https://news.discovery.com/tech/bill-gates-invests-millions-in-nuclear-power.html

I hope more people get a more open-minded attitude towards this, read and be more educated.

Philippines need cheap energy and the country needs it right now.

Ang situation ngayon dito sa Pilipinas, krisis sa kuryente.. Nanjan si Cong. Cojuangco na siyang ngtitiyagang magpaliwanag sa lahat na may solusyon tayo, at matagal na niya itong sinasabi sa atin pero nagbibingi bingian tayo.

Kelan tayo magigising? Kelan tayo makikinig sa ”totoong solusyon” na igina-guide na sa atin ng Dyos. Hihintayin pa ba natin na lumala ang krisis bago tayo umaksyon at maniwala?

https://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/21054520/1543232204/name/09%200516%20Geological%20Hazards%20of%20the%20Bataan%20Nuclear%20Plant%2Ep

and from Dr. Jorge Emmanuel, a brownfields expert in the US,
Former Co-coordinator (with Boone Schirmer and Charito Planas), FFP Campaign Against the BNPP, Former Executive Secretary, Alliance for Philippine Concerns

From 1980 to 1986, I was the co-coordinator of the campaign against the BNPP in the US. We won in 1986 when President Aquino decided to stop the nuclear plant from operating. Reviving the BNPP will negate our victory and take back all our gains of the 1980s.

BACKGROUND

Two reports I wrote in 1982 and 1984 revealed the following:

1. The BNPP was built on the southwestern flank of Natib volcano. A confidential International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report concluded that eruption of Natib was possible during the lifetime of the reactor.

2. The BNPP is surrounded by several faults in an area with among the highest frequency of earthquakes in the country. Several studies, including a classified report by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, agreed that Westinghouse’s consultants systematically understated the seismicity of the area. The IAEA report concluded that an earthquake of a magnitude that would exceed the plant’s safety limits was possible.

3. There are at least 223 unresolved technical problems in the design of the nuclear plant including an inadequate emergency core cooling system.

4. To be able to export the nuclear technology to the Philippines, Westinghouse “referenced” the design of the BNPP ultimately to a two-loop plant in Puerto Rico, implying that the BNPP meets safety requirements of the US. The Puerto Rico plant was stopped in 1972 because of problems related to seismicity.

5. To obtain the contract, Westinghouse gave Marcos cronies a “commission” of around $35 million.

Unfortunately, I lost all my files on BNPP when I lent them to a journalist some years ago. However, since my reports were published:

a) An international team of nuclear experts reported to the Presidential Commission on the BNPP in 1986 that they found some 4,000 safety defects in the plant.

b) A more detailed study commissioned by the Philippine Senate was conducted from 1988 to 1990 involving over 50 nuclear experts from the US and Europe. The report has been kept confidential but a technical consultant to the Senate recently reported that the detailed audit found the BNPP unsafe on multiple levels and has called for their release to the public.

c) A 1992 government-commissioned study by a US-based group concluded that the safety-related defects of the BNPP are so serious and numerous that it would be costly and dangerous to have them repaired.

Although many safer alternative energy options exist for the country, including converting the BNPP into a gas-fired power plant, news reports indicate that the nuclear industry is lobbying heavily and the bills are being rushed through the congress.

THE US CONNECTION

The substandard nuclear plant was built by a US firm, Westinghouse, supported by various US consulting firms such as Burns & Roe and Ebasco. From the 1950’s to 1970’s, the US Atomic Energy Commission (later the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and US Embassy promoted nuclear energy to the Philippines and the BNPP was supposed to be the first of 11 nuclear plants to be builts in the Philippines by US firm.

A US tax-supported export credit agency, the US Export-Import Bank (Exim), became the primary instrument for the nuclear deal with Westinghouse. It facilitated the link with Westinghouse and provided millions of dollars of loans to a high-risk project that at that time was already known to Exim as an extremely overpriced nuclear plant.

As an American (I moved here two years ago at the age of 40), let me give you a few insights to your previous message about our two cultures:

First and foremost, I agree with you about self-bashing. Filipinos treat themselves and each other worse than any other culture I have seen in the world. It is sad to watch.

I have no idea what to suggest to correct this societal woe.

Regarding being cynical towards politicians, I’m afraid that you will have to remain strong on that issue. I think that disliking one’s political leadership is part of the Human Condition.

As long as you have more money, more power, or both, people will eye you with suspicion and envy. And, as a politician, you are a very public target. People will forget the good things you do, they’ll remember every bad thing you do, and make up more just to make things “interesting”. That’s life.

