The Philippines is high on the list of countries with the most expensive electricity rates. This has hindered both our ability to become competitive and to achieve better living standards. Higher cost for electricity means higher production costs and causes personal disposable income to be spent on electricity in large amounts.
To finally tackle this long overdue problem, Energy Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi announced the possibility of reopening the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). Speaking before a three-day international conference hosted in Manila this past week, the energy secretary said the country needs to look for the right “energy mix” to secure our energy needs. The right energy mix entails diversifying our energy sources from reliable, environmentally friendly and cost-effective sources.
Included in the mix proposed by Secretary Cusi is nuclear power. The energy secretary also stated “the importance of safe and efficient development of civil nuclear power as a base-load power option to clean, high-quality and advanced modern energy.”
Constructed in 1976 as a response to the global rise in oil prices, the BNPP was built to supply 625 megawatts of cheap and clean power. Despite spending over $2.3 billion for its construction, the country never got a single watt of energy, as environmental and construction issues, and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster led to its closure. Our debts for the plant were fully paid in 2007 and discussions to restart the plant were stalled by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident.
Even in its current mothballed status and despite being fully paid for, the Philippine government spends P50 million a year to maintain the plant. It would make economic sense then to just rehabilitate the plant and run it.
While certain countries have abandoned their nuclear-power efforts in favor of renewable energy, nuclear power is still the most reliable and cleanest source of electricity. Nuclear power can efficiently generate the same amount of energy as fossil fuels without greenhouse emissions. A single pellet made from uranium used in nuclear fuel can produce the same energy as 149 gallons of oil, or 1,800 pounds of coal.
Renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, on the other hand, require large tracts of land to generate the same amount of energy. Because these sources are also intermittent, energy generation is not as reliable and depends on base-load sources, such as natural gas. While safety is an issue with nuclear plants, more modern Generation III+ reactors being commissioned in several countries incorporate a lot of safety features that mitigate the effects of older reactors used in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Given the benefits of nuclear energy, should it mean we should immediately restart BNPP?
Though nuclear energy has its benefits, we must also look at the long-term costs associated with reopening the BNPP and the time frame. Is it worth spending $1 billion for 625 MW of energy? We should look at this from what benefits us the most and not merely for political or ideological points of view.
2 comments
There was a nuclear power plant in Michigan that was converted to a natural gas power plant at a cost of about $650 million. Nuclear energy has a lot of environmental hazards specially in the Philippines where safety is not a priority. When a nuclear power plant has run its service life, there are decommissioning costs to get rid of contamination. Then there is the problem of disposal of fuel wastes
Even at the cost of USD 700 Million to revive the BNPP for just 625 MW ( or 2 coal fired power plants at 300 MW each) won’t reduce the worst case scenario for its operations. The Philippines has no experience and expertise in running a nuclear power plant and with this will again rely on foreign experts. Japan has the widest experience and expertise but this did not prevent the Fukushima disaster. Besides climate change should make us wary of this revival since it is too risky for a country where mere typhoons and earthquakes exacts so much damage and deaths.