As expected, the current ENSO has dealt a blow to our power generation capacity. Mindanao has been hit quite hard since a large fraction of its generating capacity (53%) is from hydropower. In total the Department of Energy in 2008 estimated that 66% of our power requirements are supplied by fossil fuels, hydropower with 16% and geothermal with 18%. Solar and wind contribute only 0.10%
Mindanao decreased its dependence on fossil fuels due to good rainfall during the 2008-2009 period. Mindanao thus became more dependent on hydropower. But the island is rapidly developing and demand for power thus increased. The solution would be to install additional generating capacity. This means additional fossil fuel plants or geothermal plants.
The latter is an attractive option since there are geothermal fields in Mindanao. Wind power may not be a suitable choice since being at a lower latitude, Mindanao is not windy enough. There is also an option for increasing hydropower input. However hydropower is not the best approach in a island country with few rivers large enough to dam. Luzon probably has reached the limit for hydropower generation. And we expect to have more ENSOs if the climate models are right.
The solution will then be to go nuclear (that’s if we want plants with little CO2 emissions). But unless the security situation becomes better in Mindanao, nuclear may not be the best idea for now. On Luzon, nuclear seems to be the best option but in an island with a high population density, this may require massive relocation of human populations. This is not politically viable for the administration. This is also coupled with concerns on geological hazards.
The BNPP is an example of the right idea at two wrong times. The Marcos administration had the foresight to go nuclear as a result of the 1973 oil crisis. However when the loans to build it were had, the 1979 Three Mile Accident necessitated a look twice on the issue and the growing international anti-nuke movement galvanized public opposition as well as against the shady aspects of the loans. In 1986, the Chernobyl meltdown gave the Aquino administration the prime reason to mothball it.
While there is a proposal to reactivate the BNPP, the design is an old one and the costs of updating it to 21st century standards may be too much. There are new designs such as fast breeder reactors and newer pressurized water ones and the French are presenting their proposals to the government.
Accident-wise, the stats tell us that fossil fuel plants are more accident prone.
Are we ready to go nuke?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Or…just buy electricity from the neighbouring island of Borneo.
There is a lot of empty space on Luzon, but Pinatubo sits in the middle of it. Indeed, the geology of the land needs to play a part in where to site a nuclear plant. I don’t think there is a problem putting it where there are people if it is built up to modern safety specifications.
Where do you get the fuels for those fired up plants? By tanker? Hmmmm . . .
Like most things, it probably needs a little bit of everything. More wind for sure, tidal energy perhaps, eh? Conservation. Dams. Fill Pinatubo’s crater back up but build a big-ass dam on the outlet that is safest for downriver flow. Nuclear is sooooo expensive . . .
Joe
Indeed, we here in Northern Mindanao have gone into daily scheduled brownouts, lasting six hours.
Ironic that the glowing report below came out at the start of 2009:
The Cagayan de Oro Electric Power and Light Company’s Photovoltaic Power Plant in Cagayan de Oro City, a one-megawatt grid-connected solar PV power plant, is expected to generate more than a million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity annually.
The coal-fired, solar, and hydro power plants in the region are aimed to increase energy sufficiency by 505.9 megawatts in 2010 in Mindanao.
Still, why are we getting some reports that some of Mindanao’s electric production are sent to other parts of the country? Is this possible?
And I’m told places like Metro Manila have lesser brownouts.
And:
Why is a smaller country (compared to US) like France can rely 80% on nuclear power? Is that entire country a danger zone?
..aslo, France exports its surplus electricity to the UK, the two countries are interconnected by a bidirectional transmission cable so each can supply the other if needed…(currently, the UK has been decommissioning its old nuke plants and France is more than happy to supply the electricity)
So why nuclear in France? They are self-sufficient in uranium (a very very big plus! No treaties and haggling with other countries) and their plutonium comes from former colonies.
But beyond the easy access to needed resources, we know that the French are happy living alongside these supposedly dangerous sites. The benefits obviously for the French more than compensate for the alleged dangers. Chernobyl was a lousy job done by the Russians and Three Mile Island is proof positive that dangers in these sites can be curtailed and contained effectively.
But many happy-camping environmentalists do not share this confidence. They will yell – NIMBY. Especially, the nuclear wastes which when compared to available possible land storage areas are quite miniscule.
Our leaders have been preoccupied with partisan politics. Getting
elected to a higher position. They did not do their job to forsee
the coming power shortages. See how politics is ruining our country…
Geothermal power is still the best option. The original Marcos plan to harness the Tongonon-Palimpinon geothermal fields and lay a submarine transmission line to bring power to Luzon and Mindanao should be revived.
OVERPOPULATION = (increased demand + wasteful lifestyle)*limited resources = power shortage.
It’s simples