Nuclear Philippines is a future full of costly risks (Opinion)

Nuclear Philippines is a future full of costly risks (Opinion)

The Duterte administration recently floated the revival of a white elephant
of the martial law period-the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP)-to meet the
country's burgeoning energy needs. "Revival" actually is an inapt word; the
facility never went online in the first place.

Going nuclear is a highly inappropriate option because of its potential to
cause catastrophic damage due to accidents, sabotage or terrorism; to
produce very long-lived radioactive wastes; and to exacerbate nuclear
proliferation. It is also water intensive, slow to construct, and very
expensive. With many countries already phasing out nuclear power in favor of
renewable energy technologies, the nuclear option is but a costly and risky
diversion for the Philippines.

While it is true that nuclear energy is a mature, low-greenhouse gas
emission source of baseload power, many important risks attached to this
option have been aptly demonstrated as reality-at Three Mile Island in New
York, Chernobyl in Ukraine and, closer to home, Fukushima in Japan. Although
new performance records for new reactor designs have emerged, some of them
touting the technology's improved safety records, the risks associated with
nuclear energy linger.

Large-scale property damage and evacuation costs from nuclear accidents are
the key liabilities of having a nuclear facility in an earthquake-prone
country like the Philippines. In a matter of hours, a nuclear disaster could
generate global fear and horror; this has been illustrated in the Great East
Japan Earthquake of 2011, that brought about the meltdown of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Managing radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors is another
challenge. If we cannot even effectively attend to simpler solid waste
management problems, how can we ensure that we will have the capacity to
store radioactive wastes for thousands of years?

Nuclear proliferation is another big risk. Under the guise of a civilian
nuclear energy program, several countries have developed nuclear weapons.
How can we address the risk of terrorists gaining access to nuclear
materials, especially with our endemic corruption problem?

Another disadvantage of the nuclear option is its water-intensive property.
With climate change already altering the water cycle, how can we ensure
adequate water supply for these facilities, especially during water
shortages and droughts?

The long construction and deployment times that a nuclear facility
demands-typically between 10 and 36 years-highlight the technology's
expensive cost. As currently structured, nuclear power plants are therefore
nonviable for most emerging economies such as ours. How can we afford the
billions of pesos needed for a commercial reactor?

The best energy option for the Philippines is not nuclear but the already
proven and demonstrated renewable energy technologies. These are relatively
less risky, environmentally benign, socially acceptable, and economically
plausible options. These include utility-scale and distributed solar, wind,
micro-hydro, and geothermal installations. Our equatorial, geographic and
archipelagic location, which translates into a tremendous renewable energy
potential, is a natural blessing many countries are envious of.

Projects that transform our huge wind, water, sunlight and geothermal
resources into our much-needed energy can be constructed quickly, within two
to five years, but without the risks and costs attached to nuclear. Wind
farms, for example, take one to three years in the development stage-that
is, the time required to identify a site, purchase or lease a land, monitor
winds, install transmission, negotiate a power-purchase agreement, and
obtain permits-and between one and two years to construct. Solar farms take
almost the same time. A geothermal power plant takes between two and three
years in the development stage and two to three years to build. The costs
for constructing renewable systems are now dwindling, with some even lower
than building coal-fired power plants. New jobs generated from these new
installations are also greater than what coal and nuclear facilities can
create.

If the Duterte administration wishes to make a dent in the future of
Philippine energy, the short construction time, lower costs, and more jobs
that renewables offer should be excellent reasons to merit political
support. These are in addition to the environmental and health benefits-like
reduced emissions and pollution that the transition brings. Getting the
politics right, which means the strongest possible push for renewables from
the Duterte administration, is the first necessary step. Equally important
is the strong rallying support from civil society and the business sector.

Those critical of tapping our renewable energy potential often highlight the
variable output of some of these technologies-wind power and photovoltaics
in particular. While there is some truth to these claims, these are but
perceptional oddities. Obviously, no power plant can operate continually.
Some nuclear facilities have even met extended unplanned shutdown periods of
more than one year. By contrast, the intermittency of wind and solar outputs
can be addressed by matching electricity demand through forecasting, making
grids smart, and increasing energy efficiency.

Bringing the BNPP-or any nuclear energy facility for that matter-online is
nothing but a risky and costly digression to an effective approach to our
energy supply problem. Adopting this most expensive and very risky remedy
only curbs what we can (and must) spend on the more promising approaches.
For this administration to be truly concerned about the future of energy in
the Philippines, renewables, not nuclear, is the way forward.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Ref:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/97258/nuclear-philippines-future-full-costly-ris
ks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

John Diecker
APT Consulting Group Co., Ltd.

www.aptthailand.com