We have the same problem in the United States. After the national embarrassment known as Ken Starr, many people asked “Who would EVER want to run for office given how politicians, even those who might have the public in mind, are treated?”

That is why, even though I could not disagree with you more about BNPP, I will treat you with common courtesy. You are doing a job that I do not want and would not accept. Countries must have leadership and someone has to do it. I am glad it is not me. I have no stomach for the garbage thrown at the average politician (there are those who deserve ill treatment, and I’m fine when they get what they deserve).

Moving onto actual policy, I’m glad to see that you will push for CFL bulbs. Not only do incandescent bulbs take more energy, but they release a lot of heat. In a country that is hot enough as it is, this is a waste. Sometimes air conditioners are used to compensate for this waste heat. Even MORE energy used.

You are correct in that we need a good mainline power source that is available on-demand. I hope you take the opportunity to seriously look into pebble bed reactors. It is a much safer nuclear.

Good luck,

James

I do not discriminate against renewable.

I only wish to inform about its true cost, as yet limited performance and incomplete maturity. Renewable has its definite niche where it will out perform conventional sources. Baseload applications are not such.

I agree with your points; 3, 4, am all for this. 5, am happy for this. 7, am very happy for this.

I don’t agree with point 1, Why are you comparing the whole world against one country only. 2, This may be due to the economic crisis as large projects are on hold, since the renewables are usually small projects, they have probably continued. 6, Again, 120Billion when spread worldwide represents small projects. I am not surprised that large projects are on hold due to the economic downturn.

Be informed that although the percentages are high, it is starting from an extremely low base. Meaning, the absolute numbers are still small.

Also, expect a plateaue in this growth as the absorptive capacity of the various grids are used up. It is only after this happens where we will see the true cost of expanding the capacity further. In the meantime, these, are taking a “free” ride on the backs of conventional energy.

You said;
“And please Mr. Cojuangco, don’t be so self-righteous as to say you are opposed to coal-fired power plants. Your family after all is bidding on the Calaca coal plant, one of the dirtiest in the country and which, by the way, has been found to have gross environmental violations.”

SMC may indeed pursue Calaca (but the violations have not to do with SMC as it is not yet SMC’s).

I would not be surprised if SMC may even venture into the building of new coal plants. And so will many other foreign and domestic corporations who would want to be involved in power generation. Why? Because there is no other economic alternative. Unless, nuclear becomes an acceptable option.

I am not being self righteous.

I am opposed to new coal plants if at all possible. But, only if, there are alternatives which are acceptable to the public and are legal. And, they must be baseload capable and economically viable.

I am just conveying the facts which are; That at this time, there is no mainstream alternative to coal, for “BASELOAD POWER” other than nuclear. And, if still available for development at an economical basis, then also; Hydro, geothermal (limitations of which I have stated in previous posts).

You said; “If you are indeed serious in delivering this country from the high cost of electricity, then push for energy efficiency measures and more renewable energy investments.”

My previous posts clarify why this is not my priority although these should always be pushed for, to the extent that is possible with our limited resources.

I am filing another bill, now under draft, which seeks to mandate the use of CFL bulbs in the country in place of incandecent. This will save a lot of power and was a measure in the US 2008 energy law.

In spite of this, even if it is a success, we will still have a shortfall. Nuclear, and BNPP in particular, are the ideal solutions to fill this urgent need.

The choice is; carbon emissions or nuclear. What will it be?

To the many who have expressed a cynical view about our House of Representatives,

The cynicism that I encountered was at times overpowering, causing feelings of dismay, hopelessness, helplessness. At times, it became a chore to continue.

You know, even in the US, profiling is frowned upon. Categorizing people without knowing them oftentimes may be wrong. It is similar to racism, and prejudice. Racism, prejudice, profiling; These are all the same thing in different clothing.

To be sure, before, I myself may have been guilty of this. But, there came a point in my life where I would begin to “cringe”, as the same jokes about ourselves (Filipinos) were repeated and repeated at different functions and occasions here, but specially abroad.

At first, I observed that nothing really ever came out of these “self bashing” episodes. Their only function, to pass away the time. Then, I began to notice that some foreigners although polite, would be uncomfortable and would look away, or down. More and more, it became a displeasure to participate in such “self roastings”.

Though not an expert, I would not be surprised if somehow, this pastime, habit does not have an effect on our psyche. After all, it is an excersice in negativity.

From the other side of the fence, may I share with you some insights.

Congress is a cacaphony of competing interests (political, constituential and parochial). It is by no means monolithic. This is how our system is set up. Not by choice, but by the Constitution.

