Bataan Nuclear Powerplant :Cataclysm of its Revival (Part 2)

(the pictures are not mine. This was a reaction paper)

The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that occurred on Saturday 26 April 1986, at the No. 4 reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR. It is considered the worst nuclear disaster in history and is one of only two nuclear energy disasters rated at seven—the maximum severity—on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. After the disaster, below are pictures of the effects of the explosion of reactors of the powerplant. These might happen in the future if the revival of BNPP will be push through.

Aside from safety, the economics of the refurbishment need to be considered as well. The plant has fallen into disrepair and some of the equipment installed has since become outdated. Even the Russian Ambassador Igor Khovaev believes the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is beyond revival. Khovaev said the technology in the plant was absolutely outdated. According to him, the safety standards, the international standards are much higher than the standards on which the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was built. So he thought that it is not possible at all. Khovaev's statement comes after Russia's State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom conducted an assessment of the facility last August 2017 to determine if it was fit for commissioning.

Despite what its proponents claim, nuclear power is more expensive than low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels. In the United States, the average cost of newly-generated electricity per MWh by 2022 for nuclear (USD 90.1) is higher than that for solar (USD 46.5), onshore wind (USD 37.0), and hydropower (USD 73.9). A similar case is observed in the United Kingdom, wherein the share of wind and solar energy sources to electricity generation by twenty nine percent recently exceeded that of nuclear power by twenty one percent. The costs of large-scale solar and onshore wind (GBP 80 and GBP 62, respectively) are also lower than that of nuclear (GBP 93), showing the viability of renewables. Some would point to recent developments in developing countries as examples of the viability of nuclear energy in a carbon-constrained world. Specifically, China is the world's fastest expanding nuclear energy producer, with 19 power plants under construction as of 2017. However, wind has surpassed nuclear in energy generation from 2000 to 2016, producing 241 TWh compared to the latter's 213.2 TWh.

Contrary to popular belief, nuclear power is not completely renewable. While the energy itself can be regenerated, the material used to produce it such as uranium is finite. These materials also need to be mined and processed, resulting in increased risks for environmental degradation. These activities may not even be included in accounting for the carbon footprint of nuclear power plants throughout its life cycle.

            The costs of building, operating, and eventually decommissioning such power plants are also more expensive than renewables. In Europe, nuclear power projects experience delays and overruns that only increase costs. For instance, the construction of a new reactor in Finland was finished nine years behind schedule and exceeded the budget by over USD 5 billion. In France, a 1650-MW nuclear reactor took six more years to build and cost EUR 7 billion more than initially projected.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant has been our only attempt at nuclear power generation. But the revival of the plant is too expensive even to consider and that the money would be better spent on other electricity generation projects. Building the pressurized water reactor took more than a decade and cost USD 2.3 billion. This was three times as much as the proposed budget and higher than the project costs for building such technology in other countries.  Also, in regard to the pandemic that we faced right now, based on what the BNPP needs, to operate fully, Philippines must not have the budget for repairing and reopening the power plant.

Nevertheless, proponents are still pushing for the full operation of the BNPP, citing the low operating costs of nuclear power and its low carbon emissions relative to fossil fuel-based power plants as the basis for the facility's reactivation. However, there are several issues persist that make any plans for its reopening and any new nuclear power in the Philippines is unlikely.

First, the Philippines lacks a legal framework for using nuclear power. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, head of the Energy Committee, remarks that "should the Philippines decide to pursue adding nuclear power to the energy mix, a comprehensive legal framework on the use of nuclear power would first need to be crafted to tackle these issues". Steps such as the establishment of a well-defined regulatory body, import and export controls, emergency preparedness and response, and radioactive waste management need to be addressed. The country would also need to ratify several international nuclear conventions to strengthen standards on security, safety, and liability.

Second, the cost for the rehabilitation of the BNPP is too much for the Philippines to risk its resources. A study by Russian and Slovenian nuclear experts last year revealed that it would cost USD 3 to 4 billion to rehabilitate the facility. More funding will also be needed for training personnel on its management and securing the power plant from structural defects and hazards such as earthquakes

Third, at a time of urgent and immediate action against climate change, it is imperative to promote low-carbon alternatives to strengthen the Philippines's long-term energy security. Rapidly decreasing the country's dependence on fossil fuels will firmly place it on a path towards resilient sustainable development.

