Coming power shortage: What is the alternative?

Perhaps no other source of power has been more reviled and misconstrued than nuclear energy, with opponents reviving the incidents in Three Mile Island (TMI) in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine like perennial ghosts. Chernobyl was caused by operator mistake and the TMI accident had no casualties. But since 1954 after the first nuclear-powered plant was built, there has been no other major incident, with the industry having better safety records. Monitoring became more stringent especially with the presence of the global watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency.

Today, more and more countries are looking at nuclear energy as a viable and safer alternative to fossil fuels. Italy and Sweden have announced plans to start building plants again when in fact, their governments voted to scrap nuclear energy a year after the Chernobyl incident in 1986. According to a recent global survey, more than 60 percent of people believe their countries should either start or increase the use of nuclear energy. This matches a European Commission survey last year which found 44 percent of Europeans supportive of nuclear energy. In both instances, concerns about climate change, energy security plus fluctuating fossil fuel prices brought about this change in outlook.

While there are a lot of misgivings concerning the use of nuclear energy for military and weapons buildup, there is a growing paradigm shift in perspective. No less than UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown acknowledged the “momentous” challenges the world has to face like energy shortage and climate change, and that “Whether we like it or not – we will not meet the challenges of climate change without the far wider use of civil nuclear power.” Today with carbon emissions becoming a major source of concern, there is no doubt nuclear energy is a viable alternative because nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide, unlike coal-fired plants. France has 59 nuclear power plants supplying 78 percent of its energy needs and electricity costs one of the cheapest. Ontario – where almost 90 percent of Canada’s nuclear reactors are located – believes that environment-friendly products plus a clean power source like nuclear energy will play a vital part in creating a stronger and more sustainable economy for the province, generating thousands of long-term, high paying jobs in several industries.

Congressman Mark Cojuangco is batting for the revival of the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), but his efforts continue to meet opposition from groups which include some Catholic bishops who are threatening to stage a rally this Friday, claiming that BNPP is unsafe and will cost too much to rehabilitate and operate. A top nuclear physicist however says that very low costs of operation will far outweigh the initial high capital expenses. Kori II, the BNPP’s sister plant (same model, built around the same time) in South Korea, has been safely operating and generating cheap, reliable energy for more than 25 years.

Even Bangladesh is considering nuclear energy to meet its electricity requirements. But while the rest of the world is looking towards the future, here we are still tied down by misconceptions and politically-motivated objections. Back in 1988, the Cory Aquino government closed down the BNPP because of corruption allegations. However, the late Energy Secretary Geronimo “Ronnie” Velasco was begging the government to be rational and objective, and look beyond corruption allegations, warning about a power shortage if we didn’t do something about it. But he was quickly rebuffed because of his connection with Marcos. In one television show where members of the Cory Cabinet were guests, too, he was told to shut up and limit his discussion to corruption issues as he tried to explain about the impending power shortage and why BNPP was necessary. 

A couple of years later, Velasco was proven right when the country was hit by 12-hour blackouts for a year-and-a-half starting in 1992. The country was almost brought down to its knees, losing billions of dollars with many multinational investors moving out. This forced FVR to ask Congress for emergency powers to resolve the crisis. Because we were so desperate, we agreed to fast-track Build-Operate-Transfer projects which cost so much because of contract padding. Licenses were given to independent power producers with guaranteed purchase contracts in US dollars – which triggered high electricity costs and is one of the reasons why Napocor is now in a situation where it continues to lose billions every year.

Shortly before he died in 2007, Velasco wrote Trailblazing: The Quest for Energy Reliance, lamenting the politicization of the BNPP. Had it not been for irrational fears and objections, the BNPP would have lessened the country’s dependence on fossil fuel by 50 percent by 1986. But because it was associated with Marcos, the severe consequences of closing the plant were not considered. A country that should have been the envy of its neighbors because of its pioneering nuclear energy program is now languishing because “We have no direction, and as a consequence, we have become vulnerable to the whims of the world oil market… We missed a wonderful opportunity,” Velasco wrote.

It’s only a matter of time before brownouts – perhaps as long as 24-hours – would hit the country again because of the growing population and the increased demand for energy. Let’s not kid ourselves either – oil prices will eventually go up again. That’s why many people are beginning to see the need to build 5,000 MW of capacity for the entire country. Congressman Mark Cojuangco is simply asking what other viable alternatives we have aside from nuclear energy. We must be proactive, rather than reactive, and look at the long-term rather than be blinded by irrational fear. Perhaps when the brownouts start plaguing the entire country again, the only thing we can do is to depend on the good bishops to produce electricity with the “power” of prayer.

* * *

Email: [email protected]