The nuclear crisis in Fukushima, Japan has given those who are against nuclear power a perfect reason to repudiate its use and pressure governments to pull back plans for the construction of any more nuclear plants. Locally, anti-nuke groups are drawing on fear and panic to call for the scrapping of the revival of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), with P-Noy riding on this sentiment.
While safety concerns are understandable and in fact must be paramount in the equation, the events in Japan should not make people be overwhelmed by hysteria and emotion. We need to be sensible about this. Like many countries around the world, we have become so dependent on oil whose supply is rapidly depleting and prices continually skyrocketing given the volatile situation in the Middle East today. They say in about 10 years, oil may become the most expensive commodity in the world.
Power rates in this country are now one of the highest in Asia, giving rise to clamor especially from struggling energy-intensive industries and the commuting public for cheaper alternative sources of energy. The fact is, the most viable option is still nuclear energy simply because it is cheaper, the uranium supply is abundant and most importantly, it is cleaner — no carbon emissions unlike coal and gas. While there are other cheaper alternatives like geothermal, it will be more expensive in the long run because we do not have the infrastructure for its delivery to urban populated areas where demand for electricity is extremely high.
Admittedly, the Fukushima disaster is something to seriously take into consideration. But authoritative figures like geologist Dr. Caloy Arcilla (chief of the UP National Institute of Geological Sciences or UP-NIGS whose team pinpointed the source of the West Tower condominium leak) vouched for the safety of the mothballed facility, saying he’d rather be in the Bataan plant than the Senate building in case of a strong earthquake or a tsunami. The fact is the Fukushima power plant was a 1960s model that still uses boiling water reactor technology while BNPP has a newer design with pressurized water reactors similar to those used in France and the US.
DOST chief Mario Montejo also said the BNPP’s design load for earthquakes is better, and studies show the facility is not built on an active fault line as wrongly feared by some people. The Bataan plant is located 18 meters above sea level, making it virtually safe from tsunamis. As for the eruption of Mt. Natib, a dormant volcano where the plant is situated — what is the chance of that volcano erupting in 60 years — almost the same life span a nuclear plant has? Statistically very, very small, according to Dr. Arcilla. (Interestingly, three nuclear reactors by the Tennessee Valley Authority in the US have the same design as those that exploded in Fukushima — but the reactors were modified precisely to prevent conditions that could lead to such explosions — giving rise to speculations that the Fukushima operators may have been remiss.)
The idea of a nuclear power plant was first broached in the 1950s by President Ramon Magsaysay when he signed an agreement with the United States to harness nuclear energy for peaceful means. In 1958, the Philippines signed up with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The BNPP began construction in 1976 and was completed in 1984 at the cost of $2.3 billion. In 1986, it was ready for operation with the capacity to produce 621 megawatts of electricity, but because it was reportedly riddled with corruption, the government decided to mothball the plant. A couple of years later, in a TV program where Marcos energy minister Geronimo Velasco was a guest, he warned that the country would definitely suffer from severe brownouts because of the decision to mothball the Bataan plant. He was condescendingly told by a Cory Cabinet secretary, “We don’t need your advice, Mr. Velasco. Tell us about the corruption instead.” A year later, the country suffered severe 12-hour brownouts.
Ironically, experts are once again warning that next year, we will face another severe power crisis similar to what the country went through during the term of President Noynoy’s late mother, Cory Aquino. P-Noy’s cousin, former congressman Marc Cojuangco, has been advocating for the revival of BNPP, lamenting the emotionalism that gets in the way of intelligent dialog and citing the existence of Kori-II, an identical Westinghouse-made reactor that has been used in Korea since 1983 with no problems. An estimated $1 billion is needed to revive the plant, but in the long run, this amount is far lesser compared to the economic losses the country will suffer in a year without power, Marc explains.
We are once again faced with tough choices, all because we did not plan ahead and institute a long-term energy program. Emotion has always clouded sound judgment. As Marc said, we only have two choices: we put up more costly oil power plants or go nuclear. Let’s face it, although electric vehicles are being developed, our dependence on oil can only mean more dollar expenditures and worsen the horrific air pollution, ultimately leading to more dead people because of respiratory diseases. Now if we decide to go nuclear, what are the chances of a Fukushima or a Chernobyl happening? We need to think about that clearly and intelligently.
We are facing a potential Catch-22 situation with choices that could pose devastating consequences. But we have to accept one fact — we’re all going to die sooner or later. Life is all about taking chances. In the end, it’s Mother Nature and ultimately God who will decide when it’s time to go.
* * *
E-mail: babeseyeview@yahoo.com