“If stupidity got us into this mess, why can’t it get us out of it?”
The top story in the Business Mirror’s Monday edition was “Experts pitch BNPP to Aquino.” They didn’t actually pitch the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) to Aquino. They pitched it to the media at an orientation seminar and tour of the mothballed nuclear-power plant in Morong, Bataan.
What did the experts tell the media?
They said economic development is dependent on power. Bangladesh and our Asean neighbors are planning to go nuclear and we will be left behind if we do not address our power needs by going nuclear now. Fe Medina, special technical assistant at the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, called on Aquino to keep “an open mind” and “look scientifically” at BNPP and not do what his mother did.
Mauro Marcelo, manager of the nuclear-energy core group of the National Power Corp., assured the media that nuclear power is safe. He said, and I’m quoting from this newspaper’s report, that “the industry currently uses high-quality design and construction; uses equipment which prevents operational disturbances; uses redundant and diverse systems to detect problems, control damage to the fuel and prevent radioactive releases.” Medina echoed Marcelo’s assurance. “The nuclear-energy industry, which is strictly regulated, would not allow any defect in a nuclear-power plant because that would diminish the credibility of the industry,” she said.
Marcelo added that “being a ‘green’ energy source because it has the least carbon footprint, a stable supply of energy and cost-competitive, there is currently a “nuclear power renaissance” with the growing number of nuclear-power plants being built worldwide.”
Experts opposed to nuclear power were not included in the media briefing so if one wanted a balanced presentation, he would have to undertake his own research.
My Google search revealed that opposition to nuclear power is grounded on threats to health, environment, economics, nuclear proliferation, and the unsolved problem of nuclear-waste disposal.
“These threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear-weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology. They also argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear-fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.” Nor is it cheap.
The US, the world’s most scientifically advanced country, has not found a solution to the problem of nuclear waste. It recently ended its three-decade quest to turn Yucca Mountain in the state of Nevada as the main permanent storage site for radioactive waste because it realized that the site was vulnerable to climate change. That means 75,000 metric tons of spent fuel will continue to be stored in 122 temporary storage facilities spread over 39 states and the US nuclear-power industry will keep spending billions safeguarding them until a permanent site or solution is found. Meanwhile, US nuclear waste from 104 commercial reactors grows at 2,000 metric tons every year.
There is, as of today, no viable technology that can solve the problem of radioactive waste. Reprocessing is not a solution because that technology is prohibitively expensive—a reprocessing plant costs at least $40 billion—and although plutonium separated from reprocessing can be repackaged as mixed oxide and used in place of low-enriched uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. So there is a constant threat of theft and proliferation associated with reprocessing.
Medina told media that the Interagency Core Group on Nuclear Energy came up with an information and education campaign to inform the public about the benefits of nuclear power. “Let them decide if they want nuclear power,” she said.
Well, then her advocacy group should present both the benefits and the disadvantages of nuclear power in their briefings.
Popularity: 2% [?]
If you know how to calculate for the cost of one Nuclear Plant. It’s operational cost, it’s maintenance cost and the cost of the Uranium Fuel
Rods, together with it’s cost of disposal. You might convince me on this
project.
Compare the cost side by side with the Solar Power Electric Generating System. And, the Wind Turbine Generating System. Together with the Cost of Kilowatt Hour of power produced, on both systems.
The Philippines consists of many Islands. Three large Islands of:Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao. There are other Islands that amounts to 7,000 Island. What would you do, if you build a Nuclear Reactor in Luzon?
The power generated serves only Luzon, and other places where you can build the power Grid. The excess electricity generated will go to waste.
So, you build another Nuclear Reactor in Cebu, to serve Cebu only. How can you transmit the Electrical power to other islands; like Panay? Thru wires? Between the ocean?
Same as Mindanao. you build again a Nuclear Reactor there. But, you cannot transmit the electrical power to Sulu and Jolo.
Three Nuclear Reactors. The Philippines will not yet be fully be powered. Perhaps, you will build 7,000 nuclear reactors to power the whole Philippines.
The South Korean offer, that the nuclear reactors are destined for North Korea. Thier designs are obsolete. The U.S. will not offer new design to an enemy state, who is bent on building more nuclear weapons.
If you go Solar and Wind Turbine. The cost is much less. Maintenance cost is less. You can install the Power Equiment in any island, for power. The Source of power is clean. It protects also the environment.
I think the Kamaganak Inc., are begining to be at work again.
I am against going nuclear because of the problem of radioactive waste disposal/storage.
ManuelB: The nuclear waste problem is not for Pilipinas to solve; it is for Pilipinas to pay for. USA or Japan or Russia will take the nuclear waste. This is just another high-technology business opportunity. If Pilipinas can’t afford to pay for security, handling, transport, etcetera with regards nuclear waste, then forget nuclear.
Nuclear waste is not only toxic; nuclear waste can be weaponized. Thus the IAEA has oversight over nuclear waste (with the US as well as Mainland China always interested observers). “Bahala na, problema na ng susunod na administrasyon” will not be allowed by the IAEA. Burying the nuclear waste inside Mount Banahaw or encapsulating in concrete, then disposing in the Marianas Trench won’t be allowed, either.
A nuclear plant allows Pilipinas to do a reverse JPEPA — toxic Pilipinas junky waste getting sent to USA or Japan or Russia.
With what, 7,000 islands, we can’t find one that is reasonably distant and downwind, and one that is deep so that buried crap that may leak will only make the rocks glow until the upstream tech gurus find a way of clean disposal? The real trick is that cited by mario, how to pipe the juice from island to island.
The logistics nightmare that is also the beauty of the Philippines stands as the opportunity and the barrier.
I have no solution, but I am confident of the science minds and their ability to conquer clean-up, and know that oil is certainly a pile of woe. Ask the gooey pelicans off the Gulf Coast, and all the fisherpeople who have had to move elsewhere to find untainted fish.