The voice of 1 congressman, is a voice among 267 (and rising). In this kind of an environment, the signal to noise ratio, for any specific idea, is not good. Please do not be too hard on these people. Consider how frustrated some of them must also be. Instead, consider how the “system” might be changed.

Although in word, Congress has the “power of the purse”. In reality, this is overridden by the Filipino concept of a re-enacted budget. In the US, while I was in exile there during the mid to late 80s, the US government in a one particular year, came to within hours of completely stopping (shutting down), because of a deadlock between the House and the Presidency. As a result, both sides had to make substantial compromises. Our system and that of the US is not the same.

Also, in the US, Senators are elected by State. Only one person is elected by the whole country. That is the President. He brings a Vice President of his choice with him into office. This makes the President’s mandate unique and unambiguous.

In our system, all the Senators have the same mandate as the President. I believe that this may breed “contempt” and erode respect for the Presidency. Further, the President and Vice are elected seperately. This creates mistrust and division.

As for the political dynamics of the “House” in the Philippines, or any plenary body for that matter, the “prize” is important to the dynamics.

In our system, a challenge for the leadership (speakership) means just that. If your group wins, you attain the speakership. In a parliamentary system, if your group wins, you attain the government. There is a huge difference between the two “prizes”.

On the one hand, no one would risk rocking the boat. After all, one’s constituency’s well being, depend on good relations with the incumbent leadership. On the other, if there is as opening, say caused by scandal or poor performance, control of the government is the “prize”, for upsetting the status quo. In this kind of system, a shadow government of the minority, always exists. It not only criticizes, but is always ready to offer alternatives or even itself as an alternative. It has less of a propensity to disrupt for disruption’s sake because at any time, it may have to take over.

Our system is slow, because of the methods of what some consider to be “check and balance”. It seems, that this has evolved into, “check and check mate”. I believe that as humans, mistakes are inevitable. What is important is to find out quickly if ideas (laws, policies) do work, and if not, to change them or modify them, as soon as possible. It is this process of iteration, that will perfect laws or policy over time. There is no “magic bullet”. It would do us well to study the democratic parliamentary systems of successful democracies, to see if there is anything that we could learn from them.

I believe that a quicker iterative process as described above would also provide the people with a more “real” feedback mechanism. One wherein the relationship between cause and effect could more readily be related to, observed, and understood.

Further, in such a system, a good government could last a while, a bad government could be changed more quickly. And, the “prize”, guarantees that sellouts are difficult.

I am amazed at viewing on BBC, the fast paced debates of the British parliament, as compared to the slow drawn out drawl of ours. I think more of us would be actively engaged in the proceedings if it were more like this.

A cynical attitude ultimately paints one into a corner, causing paralysis (since no one is to be trusted, and all things are bad). It is paralysis which may be the largest force that keeps us from moving forward.

I am not saying to stop being revolted at scandals and corruption. These should be always condemned, always fought. But, these things should never stop us from moving forward.

I suggest; stick to issues, argue the merits or demerits using verifiable facts and the proven evidence. Avoid speculation, conjecture, innuendo and character assasination. Be precise, concise and specific. Above all, have an open heart, mind and some good will, so that you can be fair.

People have a powerful desire of freedom from all risk. We all want certainty. For nuclear, we want a 100% guarantee of safety.

Can a nuclear plant be made risk free? The question really is; how can we reduce the uncertainties to a minimum.

In my various posts, I have shown how the worst that could happen to BNPP is what happened at Three Mile Island, where no one was killed, no one was injured and no property was damaged. Three Mile Island is the worst nuclear accident in America’s history. It is the US equivalent of Chernobyl. Nothing of the sort has happened since, and that was 30 years ago now.

I have shown that a Chernobyl can not physically happen to BNPP, just as it did not happen at Three Mile Island.

I have also shown that even during the height of the Three Mile disaster, it was less radioactive than a Coal plant.

Please find a disclaimer issued by the US NRC in 2006 which demonstrates that the previous risk assesment methodologies used by the agency were too “conservative” in calculating for safety. BNPP was the subject of these initial analysis methodologies.

I believe, from the ongoing history of BNPPs sister plants, all the other empirical evidence and other evidence including this NRC disclaimer, that BNPP has been properly designed and built.

Once validated, rehabilitated, re-tested and recertified, (which HB 6300 seeks to mandate) BNPP will be as fit to operate as its running sister plants, or any plant of its era.

From the record and the history of its sister plants, BNPP will provide cheap, clean, reliable and safe power for many decades to come.

