Unclear on Nuclear: Looming power shortage puts nuclear energy back on the drawing board

History seems to be repeating itself in the case of the country’s love-hate relationship with nuclear energy.

Amid frenzied lobbying in Congress by both the opposers, led by Greenpeace, and the energy players that are betting on nuclear as a safe, clean (read: good alternative to fossil fuels) means for building capacity while the specter of industries being threatened by a power shortfall is raised anew, experts are busy wrapping up assessments on what is hoped to be the last, authoritative word on the matter. Unless, that is, politics—from either the pro or con side—prevents a clear-headed look at the situation.

Almost half a century ago the Philippine government thought of putting up a nuclear power facility to augment power supply and avert an impending shortage. Under then-President Ramon Magsaysay in 1955, the country signed an agreement with the United States under the Atoms for Peace program. In 1956, the year after, the Philippines attended a meeting at the UN Offices in Geneva and became a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In 1958, two years after the inception of IAEA, the government enacted the Republic Act of 1958, or the Philippine Science Act of 1958, which paved the way for the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), now popularly known as the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute.

“At present, the European Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines [ECCP] supports the Philippines’ nuclear power program. I think it’s about time the Philippines looks into it. I, though, still have mixed feelings on whether the 620-megawatt [MW] Bataan Nuclear Power Plant [BNPP] should be stopped, renewed or refurbished. Is it safe, how much would it cost, can we use a 30-year-old design of a power plant and make it work in the next 30 years? I want to call on all the nuclear experts to help me make up my mind,” Hubert d’Aboville, president of the ECCP, told the BusinessMirror at the sidelines of the Nuclear Power Forum Philippines 2010 held at the Sofitel Philippine Plaza Hotel on Friday.

“There is no geological basis [for] closing the BNPP,” Dr. Carlo Arcilla, University of the Philippines-National Institute of Geological Science (UP-NIGS) director, said in his presentation that disproved decades-long claims that an active fault was beneath the BNPP.

He quickly made it clear that his conclusions were based on data gathered using scientific methods such as electric resistivity survey, seismic survey and geochemical survey using radon gas, all done by the UP-NIGS to determine if an active fault was really beneath the BNPP. “By definition, an active fault must have superficial manifestation and if there was an active fault beneath the BNPP, surface manifestation such as breaks would have been observed within the period it has been mothballed up to now,” he said.

More than geological reasons, Arcilla surmised that the BNPP was shut down due to political reasons. “As a geologist, if it was shut down due to a geologic reason, then that’s fine. But if it’s not geological, then please admit it’s a political reason rather than blaming geology. It deserves serious consideration for opening,” he said.

Arcilla said he could not fathom why the government then spent $2.3 billion for a nuclear power plant without checking if an active fault was underneath it. “This plant remains idle while power rates are so expensive in the country.”

Ready for nuke power; trend worldwide

D’Aboville said the Philippines is ready for nuclear energy, as it is readily available all throughout the world today. “If you listened to experts here at the Nuclear Power Forum Philippines today, there seems to be no alternative but to go nuclear. And I don’t see why the Philippines is the only one that would avoid taking this direction,” he pointed out.

Online searches, d’Aboville added, indicate that there seems to be no alternative but for the world to turn to nuclear energy. But, he conceded, he has “not studied . . . well enough” which technology the Philippines should take.

He fretted that, “There is a lack of information but too much emotion on this; people have to come to a point where they only decide to trash it or invest in it and run it,” he added.

“Is there a fault beneath the BNPP? It should be dealt with at a level of reason and not on a level of ideology. It’s a very simple question: Is there a fault or not underneath the plant?” Arcilla, for his part, asked.

Since its closure in 1986, when the Marcos regime that built it at an overprice was ousted in the People Power revolt, no evidence of an active fault beneath the BNPP has surfaced, and Arcilla noted it has been intact since the time it was built in the ’80s and up to now. “If there is an active fault beneath the plant, it will absolutely and immediately condemn the plant. Nothing can resist an active fault,” he added.

Laguna de Bay a volcano

Arcilla cited materials posted on the Internet saying that the BNPP was shut down because an active fault was beneath it and that a volcano, Mount Natib, is located close to it. “But again, if there’s an active fault beneath the plant, it will condemn the structure immediately and absolutely. Also, the Magnitude 8 earthquake in Luzon in 1991 did not affect the BNPP at all,” Arcilla noted.