The demand for electricity in the Philippines is bound to go higher rapidly, as the nation goes from developing to modern. How you gonna feed THAT beast? . . . and all the mouths being birthed, come to think about it.
From barrels?
Man, nuke up and grid the place properly . . .
Joe
We have no other choice than to go with Solar Grid or Wind
Generating Turbines. We are a group of islands. If you put a
nuclear reactor generating 1,000 megawatt of power. And the requirement of the customers is just 500 megawatts. Where do you put the excess 500 megawatts? There is no good technology developed yet, to store huge electrical energy. And transport it to another island for use. This is the point I am trying to point emphasize.
The nuclear waste like the spent fuel uranium rod is expensive to dispose. It is radioactive. It disintigrates for many centuries. It causes cancer, birth defects, and othe kinds of deseases. There are a lot of problems on this technology. We have not perfected it yet. Except in making nuclear bombs to make us all extinct.
the excess megawatts you sell to the neighbouring countries as france and germany do to theirs.
and yes, you can use undersea cables to link to the vietnamese grid.
DC ius direct current. AC is alternating current. DC is a diffent animal than AC. DC is used mostly in communication cables.
Mario, at least try to use google like Manny Pangilinan…you will learn that…
1. France sends over its nuclear energy surplus to Britain using undersea cables…so transmission is not exactly a problem. The Philippine islands are separated by ‘seas’ and not ‘oceans’
2. Solar energy requires MASSIVE amounts of land because its efficiency rating is low.
3. I saw the wind data for the Philippines 10 years ago and the prospective onshore areas do not look promising because that too takes up space. And what do you do during the ‘dead’ periods of no wind?
4. For a population of 96M going 150M in 20 years and consuming so much more, we are practically doomed anyways so let’s stick with cheap gas.
Cables passed thru the English Channel Tunnel. How do you do it in an open sea? Build tunnels under the sea between the islands? To just lay it on the ocean floor. The cables will be subject to depth pressures, that can easily deteriorate your electrical cables.
Eh?? Are you serious???
Did you wake up 100 years ago?
THOUSANDS of cables ALREADY exist around the world transporting data and electricity. Many of these are over 80 years old.
There are transmission cables connecting the UK to Ireland and as far away as Iceland (1500km).There’s one that connects Germany, across the tumultous North Sea to the Swedish Grid, a distance of 600km.
What is the average distance between adjacent Philippine Islands? The islands around Bohol Sea are only 100km apart. Samar to Luzon is only 30km apart.
FYI
The following islands are already connected by Undersea cables
Cebu-Negros
Negros-Panay
Leyte-Bohol
Luzon-Leyte
The cables you are pointing are communication cables. Low voltage. You put a high powered voltage of 1,000 watts to 50
megawatts on the ocean floor. Did you ever know the effect on this to the ocean floor environment? or the deterioration of the electrical cables, itself. You can bury it under the earth. But, to put an extremely high voltage cable on the ocean floor. It had never heard it done. Unless, in some distant planets.
500 megawatts submarine cable — Australia has HVDC operating at a nominal voltage of 400 kV DC (nominal rating of the link is 500 MW, “top” rating of 630 MegaWatts) with 290 kilometers submarine power cable between Victoria (mainland) and island of Tasmania
[i]The following is a list of notable high voltage direct current power transmission projects. [/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
@mario
Can you at least try to use google. As you can see from above, we are referring to High voltage cables…
Why do you doubt that electricity has been transmitted on the seabed for nearly half a century???
Basta uso sugod lang ang mga Filipino. Parang cellphone at Facebook.
Why go nuclear when you can go geothermal? Why import uranium when steam from the Earth can be found almost anywhere in the Philippines?
supremo,
I’m with you all the way on this. Geothermal is a smart way to produce electricity. You can actually mount these [windmills] at any given Island’s of ours. without any environmental impact.
I passby everyday and seeing these wonderful huge propellers at work, and producing clean and friendly electricity at a lower cost too, for the people.
@mario
depende. kung mahangin, uubra.
I’ve seen wind turbines on the way to Palm Springs, California. They are UGLY monstrosities especially when you notice the rust buildup on some towers, or towers with missing turbines.
Wow, you reject clean technology because it is ‘ugly’?
MikeH,
I find the Palm Springs wind farm to be nothing short of awesome, thousands of spinning, living machines tilting toward the wind in unison, across hill and valley, man’s giant achievement in harnessing the goodness of nature. So I suppose ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Before it was a barren pile of rocks, like any other from there to the Grand Canyon. I’ve climbed those rocks, and am as much a naturalist as most, but, wow, what a collective impression those huge propellers make, smack dab in one of the windiest places on the planet. You don’t find beauty in reason, or productivity, or differentness?
Everyone with an opinion but who hasn’t seen these windfarm turbines, take a trip to Ilocos. This even gives you a preview into thinking if Bongbong Persidente-2016 is a worthwhile idea, heh heh heh.
There is another windfarm scheduled to go up — nominal numbers are $250M cost, electricity output-rating of 120MW. And Noynoyistas should go check for tong-pats.
“Walang Korap, walang mahirap.”
why, has anyone found a suitable sites for more geothermal plants?
please so on the map.
When I was doing NGO work in Masbate in the 90s, we met European geologists doing work on possible geothermal sites for some corporation. If the suitable sites exist — and Im sure they do since our islands were created by volcanoes — they probably arent sharing them with other corporations.
..or it’s probably too costly and very near built up areas and so not worth pursuing.
There is a price tipping point for oil…unless oil because prohibitively expensive, all these alternative technologies remain costly.
The U.S. uses al lot of Geothermal to generate power. It protects the environment. It is safe also.
there are downsides to releasing trapped gases too..it’s not just steam you release.
and many geothermal plants are abandoned because of land erosion…and then there is the famous case of the geothermal plant in switzerland which caused local earthquakes..
