years it would take to build a new one.
The
government spent $2.3 billion to build the 630-megawatt
BNPP. But it has yet to generate a kilowatt of
electricity as the Aquino government mothballed it in
1986 over energy-safety concerns—later debunked by
nuclear-energy experts, who called the BNPP the
“Mercedes-Benz of nuclear power plants.”
Today,
with oil prices hitting $130 a barrel in the world
market and local electricity rates at prohibitive
levels, the debate over the desirability of the nuclear
option has again restarted.
The
Department of Energy (DOE) position is up against
considerable opposition. The international environmental
group Greenpeace will have none of it, saying that
harnessing nuclear power will entail huge costs and pose
health risks. It wants the government to focus instead
on getting the renewable-energy bill approved by
Congress and to avert the adverse effects of climate
change by setting renewable-energy targets, imposing a
moratorium on the construction of coal-fired power
plants, implementing strict energy-efficient standards
and drafting a program to reduce carbon emissions.
Likewise, the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan says
the government would only create another problem with
the opening of the plant, since the structural integrity
of the plant is in question (although the experts have
already debunked this claim), and that the government
would need to loan large sums of money to restore the
plant to its operational state.
Catholic
Archbishop Oscar Cruz asserts the government should
ensure the safety of the plant, tap foreign experts for
its operation and consult the public first if it wants
to open the nuclear plant.
As far
as the DOE and the Department of Science and Technology,
through the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, are
concerned, we were informed that they are addressing the
concerns of Archbishop Cruz with the retraining of the
old and the hiring of new local nuclear-power experts.
At the
same time, consultation with and informing the people on
its use is the top priority in its program—which is
actually a must, as required by the IAEA in all
nuclear-power plant projects—if ever the government
gives the go-ahead to go nuke.
The DOE
sees a power shortage as early as next year. Given that
dire prospect, the shift toward alternative sources of
fuel is certainly welcome. But as Reyes points out, we
can’t have a situation where, if we do away with oil and
coal, then we have blackouts and power-supply shortages.
That
tells us that nuclear energy is a valid option that, at
the very least, should be seriously studied if we don’t
want to go back to the Dark Age we experienced in the
late ’80s and the early ’90s. |