In the case of Mount Natib, according to Arcilla, there are only two dates recorded that showed that it last erupted—20,000 and 60,000 years ago. Just for perspective, he added that the closest volcano to Manila is Laguna de Bay. “People don’t even know it’s a volcano. It has the same age of Mount Natib, and yet people don’t tremble at the thought of Laguna de Bay erupting. I wonder why people are suddenly afraid at the thought that Mount Natib could erupt.”

In the usual life span of 60 years of a nuclear power plant like BNPP, Arcilla asked, “How likely is a volcano that last erupted 27,000 and 60,000 years ago going to erupt?” Also, recent drillings made by the then-Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Development Corp. (PNOC-EDC) did not yield signs of active magmatic fluids, proving that the area around Mount Natib had no potential for a geothermal power plant.

Also speaking at the Sofitel forum, former congressman Mark Cojuangco, who authored the bill proposing the rehabilitation and revival of the BNPP, said the main problem at hand is society’s acceptance of nuclear power, which still remains a political problem.

“It’s a battle that could be won if society begins to talk about the issue and discusses it intelligently and removes emotions from the equation. Our gross domestic product [GDP] today is P9.5 trillion, 1 percent of which gives you P95 billion. The component of salaries and wages in our GDP is about 24 percent; therefore 1 percent of GDP represents about P22 billion in salaries and wages. If we consider a P10,000-a-month job salary, including 13th-month pay, you’re talking approximately 170,000 jobs,” he pointed out.

Cojuangco asked in theoretical terms, was it plausible for him to say that because of the high price of power and its unavailability, that the government has foregone 1 percent of the GDP? “Is it possible that out of the 7 percent projected by the government, 1 percent will not happen of the high price of power or the unavailability of power? Could it be true to say that that has been the case since 1983, when BNPP was ready to run before the Puno Commission? How many years have passed? Could it be said that for each of those years that have passed we could have lost 1 percent of GDP? So how big is that today?” the former solon continued asking.

While admitting he is not an economist, Cojuangco said his arguments should still “be considered by economists and the economic managers as well.”

Cojuangco estimates the country could have lost 30 percent of its job-opportunity window over the last 25 to 30 years due to high power rates and the inadequacy of power.

More than the monetary value of the power BNPP will generate, he elaborated that the issue really could be the foregone economic activity, either because power was too expensive or not available at all.

“Our power situation has led our country to become uncompetitive among our neighbors in Southeast Asia and in the world. Thus, we now have to export our people so that they can earn a living abroad to sustain us here. The current economic scenario is really not sustainable without their income. It’s a sad situation, but it will continue if we bury our heads in the sand and not take up this issue of high power prices or the shortage; we will continue to be this way behind our competitors as far as the economy is concerned,” he said.

The biggest reason to consider reviving the BNPP, Cojuangco said, is its twin—the Kori-2 nuclear power plant running in Korea today, which has won awards for efficiency, safety and reliability. Kori-2 is the best example for citing what we lost with BNPP’s shutdown because it is of the same model, and was even older, having started operating in 1983; it is still running today.

Cojuangco said the plant was built by Westinghouse for $1.05 billion and it paid for itself after six years of commercial operation. “If we ran our power plant in the ’80s, it could have given birth to four or five nuclear power plants in the country and we would not have had the independent power plants, the take-or-pay contracts and power rates would probably be at half the price it is today.”

To be sure, Cojuangco said, there were legitimate reasons to postpone the BNPP then because of Chernobyl, but only up to a point. And history proves it was a wrong decision not to continue with BNPP as South Korea did, he added. Korea now has 20 running nuclear power plants, will have 27 plants two years from now and 38 eight years from now. The Koreans plan to be 80-percent dependent on nuclear power.

Cojuangco said the country or government has its chance now, as the circumstances now are not the same as 1986. The Philippine government now has the benefit of hindsight, from the more than 20 years’ operating history of Kori-2 to guide it.

“We should not be thinking about modifying BNPP, we should just maintain it as the standard plant it was then, so that we won’t have to recertify it for anything else. We just need to make sure that it is up to standard and run it as is to get the 620 MW that we should have been getting since 25 to 30 years ago. Later on, we cannot blame anybody if power remains expensive and the Philippines is uncompetitive. The solution is right under our nose if we don’t do anything about it,” Cojuangco said. –Paul Anthony A. Isla / Reporter, Businessmirror