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Man-made_tremor_shakes_Basel.html?cid=46232
Tongonan in Leyte and Palimpinon in Negros Oriental are geothermal sites that still have large untapped potentials. Generated power can be transmitted by submarine cables as originally planned. The Aquino administration should revisit the long term plans of the Marcos regime for both the geothermal and nuclear power projects which were scuttled by the Cory government.
Marcos ideas will not see light-of-day with Noynoy.
If Noynoy Aquino will use his emotion about Marcos plans. Then, he is a nut. The plans are good. But, the previous planner was my antagonist. So, I will not use it. What kind of thinking is that?
Cory?
Yeah, likely will not see the light of day, indeed, and sayang.
The windmills of Ilocos Norte took off from a completed study on wind energy made during the “evil” man’s regime. It was initiated by that “evil” man’s son.
There are benefits and disadvantages for every option, that be nuke, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. They should all be weighed down objectively. You don’t like nuclear? Fine, but let us start building power plants now. The irony of it all is, as we drag our feet debating endlessly about the best choice as to which is safest, cleanest, cheapest, when six years from now we will have millions of gensets spewing deadly fumes all at the same time to power our homes and factories because, damn it, we failed to build even just one plant. As to whether we are making the right decision about nuclear plants, well, the verdict we shall see in twenty years or so. Interesting how we would compare with Vietnam or Bangladesh then. Meanwhile, I put it on record I am for nuke plants. In any case, one thing to put on mind, you can’t compete in a global economy where your power rate is so high compared to the rest with no more comparative advantage left…
Currently we already have a heterogeneous energy source in hydro, coal, geothermal, wind, and oil. I favor nuclear energy but we don’t have to confine ourselves to this source alone. Along with the factor of cost, the thrust should be how to wean ourselves from oil addiction.
The opposition to BNPP is not so much its viability but that it’s riddled with Marcosian crookery.
If they realize how much “crookery” have been attending every infrastructure project of the government, would they oppose too the use of roads and the bridges, would they refuse entering government buildings?
The instrumentation panel in BNPP and the reactor itself might need a little makeover to keep up with the modern standard. Let us ask the Westinghouse people and would somebody please find where that Disini guy is?
I tend to agree with ricelander. Every option has its own pro’s and con’s. We have to think in the realities where we are going to get our energy. Of course there are many dangers of nuclear generation that need to be accounted for. But I agree that nuclear has a place among our own domestic energy generation. It takes alot of time and capital to get these projects underway, much like an oil rig. So, we can either push for a more diverse energy portfolio that includes nuclear, or we can deepen our debt with foreign oil.
-Consumer Energy Alliance
“A balanced approach towards America’s energy future”
““If stupidity got us into this mess, why can’t it get us out of it?””
It can’t, definitely it can’t! Going nuclear is a quicksand, once you’re mired into it, no amount of stupid thrashing can get you out of it.
Let’s compare the potential benefits and the risks and hazards associated with it. Benefit first. There is only one good benefit that the population can derive from a power plant, and that is lower cost of electricity. Will a nuclear power plant give us that benefit? The answer is a big NO. Therefore there is no benefit. Now, the risks and the hazards. Is there any? The answer is a big YES, there are numerous and enormous serious risks and hazards associated with a nuclear plant.
Now, the choice. A nuclear plant with lots of risks and and serious hazards but no benefit. Which do we think is the more stupid choice? Take your pick.
But, of course, the NAPOCOR can always give us the usual intentional brownouts and blackouts. And then we capitulate, hehehe.
“There is only one good benefit that the population can derive from a power plant, and that is lower cost of electricity. Will a nuclear power plant give us that benefit? The answer is a big NO…”
Hey, Bert, will you expound on that wonderful assertion?
You don’t like nuke. What’s your pick then, pal?
I’m no expert, ricelander, and that’s not a wonderful assertion either, just a personal opinion based from my readings on various positions on the matter by experts and pundits, unanimous in their opinions that nuclear energy is not a cheap source of energy for a backward country like the Philippines.
If you can show me, pal, that having nuclear energy will definitely lower my monthly electricity bill, then I guess I’ll be willing to eat my words, :).
Despite the cost to Pilpinas taxpyers additional US$3Billion or $4billin, Nynoy Aquino will porbably decide against re-opening BNPP as proposed by his cousin Mark Cojungco. Noynoy says “that earlier studies state that…..to revive the BNPP and operate it safely “would cost mor than building a new power plant”.”
Business Mirror reports:
Rehabilitation of the BNPP would cost $1 billion at an estimated period of four years, while a new nclear power plant would be $4 billion to $5 billion, and will tak seven to 10 years to build.
At the same time, international and local regulatory bodies, such as the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, ensure that rehabilitation or building a new plant would comply with international standards.
On “documented safety hazards,” experts have found no earthquake fault under or near the nuclear power plant. Local geological experts also said a volcanic danger to the BNPP is a “nonissue.” The BNPP was designed to resist up to 0.4 g (gravity), which means that magnitude 8 earthquakes could affect 0.2 g structures, so with BNPP at 0.4 g, it could withstand stronger earthquakes.
The BNPP has the same design as the nuclear power plants in South Korea which are still in operation.
bert, well, you need to help yourself. any argument from me would be self serving as i have already stated i am for nuke. google would be of much assistance. on search mode type the words “advantages” or “disadvantages” of “nuclear power plant” or “geothermal” or another, you will find hundreds, thousands of reading materials. all you need is an open mind and lots of patience to sift through the stack. at the end of the day, you have to take a pick. i have made my pick and that’s nuke. the president will have to take a pick and pursue it… that’s all. bottomline is: start building NOW!!!
Nuclear power investment is high but on one hand, it’s maintenance is much cheaper than hydro electric and fossil (coal) burning plants. Moreover, it is much more environmentally friendly. As in any deployment, as long as stringent safety measures are in place, it is very safe.
Check this out :
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/howitworks.asp
That is not disputed.