Given its high potential for wind and solar that remains largely untapped, the country must focus on developing these resources instead of investing in nuclear power. Focusing on fixing the BNPP and constructing new reactors could take more than a decade before becoming operational. This timeframe will be too long for the country to contribute towards a peak in carbon emissions worldwide as indicated in climate projections, as well as meet its targets in its Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement.

Current global market trends indicate that renewables will continue becoming cheaper and more efficient in power generation more than any other energy source in the next few decades. Small-scale renewable energy systems near their intended consumers are also more suitable for its archipelagic setting, with communities in areas such as Romblon and Negros as models for future initiatives. The future of Philippine energy must move forward instead of going against projected market trends, which would ultimately hurt its national development. Heavily investing on nuclear power will only send the nation on the wrong path.

All these reasons listed are the reasons why Bataan Nuclear Powerplant should not be revived. The possibility of BNPP to end up as a disastrous project like the Chernobyl accident is high, so it’s too much of a risk to take. Also, the expenses that will be use for the revival of the said powerplant is too much for the Philippines to have right now. The country has other problems to deal with. Gambling its funds and resources to the rehabilitation of the said powerplant is another high risk to take. If the Philippines wanted to produce electricity for the future need of the people, a nuclear powerplant is not the solution.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Bataan Nuclear Powerplant is the only nuclear powerplant in the Philippines, that was built on the time of President Marcos. It was the only endeavor of the Philippines in having a nuclear powerplant that will generate 623 MW of electricity. But it was never operated. Now, people are debating whether or not revive the dead powerplant.

The Bataan Nuclear Powerplant (BNPP) should not be brought to life for so many reasons. The main reason is that the safety of the people and animals near the BNPP. Like the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the side effects of the nuclear powerplant in that accident may also happen if the BNPP will be revive. The revival of Bataan Nuclear Powerplant doesn’t necessarily mean that what happened to Chernobyl will happen to the Philippines. But there is a possibility that it will. Or worst case scenario may occur. Especially that the location of BNPP wasn’t considered when it was built.

Another factor why BNPP shouldn’t be revive is the expenses of restoring it. The costs of building and operating such powerplant is expensive. As of today, the Philippines is not ready to continue this project. If it will be open again, the government needs to replace the equipments, enhance the facility, and train personnels. Of course, the Philippines itself cannot provide the necessary machines and equipment for the re-opening of BNPP so they need to export them from other countries. Training qualified personnel for the job inside the powerplant is also needed because not anyone can just enter inside the powerplant without proper knowledge of what’s inside and how does it work.  It needs a lot of preparation and money. It will take years before this powerplant can operate. Therefore, the goal of the said revival of the powerplant will be prolonged. Giving unsure certainty that it’s preparation will be finish properly. Since the generation of power never goes out of trend and the society needs electricity every day. If the government pushed the rehabilitation of Bataan Nuclear Powerplant, other funds of the government may be used, or worse, borrowing money from other countries. It will make the Philippines more reliant to other countries. Also, the government may not be able to support the need of its people when the time comes because of the lack of fund and resources,

If the problem of the Philippines is the generation of electricity, they shouldn’t rely on reviving the Bataan Nuclear Powerplant. Other solution to this problem is available. There are other kinds of powerplant that can generate electricity using renewable resources. Solar and Wind farms are already present in the country. Hydro Powerplant as well. The Philippines should focus on developing those types of powerplants to have a safer and greener environment. They should put their attention on studying how to further utilize the use of renewable resources for the production of energy in the country. The solution to the problem of the Philippines when it comes to generation of energy is not the revival of the BNPP, but further development of other active powerplants in the country.

REFERENCES

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[2] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/camacho2/

[3]  https://www.traveling-up.com/inside-the-bataan-nuclear-power-plant/

[4] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/ayala1/

[5] https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1744349

[6]https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/04/04/Russian-ambassador-Igor Khovaev-Bataan-nuclear-power-plant-revival-not-possible.html

[7] http://powerphilippines.com/pros-cons-reopening-bataan-nuclear-power-plant/

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

thank you for reading! Part 1 of this article is here https://read.cash/@marieofhtemiah/bataan-nuclear-powerplant-cataclysm-of-its-revival-part-1-5eda74d6

comment and like and subscribe hehe tyyy