NRC disclaimer;

In 2006 the commission issued an official disclaimer about the now-outdated research of the 1977 and 1991 worst-case analyses:

“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has devoted considerable research resources, both in the past and currently, to evaluating accidents and the possible public consequences of severe reactor accidents. The NRC’s most recent studies have confirmed that early research into the topic led to extremely conservative consequence analyses that generate invalid results for attempting to quantify the possible effects of very unlikely severe accidents. In particular, these previous studies did not reflect current plant design, operation, accident management strategies or security enhancements. They often used unnecessarily conservative estimates or assumptions concerning possible damage to the reactor core, the possible radioactive contamination that could be released, and possible failures of the reactor vessel and containment buildings. These previous studies also failed to realistically model the effect of emergency preparedness. The NRC staff is currently pursuing a new, state-of-the-art assessment of possible severe accidents and their consequences.”

p. 142 Power th Save the World; Gwyneth Cravens

The building of nuclear plants in France is a national enterprise. If the plants have been fully depreciated (investment returned) and, have made their lifetimes worth of projected profit, then, I can understand the French position in wanting to boost their nuclear plant manufacturing industry and score PR points to boot. It has little to do with safety. It doesn’t mean that the plant is bad.

You know, I remember reading this and it seems that you may be mistaken. The French are extending their old plants’ licences. I quote:

“Licence renewal: The 900 MWe reactors all had their lifetimes extended by ten years in 2002, after their second 10-yearly review. Most started up late 1970s to early 1980s, and they are reviewed together in a process that takes four months at each unit. A review of the 1300 MWe class followed and in October 2006 the regulatory authority cleared all 20 units for an extra ten years’ operation conditional upon minor modifications at their 20-year outages over 2005-14. The 3rd ten-year inspections of the 900 MWe series begin in 2009 and run to 2020. The 3rd ten year inspections of the 1300 MWe series run from 2015 to 2024.”

You can check for yourself at: https://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

France seems also to be kind of like a victim of its own success. It exports a lot of electric power, which may be lowering the prices of power in Europe. Also, Europe has its share of nukes in other countries aside from France.

Besides, why would France want to lower its power price? It is extra revenue and profit for the French State, it is still the lowest price around and, lowering the price would be a contradiction of what you said you want to achieve; the conservation of electricity. Surely you will agree, a lower price would promote its usage and wastage. For a rich country like France, I suppose that their societal needs are best served by power rates that are competitive but not overly cheap as to promote wastage.

Wouldn’t a more appropriate comparison be; French power price vs Philippine power price? EUR 4.3 c/kWh or US 5.8 c/kWh (incl. profit and finance charges) vs US 10.0 c/kWh Napocor rates. So, aren’t we conserving enough because our prices are much higher?

By the way, the French generate revenues of about 3+ Billion EURO/ year from electricity exports to the rest of Europe. They export about 70 billion kwh/ year. This is the power from about 16 BNPPs. This is aside from power for their own use.

So, do you want a lower or higher, I mean raise price?

Myself, I want a lower price for Filipinos so that they can use more electricity to help themselves make their lives better. If we had French prices, wouldn’t it be better?

Check out Cardinal Renato Martino’s comments which in effect criticize Italy’s former anti nuke policies as kind of “hypocritical” (my word) considering it buys a lot of its power from France. (vatican news). See; https://www.christiantoday.com/article/vatican.says.nothing.wrong.with.nuclear.power/12016.htm

Maybe the Italians saw the light because Italy today has reversed this policy and has just ordered 4 new nuke plants from France. I suppose they are wrong too?
See; https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/world/europe/23nuke.html

If BNPP ends up being technically the same as its sister plants running reliably today, and is viewed as safe by the regulatory authorities, why should it not be allowed to run? Is Greenpeace the authority on this? Or, are these questions being thrown around as a means to discredit or as a pseudo technical block to a NPP? In the end, does it have really to do with safety? Or with the politics of being anti nuke?

Greenpeace has been involved in the opposition to practically all nuclear plants built in democratic countries, in one way or another.

Therefore, all the plants that have been built, all the new license renewals, all the granting of licenses for new plant construction, all the successfull decades of nuclear power history, must mean; that Greenpeace has lost the argument in the democratic processes that led to those conclusions and pro nuke decisions. Are you saying that they and these, are all wrong?

You claim 21% GHG savings for wind. Again, what basis? References list wind and nuclear about tie for “life cycle carbon footprint”. Of course, it does not include the 20 yr life extensions granted to NPPs, nor does it include the 25 to 30% utilization factor for wind sited in a Phillipines setting. Check out the wind charts. Also, fatigue life of a windmill is 25 yrs. So, might you be in error here? Please see: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

Think wind is without issues;

Check out; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ and; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ&feature=related and; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbMO7ufATBc&feature=related
maintenance is not so easy, specially in 3rd world countries w/o the adequate access infrastructure for large equipment.

installing wind on the scale you envision may physically affect the weather in ways no one knows yet how. It may end up to be worse than the problem, global warming.