Our main problem is where to get uranium.
We don’t have mines, we don’t have colonies from a past empire, we do not have political or economic clout…so good luck on nuclear…lots of luck.
BUt we built a nuclear plant already so all these issues was already discussed. To me the problem is this, we always have an incoming president who hates the out going president that the projects build by the outgoing one is not continued, So we are always back to zero everytime we have new president. Hay naku!
Didn’t Cory say that there was an earthquake fault? Have there been earthquakes since BNPP was closed that damaged the BNPP structure?
Because we built one doesn’t mean we sorted out the supply chain.
That was in the 80s. It was the cold war. The US had two bases.
What incentive is the Philippines going to give the Africans for their uranium? When there’s Iran with oil etc. What bargaining chips do we have?
Earthquakes are not an issue. Japan is on an earthquake zone, that didn’t stop them from building plants.
rego, hay naku. are you hearing yourself? it’s actually you who has the hang up on the new president-new policy argument, without taking into consideration the gamut of issues surrounding the matter. ‘ay nako.
If everybody turned off their PCs and stayed away from posting comments on comment sites such as FilipinoVoices, then electricity demand would drop down to such extent so as to negate the need (and discussions) for nukes.
I just wish nag tagal pa si Marcos ng kont at napaaundar na yung nuclear plant bago sya napatalsik. at least we just be debating on nuclear disposal and other stuff and not the feasibility of it.
Madali lang naman ang waste disposal eh. Ipalamon doon sa mga corrupt official and thats it. That way you dispose the nuclear waste and you dispose the corruot official . So your hitting two birds with one stone.
That is a good solution. They will Glow in the dark…You will know who they are, even if they hide.
As for maintenance of nuclear waste, the Deep Geologic Repository is one long term approach that could last thousands of years.
Check this link. Unfortunately I cannot link the video but I would ask that you view it :
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/waste/
This company had been engaged in nuclear waste disposal for 40 years now.
We will need an additional 13,000 MegaWatts of energy by 2030. That means nine Nuclear Power plants (at 1500 Megawatts each), which means in turn that one has to be built every 2 years. Assuming 5 Billion US Dollars per plant, that means an investment of 45 Billion USD. This may look expensive (it is) but nuclear energy does provide the lowest running cost and will do least damage to the environment compared to plants that run on coal and other fossil fuels. With this, the Philippines can bring down its energy costs (supposed to be the second highest in Asia) and make it an attractive place to set-up factories and other businesses.
The challenge is how to get around our dysfunctional procurement system. With corruption overhead of 50 percent(a-la NBN-ZTE), you would need to add another 20 Billion USD. This ruins the business case. ‘Build Operate Transfer’ or any other scheme that lets the ‘private’ sector run the show does not solve the problem because cronies and oligarchs would still be in the picture. If we manage to find a way to reduce the corruption overhead, then nuclear is the best way to address our energy needs.
On nuclear waste disposal, extrapolating from MB’s blog entry above, with one commercial reactor, that would mean only two 2 metric tons of nuclear waste per year. With nine commercial reactors, that would mean 20 metric tons per year. The problem is hardly of the scale faced by the United States (as described above) and a secure storage facility can be built for it until a more permanent solution is found.
Wrong math, sorry. 2 should be 20 (with 1 commercial reactor), and 20 should be 200 (with 9 commercial reactors).
It is good to see you thinking so well today, math errors not withstanding.
Joe
cvj always thinks well
—errors notwithstanding.cvj is the only Noynoyista on record willing to raise tax-rates on dividends, corporate- and overseas income to down the 33.
If I may add more info on my previous post – Ontario Power Generation uses CANDU ( Canada Deuterium Uranium)- pressurized heavy-water power reactor technology in all its 20 nuclear reactors. I gather that heavy water or deuterium is abundant in the Phils, off the coast of Surigao in the depths of the Philippine Deep.
For FAQ in CANDU technology, check this link :
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionA.htm#a
You need a lot of centrifuge to process the heavy water Deuterium. You have to build that equipment. Get technical people to run it and maintain it. Nuclear Engineering and Nuclear Physics subjects are not even offered in universities in the Philippines. So, you hire foreign know how to run it. It will cost you a lot. They don’t work and receive pays like Filipino tsimoys and tsimays. These are specialized people.
CANDU-specific features and advantages :
Use of natural uranium as a fuel :
-CANDU is the most efficient of all reactors in using uranium: it uses about 15% less uranium than a pressurized water reactor for each megawatt of electricity produced
-Use of natural uranium widens the source of supply and makes fuel fabrication easier. Most countries can manufacture the relatively inexpensive fuel
-There is no need for uranium enrichment facility
-Fuel reprocessing is not needed, so costs, facilities and waste disposal associated with reprocessing are avoided
-CANDU reactors can be fuelled with a number of other low-fissile content fuels, including spent fuel from light water reactors. This reduces dependency on uranium in the event of future supply shortages and price increases
Use of heavy water as a moderator :
-Heavy water (deuterium oxide) is highly efficient because of its low neutron absorption and affords the highest neutron economy of all commercial reactor systems. As a result chain reaction in the reactor is possible with natural uranium fuel
-Heavy water used in CANDU reactors is readily available. It can be produced locally, using proven technology. Heavy water lasts beyond the life of the plant and can be re-used
CANDU reactors have been deployed in India, South Korea, Argentina, China
http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html#advantage
Nuclear power is the primary source of electricity in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.
The first French power plant was opened in 1965.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Wind and solar technologies are currently not ready for mass production. Tapping wind energy has issues with consistency (wind is not always strong at all times of the year), tapping solar energy is still expensive because of the costs of the solar cells (and storing the energy)
Nuclear energy is not the best option compared to cleaner technologies, but it is the best option for now.
I totally agree on toda’s point.
Not only France, but all of the other developed nations. Following the footsteps of other nations isn’t “gaya-gaya” and “sunod sa uso”.
We cannot rely on wind and solar energy for now, our weather changes erratically, unlike e.g. Holland, where its windy most of the time. and for solar, its a promising technology but there is still an ongoing problem on where to store that energy. Energy cells, or battery packs, is still not cheap enough and trust worthy to be used in a large scale to power whole cities.
so for now, Nuclear is still the best way to go.
Filipinos will talk about this going nuclear for five years and then build a gas fired plant in the end.
Maybe while everyone is waiting for the decision each Filipino household should replace 1 incandescent or flourescent bulb with an LED bulb.
the topic is on NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. And your assumption, or whatever you call that kind of reasoning, is so vague. How sure are you that we will build a gas fired plant instead of other plants?
what made you say that Filipinos will build a gas fired power plant? what gas? Steam or LPG?
as for LPG, we already learned the lesson after converting all our car engines into LPG.
and as for geothermal power plants, it hasn’t lowered our electricity costs.
Canada is a mega gas, oil, hydro producer. We export. Has it reduced the cost of heat, energy, etc? Hell no.
elly,
‘what made you say that Filipinos will build a gas fired power plant? what gas? Steam or LPG?’
Can you afford to buy a newspaper?
Gas in gas fired power plant is NATURAL GAS! NOT STEAM! NOT LPG although is a by-product of natural gas! If you can borrow a Philippine map look for the island province of Palawan. It’s on the western part of the Philippines. Do you know your north, south, east and west? Anyway, there is a gas field called Camago-Malampaya that Shell developed and currently operates. It has a 500 km pipeline to Batangas. Ilijan, Sta. Rita and San Lorenzo are gas fired plants that currently use the NATURAL GAS from Malampaya. WHY IMPORT URANIUM WHEN NATURAL GAS IS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES BOZO!
Steam is the layman term for geothermal gas(natural gas) that is extracted below the ground and converted to electrical power.
Were using this method right now, yes, but did it help? is our power supply enough? the answer should be a big no.
my point is not to remove these existing plants, but rather supplement them with nuclear power plants to provide more power we need. There is no point in building more obsolete plants if the Filipino engineers are capable of doing better than this.
“WHY IMPORT URANIUM WHEN NATURAL GAS IS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES BOZO!”
Its available, but are we getting enough of it? if you research more, it costs more time and money to explore more sources of this natural gas and build power plants to convert the energy.
We already have the Bataan nuclear power plant, why not use it? rehabilitating it would cost far less.
elli,
‘Steam is the layman term for geothermal gas(natural gas) that is extracted below the ground and converted to electrical power.’
Think again.
elly,
We use steam turbines to generate electricity and we generate steam by boiling water not natural gas.
Maybe you confuse steam turbines with steam engines. The latter is fitted in locomotives and cars.
just making it easy for everyone to understand guys. not all of us are engineers.
iv been thinking supremo. really hard that i went to school for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel, producing less carbon dioxide per joule delivered than either coal or oil.[13], and far fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels. However, in absolute terms it does contribute substantially to global carbon emissions, and this contribution is projected to grow…In addition, natural gas itself is a greenhouse gas (methane) far more potent than carbon dioxide when released into the atmosphere, although released in much smaller quantities.
—-
http://www.thesouthern.com/news/science/environment/article_ab585839-e06a-575d-a4b4-c5aa7a9a60fd.html
“But, like coal and oil, natural gas is finite. And while the U.S. has enough coal to last 225 years, estimates by the National Academy of Sciences, based on current consumption rates, show there is enough natural gas, worldwide, to last 60 years.”
—-
Whatever natural resources we have, we should use them. Natural gas is one of them. But we have to look to other energy sources. We should not remove the possibility of nuclear, especially when the facility is already in place in the country.
who was it that said, the best mariners in the world are filipinos, and yet the philippines has no maritime industry of world-class calibre to speak of. analogously, the philippines is an archipelago surrounded by seas, visited by wild typhoon forces, awashed with surging strong waves–at least the lands facing the pacific–so how come we’re not leading in the wave power generation technology?
and the worst bit is majority of pinoys do not know how to swim
kaya naman marami nalulunod…
“Not only France, but all of the other developed nations. Following the footsteps of other nations isn’t “gaya-gaya” and “sunod sa uso”.”-elly
There, there, elly. Right on the bull’s eye, the operative phrase “all of the other developed nations”! The Philippines is not in that league.
Forget nuclear, we have to develop first. The more pressing problem is how to industrialize and how to alleviate poverty.
First thing first, the horse after the kart, not the kart after the horse.
Bangladesh is talks with Russia to build a nuclear power plant.
So they must have solved the supply chain problem.
If you have a stable source of fuel, go nuclear. If not, sorry nalang.
Kazakhstan has uranium.
are we friends with them? They are still under the Russian sphere of influence.
..but it’s good if they will give us some.
Nash,
Hmmm, interesting thought. Cozy up to the Ruskies. I need to think about that. Certainly the governments operate on the same foundations. What’s good for me is good for us.
“Forget nuclear, we have to develop first. The more pressing problem is how to industrialize and how to alleviate poverty.”
one topic at a time Bert, lets talk about industrialization and poverty on another post. Enough power supply can grow our economy, cheaper power can provide light on more Filipino households.
We cannot simply forget nuclear right now, maybe on the next generation, but not right now, its one of the viable sources of power right now.
From the Gartman Letter
ON NUCLEAR POWER AROUND
THE WORLD: The situation in the Gulf is
obviously going to be deleterious to the entire off-shore
oil drilling industry here in the US, while it will almost
certainly expand in countries around the world where
oil can be found and the “Greens” are not nearly as
powerful as they are here. If the problems in the Gulf
are supportive of anything they are supportive of the
Canadian tar sands; they are supportive of Petrobras’
operations off the coast of Brazil; they are supportive of
the oil industry in Nigeria… and they should be
supportive of nuclear power plants. We thought we’d
take a look this morning at the latter, comparing where
in the world nuclear power plants are being built or are
being considered. For example there are more
nuclear power facilities operating here in the US than
in any other nation in the world…104 at present.