If the Philippines were to double its capacity with wind (or replace its existing capacity for example) say 13 GW (13,000 MW), It would need to allocate over 1,500,000 hectares just to site them. It would need to build access roads and power lines over this whole area. Incidentaly, to enable a sense of scale, 1,500,000 Ha. is over 50% of the corn area of the Philippines.

The poll on this blog site does not reflect the rest of the country. Many, are waking up to the BS which has been thrown at BNPP and nuclear. The poll on this blog site probably reflects demographics, and the circles to which one keeps one’s self and the source of information available.

It is clear that the nuke industry is more conservative in its claims. It is a pity that you fault them for this.

As I’ve said; Its the rich countries who have the resources to finally develop renewables into economic viability. Your argument is good, it is valid, but it does not apply to the Batasang Pambansa. It applies to Capitol Hill and, the European Parliament.

Let us adopt these techs as soon as they are proven. In the mean time, let’s go with what works.

By the way,

They are going to open GN Power coal plant in Mariveles Bataan soon. It is 600+ MW. The harm to the environment from this will be real, the harm from BNPP is imagined. What is Greenpeace doing? Where is the proportional response? Is Greenpeace “cherry picking” its protests?

For that matter, China is inaugurating 1 new coal plant a week. Yes, a week. Where are your protests? Are they in proportion to your anti BNPP protests? Emissions from these affect us.

I am not an environmentalist like you, but greenpeace is inconsistent. I would like you to be true to what you claim you care for, while keeping in mind that people are part of this world too.

See; https://www.newsweek.com/id/131753

Everything you are saying now is just a rehash of what Greenpeace preached in the 70s and 80s which was; Conservation and Renewables.

You said; “Three tracks?”

It is the thinking and advocacy of Greenpeace and like minded groups which caused coal to flourish in the first place.

Your conservation advocacy failed miserably in the US and the world.

This caused the adoption of coal to take up the slack, which the renewables could not prevent because they could not compete economically despite the massive subsidies. Because by then also, you (greenpeace and the like) had already managed to cause the bottling up of nukes, coal’s only serious competition.

The third track; “no to nuke”, is a repeat of the 70s and 80s error of stopping the only viable non carbon “baseload” alternative to coal. Be carefull, it is not yet illegal to build coal plants worlwide. If you succeed again in bottling up nukes, we may end up with many, even more coal plants.

History does repeat itself. Fortunately, people are better informed, smarter now.

Its no wonder that Patrick Moore Phd., one of your founders at Greenpeace, gave up on your group and now firmly supports nuke power as “the” weapon against global warming and climate change and, as the only practical and viable mainstream energy solution for now.
Check out; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJseefDFMf4

As I said at the outset; nothing is free.

The “free” you claim is actually paid to the foreign suppliers in foreign exchange “katas OFW” over time (through debt payment), to amortize the extremely high cost of these investments which are imported. eg: US 1 B for BNPP vs US 7.5 B +++ for wind. (and, this is reflected in the price of the power.)

As in; Show me a wind farm or solar that can survive without CDMs, or similar subsidies, or “priority dispatch”. Nukes don’t enjoy CDMs, and the like, and yet they thrive. What if the developed countries stopped giving CDMs? (CDMs are; Kyoto Protocol, “Clean Development Mechanism Credits”)

As stated in my previous post, this is at least 7.5 times the price to rehab BNPP. Add to this the other costs of; roads, land, etc., but most specially;

The cost of electricity storage and/or standby power which you do not as yet pay for or, have not as yet purchased because, the grid still has adequate reserves to carry your intermittency.

Use this reserve up and you will quickly discover your folly.

Renewable sources? Yes, if competitive, by all means.

Inexhaustible sources? Yes. To me, its just as good. Nuclear with a closed fuel cycle, is such. And, to those who would argue this point, ok, even if the cycle is not closed, with an open cycle, BNPP will get us through 60 years. That’s longer than I have been on this earth. We will have other solutions by then.

In closing; All the sources you mentioned are ultimately nuclear. From fusion which powers the sun, the wind, the oceans currents, the waves and biomass, to fission which is what heats within the earth. Whether we use them directly or indirectly, God gave us these things and the people who discovered them, unlocked their secrets, and learned how to harness them to serve man. They are not man made, they are an intrinsic part of nature, literally present within each of us. That you curse and condemn them, is to devalue or discount God’s gift.

Nuclear looks better still.