However, we’ve only 1 plant under construction at the
moment and a mere 8 that are planned. Construction
has effectively all but stopped here in the US on
nuclear power. Interestingly, in Canada there are 18
plants operating, but there are no plants under
construction and none being planned.
In Europe, where nuclear power produces a great deal
of the electricity… far more than is produced here in
the US… there are 19 plants operating in the UK; 17 in
Germany; 7 in Belgium; 59 in France; 10 in Sweden…
but there are none… zero… zilch under construction
anywhere and worse, there are none on the planning
books! Only in Russia, with 27 plants operating, are
there any plans for more. There, in Russia, they’ve 10
nuclear power plants being built and there are 7 more
planned. In the Ukraine, with 15 plants up and running
there are none being considered but at least 2 are now
being built.
So where is the growth? In Asia… obviously. China
has 11 plants operating. It has 26 under construction
and it is currently planning for 10 more. Japan has 54
nuclear power plants operating; it has 3 under
construction and it is planning for 12 more. The S.
Koreans? They’ve 20 nuclear plants operating; they
are building 6 at present and they’ve 2 being
considered. Finally, the Indians are rushing headlong
into nuclear power, with 17 plants operating; 6 being
built and 8 being considered. IN ASIA, THE FUTURE IS ALWAYS BEING CONSIDERED, AND IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS BEING CONSIDERED future is
PROPERLY (Caps are mine). Here in The West, as Borat
would say, “Not so much.’
It seems like gas and uranium are the energy sources that are “cheap” at the moment according to David Pescod Stock Talk Newsletter
minutes.
“There are two sectors of the market that are so dirt-cheap
(natural gas and uranium) that we just wonder when the fundamentals
change for the sector. Is it six weeks? Is it six months?
Or for that matter, is it six years? But so many natural gas and
uranium stocks are so dirt cheap, if one could figure out when
those sectors move, I suspect there are big rewards down the
road.
Yesterday in the Hard Rock Analyst the Coffin Brothers took a
look at the uranium sector and they wrote, “Last Thursday morning
brought news from a couple of companies we are following in
the much beleaguered uranium space…The on-going nightmare of
oil surging into the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s deep sea well is
shutting down the potential for expansion offshore US oil output.
This will be a serious blow to domestic US oil production since
most on-shore sources have been tapped already, but at this
point it isn’t clear its impact on global supply will be overwhelming.
Certainly it is causing a rethink of how to best to generate
power for the modern economy. We think uranium generation
could benefit from that, if only by reminding that no form of energy
generation is without risk or some degree of landscape altering
activity. The small footprint from uranium power plants may
be viewed as balancing the risk of handling a radioactive material.
If sentiment turns in favour of expanded uranium use the first impact
will be on the metal’s price.” So the Coffin Brothers write.
We should point out that in countries that seem to need lots of
lawyers to get uranium facilities built like the United States, it can
11 to 14 years to get nukes built. In places where there is not the
input and the problem of lawyers like India, it’s a mere four years
to get a nuke built. We wonder if the fuel of choice for generation
of power down the road isn’t going to be natural gas where you
can buy facilities off the shelf and they only take 2 years to be
built. Interesting!
With supply of nuclear material drawing down shortly from spent Russian nuclear weapons, the question is, will
this number of new nukes under construction be enough to start getting uranium prices (which have been in the cellar)
up and moving? And just how soon?”
A few years back I happened to work briefly in a place called Chelyabinsk.Check this out. http://www.logtv.com/films/chelyabinsk/nuclear.htm Up to that time I was there, there were places still radioactive, villages that had “living dead.”
Right now there’s that disaster in the Gulf. They’re still cleaning up the mess in Alaska from a couple of decades ago. In the Philippines? What price will the people have to pay for just one little nuclear “accident”? In a country that is suffering from brownouts because of mis-management, can anyone here seriously think the Philippines can do better in running a nuclear power plant?
It’s all about money isn’t it? Going nuclear when others have stopped building them. There’s geothermal, wind, and even solar. Denmark is the world’s largest producer of wind energy, some of it exported to Germany. Iceland relies on 80% geothermal for its winter heating. Kamaganak Inc, Marcos Jr or Cojuangco Jr or any other supporters are just in it for the money. For goodness sake, isn’t enough that one nuclear power plant was built on a fault line, and the Filipino people are still paying for?
Nuclear reactors have their shelf life and technology evolves over time. New generation of reactors will have to replace obsolete ones. It is paramount for nuclear operators to ensure that they put aside funds to decommission reactors that reach their end of life cycle.
The research for ensuring that nuclear reactors are safe, and that recycling of old fuels or disposal of waster are managed in a way that costs less and does the least damage to environment and people is never ending.
Having said the above, management of nuclear reactors is even a more serious business. Stringent rules are in place to ensure that the people working in potentially dangerous areas of the reactor are fully qualified and responsible. I’ve heard of sudden audits of lockers, even waste bins for alcohol or drugs that might impair the ability of staff to function properly is a regular occurrence.
If RP is to operate modern day nuclear reactors ( which have become very safe in the last 2 decades ) it must adhere to accepted practices, no less than what the other parts of the world are doing. If low level waste were to be transported in shielded bins, it can’t be ferried with an empty kerosene can aboard a tricycle. Nuclear power rocks but you got to be willing to play be the rules to make it work to your advantage.
Let’s not talk hypothetical here. The reality is the Philippines can’t even manage proper public transit, nor manage the power sector can you see the country actually managing a nuclear power plant? There’s other sources that is safer in Filipino hands.
1957 — time of accident.
We learn from accidents, at least the scientific community does.
Yes its devastating, but without that, we would not impose strict rules on nuclear reactor operations. we would not be careful in handling nuclear materials.
money is one big factor, but its not all about money. I believe that the government should operate these plants if ever we’ll have them, not private entities.
Speaking of renewable sources of energy, geothermal,waves, solar, wind. In the US, they trap the methane gas emanating from trash dumps and use that to power steam generators. I understand they are also working on a methodology to trap the gases emanating from legislators’ mouths as it may represent the best and cheapest source of power on the planet.
Which reminds me, the Philippines has lots of sun, too, so as the price of solar panels comes down, plaster the place . . .
@Joe
Cost of panels themselves have gone down, but they are still expensive and requires large tracts of land. Given the current technology, to power 70% of electricity in the United States, the Scientific American estimates that 30,000 square miles of land will be used in the Southwest (where the sun shines aplenty). (Solar Grand Plan, Scientific American 2007)
Of course our goal is not that high, but the technology today is simply not ready. Silicon-based solar cells cannot achieve grid parity (that is compete with traditional power sources in pricing). Energy storage is also an issue. Solar energy is not available at night, so energy storage is done using lead acid batteries. These require replacement every few years and also make the solar technology less competitive.
For now, solar technology has been useful in places where connecting them to the grid would be severely impractical (or lack of government attention).
But when the time comes (and i hope it is soon), solar is the way to go.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
We hear of gas hydrates off the coast of Japan. Is there any search for this type of energy source in Phil. since Philippines is surrounded by the seas and we long coastlines? They have found this as well in Canada and it is being studied as to how to get the methane out of these hydrates.
There are a number of filipino engineers working in the nuclear industry abroad. Perhaps we can entice them to come home and put their expertise to good use. I think we can run a good industry if we all put our collective minds to good use. I don’t believe that Filipino engineers and scientist are lacking in intelligence and that given the opportunity and the right technology and a proper evaluation of the environmental risk and mitigation, we can rise up to the challenge. To say that we can not do it is defeatist and an insult to a lot of Filipino engineers and scientists who have proven themselves around the world.
I don’t think you can entice technical people to come home. Technical people wants to be refresshed with advanced technologies, frequently. Every area of technology advances and evolves everyday. I am a technical man. I will not dare to come home to stagnate my mind, to participate in the nonsense in my country. Especially, the country is run by people who are good on talking, but fall very short on doing…
How sad for you Mario. Did I tell you, I once had a mentor who studied PHD in electrical engineering as well as education who went back home to India. This guy is agenius and he could have had a dream job in one big IT firm in NY. I asked him why and he said that his country needs him and that he wanted to teach there to strengthen their education programs. I would like to believe that there are Filipinos who would think this way. I for one would like to go back home one day once my family obligation is fulfilled and teach and mentor there.
to AlexB
never mind the Asian dragons – Japan, Korea and China
Pakistan has 2 nuclear plants with 1 under construction
India has 16 nuclear plants with 7 under construction
In the UN’s Human Development Index report, a barometer of the quality of life sampled from 182 countries, Paskistan is ranked 141, India 134 and Phils 105. Yes it is possible for RP to go nuclear. If these guys can do it – we can too. If there is a will, there is a way. It’s the best way to power up a nation that’s closing in to 100Million plus population in the next few years.
well said.
totally agree on bw.
bw…there is a way if 10 years down the road the Philippines can enforce its own laws and regulations, follow safety standards, the whole society abides by its own laws…presently no. we can’t look at Pakistan or Bangladesh as “inferior” models (accdg to that survey) and say we can if they can, we can. No doubt Filipinos have all the abilities to produce…so let me give you a litany of what is: maritime disasters, the floodway or spillway in Manila they forgot/omitted to build to mitigate flooding, election posters in a marine sanctuary in Batanes or the trail in Batad terraces (just one of the thousand places), jeepneys and buses in Metro Manila contribute to 3x more than the acceptable limit in air quality. There are other safer alternatives facing the country.
to: bw, rosa, elly and others
bravado is never a good substitute for common sense, :).
I had never alluded bravado. On one hand I mentioned that if RP wants to go nuclear it has to do no less than what other parts of the world are doing in terms of maintenance and safety. 3rd world countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh proved they can do it. Nuclear safety cannot be compromised.
Nuclear costs about $30 per MegW to produce – coal $70, gas $80 and windpower $60. Clearly there are economies of scale to be had with nuclear. On the safety side, there are nuclear reactors that use natural uranium instead of enriched uranium. If Pinas wants to suffer frequent brownouts and pay ludicrious power rates dictated by Meralco because the price of oil swings like a yoyo and the dams are getting drier every summer and we think this is just the way life is and we can’t do much about it because we are incapable of thinking out of the box – I call that giving up.
Bert, I said we can do it if we want to. There are other alternatives such as gas which is abundant in Australia and which is being exported as LNG around the world. With the shale gas being found in North America and other places, gas would be expected to be abundant and cheap for the next hundred years and it would be wise to see if we can make use of it as our energy source for electricity. The articles that I found highlight the growing importance of nuclear energy especially in ASia. To say we can not do it is what I am arguing against because I have seen with my own eyes how effective Filipinos are in working as engineers in international setting so to say we do not have technical ability or understanding would be untrue. Malaysia is now also ready to start their nuclear program. What they have done is have PHDs and masteral program in nuclear energy in their universities. They have also pinpointed the year when they should have their reactors ready for operation. We can have these programs as well as send scholars abroad to study nuclear programs with the condition that they will come back to help build Phil. nuclear capability. In the meantime, as the article above say, we can avail of cheap gas which allows shorter facility build while we are preparing ourselves for the nuclear technologies. This is not bravado, it is self-belief as individuals and as a nation that we can do this. We can start addressing this problem of lack of energy source and security while tackling the other problems such as corruption and poverty. What is the Department of Energy of the Phil. say on this matter?
Pakistan and India have nuclear bombs and nuclear scientists. Do we have nuclear scientists? We have, they’ve become OFWs.
Sa kalokohan, tayo nasa unahan. Pag sa ganito, bahag ang buntot, nagtatago sa hulihan.
From rosa:
“We should point out that in countries that seem to need lots of
lawyers to get uranium facilities built like the United States, it can
11 to 14 years to get nukes built. In places where there is not the
input and the problem of lawyers like India, it’s a mere four years
to get a nuke built.”
– were now having the same problem as the US, too many people trying to get their opinion out without understanding anything, just for the sake of saying something. before saying something, Please find a qualified engineer and let him at least explain the pros and cons and what we are doing right now to minimize risk. In engineering, there’s no such thing as a perfect system, we always weigh things and find the sensible amount of risking something and to get more out what we want.
“To say that we can not do it is defeatist and an insult to a lot of Filipino engineers and scientists who have proven themselves around the world.”
“Perhaps we can entice them to come home and put their expertise to good use.”
– with the right compensation, even lower than what i’m having right now. I’ll do it. And i suppose most of the Filipino engineers working abroad also.
“There’s no place like our home”
The Philippines needs a lot more good lawyers and unplugged courts in which aforesaid lawyers can wield their talents at righting wrongs.
@Alex B
You said :
“Canada is a mega gas, oil, hydro producer. We export. Has it reduced the cost of heat, energy, etc? Hell no.”
What we pay is relative to the economy and the standard of living each country enjoys. Last time I checked my electricity bill was $138, from Feb 1 to Mar 29.
Check this link about a Pinay who claims that her bills jumped from P15,000 in 2003 to P41,000 in 2010.
http://chuvaness.livejournal.com/851923.html
Agree bw, with six figure incomes which is easily what Filipino professionals make here, that is no sweat as they say. But I have the assurance that there are no brownouts and the TV works everytime I turn it on. I read chuvaness article above and this is quite shocking that they pay almost $1000 CDN dollar for monthly consumption, In the coldest winters when three stories of my house is being heated up, I have never paid more than $300 and I know this goes to pay transmission, taxes, unionized salaries of workers etc. Tsk, Phil. can not just bury their heads on this problem.
Kung hindi isinara iyong BNPP, eh di siguro ibang-iba ang takbo sa Pilipinas dahil steady supply of electricity. O sana naman sana, ipinabukas na ni Tabako noon pa o nag-patayo siya ng bagong nuclear plant,
Kung sinimulan ni Tabako, plus 8 years, okay na!
what I find is changing to more modern energy efficient appliances help. I changed all my 5 appliances – fridge,stove, dishwasher, washer, dryer a few years ago and my power usage dropped. Big difference when you change a 1800kwhr /year fridge to a 800kwhr /yr model. sure it spent some money but it pays off. People cling their old washers because it still works. I say junk it because it is a power hog. Having an energy efficient house is a MUST. People don’t realize this.
Coupled with heating which is used for my forced air gas central heating and conditioning as well as my water heater tank, including the gas heater unit for the pool, I also pay about $150 per month on average.
While electricity-cost low in Canada/USA compared to Manila, there are also other “cost-of-living” items like movie ticket $12.00 per person, $16.00 if IMAX.
Long-grain rice is US$1.69 per kilogram and San Miguel is $1.60 per 12-oz bottle at supermarket. Budweiser is $0.90; Sam Adams, Heineken or Dos Equis would be $1.35 to $1.55.
Fresh eggs large-size is US$0.14 each at supermarket. Fresh tomatoes: $2.20 to $3.50 per kilo depending on type. A large pakwan watermelon is US$6.00.
Chinese restaurant: US$12.00 per person Saturday dim-sum, restaurant dinner is $17.00 person (no beer, no coke). Thai dinner: $19.00 per person. American (steak or salmon or ribs plus side-dish : $21.00). Add $6.50 per beer; $4.00 per coke. Then add 15% for tip.
Just had a $615.00 auto-repair cost on a 13-year old Prelude with VTEC — replace radiator; replace top- and bottom radiator hoses. I don’t give tips for car-repair bills.
One of cheapest items in Pilipinas — katulong. Lawn-mower service cost me $25.00 per visit (weekly, 30 minutes work per visit).
Many people fail to understand how ruinous it is to have expensive electricity. Can’t they see, it is wrecking the entire economy. Electricity is part of the cost of production, we seem to forget Our factories and businesses can no more compete– what with sky high electricity bills– with cheap imports from China and elsewhere yet because of our trade commitments we could not set up protective walls to save them either, so we layoff people or cut down on salary or other cost or close business entirely. Meanwhile, prospective investors seeing that aside from a high corruption overhead cost, power rate is oh-so high, skip the Philippines instead and go elsewhere. We are competing with the rest of the world now but we seem headed instead towards a genset powered Philippines. Job generation in a genset powered, candle burning, Philippines.
well said ricelander.
from bert:
to: bw, rosa, elly and others
bravado is never a good substitute for common sense, :).
This is what you call common sense.
Hehe Elly. Di baleng walang trabaho, basta me demokrasya!
:)
hehe, or “di baleng walang demokrasya basta may pera”.
It is a given when the article asks that is it time for nuclear energy. Part of nation building is the provision of the most fundamental need of each citizen which is clean water and electricity. How much of the rural citizenry are still using kerosene and biomass energy which is causing pollution as well as adverse effect even to the citizen themselves? As we moving to a more service oriented economy, a widely established electricity distribution is important. How about manufacturing and small scale industries that can be established in far flung provinces if cheaper electricity is available? Nuclear energy and other non-conventional sources of energy is just a subset of the issue of providing electricity to the nation. Concurrent to finding sources of energy, the issues on efficient transmission, distribution, human resources, large, medium and small scale industry electricity demands, growth projection, consumer protection, environment, encouragement of private participation or joint private public cooperation etc have to be all addressed in order that a coherent electric act or direction is arrived at.