You are on page 1of 9

Energy Development in Asia Series

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.

All Rights Reserved.

Setting-up for success: The time has come for Philippine nuclear energy
1 October 2010

Renewed political will from the ground and up

The atmosphere for nuclear energy development has gone for a 180-degree turn in the Philippines, with a progressive new
President and renewed efforts to prepare and meet rising energy demand. The renewed political will to revive the Philippine
nuclear energy portfolio resulted from a long process and series of conversations, debates and ruminations among the Philippine
stakeholders, tax payers and local residents. But most importantly, the winning proposition for nuclear energy is driven by the
urgency and necessity to meet national energy and climate needs, focusing on solutions to make electricity more affordable as
well as mitigate the adverse effects of carbon dioxide emissions. Supported by encouraging global nuclear energy developments
in safety, technology and cost-effective innovations and global accessibility of technical information on the feasibility and safety of
utilising nuclear energy source in the Philippines and the world, public perception seems to facilitate the movement to revive the
nuclear power plant and to reap its long-term benefits.

A critical mass of like-minded thinking that nuclear energy is viable, safe and the way to go is also building up from the ground. In
discussion forums, there’s an increase in average Filipinos—even those locals residing nearby the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
(BNPP)—who now associate the opening of the BNPP as a symbol of progress, forgiveness and economic development. In
increasing number, Filipinos are now in favour of reactivating the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, provided that experts
are hired to make it useful for the public.

Discussion forums also echo this positive trust in the safety of nuclear energy, indicating that nuclear engineers have almost
perfected the operation of nuclear power plants and should get rid of the fear of nuclear accidents. Others believe that it can solve
the looming power crisis, lower the price of electricity and generate more jobs, so the revival of nuclear energy in the Philippines
must be revived, provided all the safety nets are put in place.

Drafting the Philippine nuclear energy policy

Philippine policy for nuclear energy has been developing alongside the trend in public perception. The Department of Energy's
declaration that nuclear energy is among the major energy options (about 10% of power mix expected) contributes to ensuring
that a national policy will support nuclear energy investment. Close to 184 lawmakers positively support House Bill No. 6300,
mandating an immediate validation process, which is internationally accepted by nuclear power industry norms, to determine the
BNPP's operability. The Philippine government calls for international support—such as the International Atomic Energy Agency
and World Association of Nuclear Operators—to help them jumpstart the nuclear energy programme safely and effectively. And
the support is astounding even as international experts and local scientists bring to the fore its benefits of cost-effectiveness,
price stability and security of supplies as compared with oil, gas, coal and other options in the face of looming power crisis and
price fluctuation risks.

Private interests growing in the Philippine nuclear energy

Major business interests in the country are already making investments to gain a share in the portfolio, which could include
operating the BNPP as well as building new reactors for nuclear power generation in other parts of the country. “It is not an
impossibility.” This is according to Oscar Lopez when asked if First Gen Corp., his group’s power generation unit, would be
considering an entry into nuclear power development. San Miguel Corp, now the largest energy player in the Philippines, had also
signified interest to invest in nuclear power generation.

Significant local government representatives from various provinces in the Philippines are also opening up their areas for building
new power plants. The provincial government of Cebu has formally opened its doors for consultation with stakeholders on the
proposed siting of a nuclear power facility should the Philippine government clinch a deal for the nuclear facilities which may be
auctioned off by Korea Peninsula Energy Development Organization. Meanwhile, Pangasinan opened its doors to the

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 1 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

establishment of a nuclear power plant on its coastline. As a benchmark, for building 7 new reactors and rehabilitation of 1 power
plant approximately USD 22 billion dollars of investment are expected to be generated.

Foreign investors and technology providers have noticed the quick developments in the Philippine nuclear energy programme as
well, which have been building up for many years now, and some Asian companies have gained an early lead, such as Korea
Electric Power Corp (Kepco), Kansai Electric, Toshiba Corp and Tokyo Electric Power Corp, as European providers seek new
pastures to market their products. Tokyo is motivated by the fact that domestic power plants alone will not provide sufficient
profits to sustain the industry through 2030. To remain competitive and to maintain its domestic capacity, the Japanese nuclear
power industry will need to win overseas contracts. The Philippine government is now seriously looking for ways to set up nuclear
energy effectively and correctly for the benefit of all.

Nuclear energy to address the power gap

The power crisis in 1994 resulted from just a 600 megawatt (MW) shortfall in generated power, causing 4-6 hours of rotating
blackouts. This was solved through privatization of plants and the construction of additional power plants in the country. But with
Philippine electricity demand forecasted to grow at 10% between 2010-2014, a 91.4-million-strong population set to grow to
100.1 million in the same period, and thin capacity—a power crisis will resurface, without new power plants added quickly to meet
the 52.2 terawatt-hour (TWh) forecasted demand through to 2014. The Luzon power grid, where Metro Manila lodges, has very
thin capacity and faces a possible shortage of 3,000 megawatts by the year 2012, which will cause widespread rotating
blackouts. The country’s system operator, National Grid Corporation of the Philippines’ monitoring indicated that Luzon grid has
available capacity of only 6,980 MW versus 6,897 MW peak load or a thin reserved of 83 MW.

Power supply is declared critical when the existing generating capacity is not enough to cover peak demand, and reserves go
below 23.4% of dependable capacity for Luzon and the Visayas and 21% for Mindanao. Mindanao is expected to hit a critical
period this year if no additional capacity goes onstream, according to government data. The Visayas, which hit critical levels last
year, face a new critical period in 2011, the same time that Luzon is expected to hit its critical period. While the Visayas will secure
an additional 328 MW of power supply this year, only 42.5 MW of capacity will be added in Mindanao when another hydro power
plant goes onstream. Luzon is not scheduled to augment its capacity until 2012, when 600 MW is added to the grid.

Even as early as 2nd quarter in 2010, the Philippines had already been feeling the pinch. In February this year, Luzon grid was
placed on red alert due to generation deficiency after seven plants went on maintenance shutdown. The generation deficiency
forced power retailer Manila Electric Company (Meralco) to implement a manual load dropping resulting in one hour power
outage. Further exacerbating the shortage was limited hydroelectric plant capacity due to the El Niño-induced dry spell. Visayas,
meanwhile, posted 90 MW generation deficiency after its available capacity was placed at 1,130 MW lower than the peak demand
of 1,220 MW. Mindanao remains to be on red alert after its generation deficiency hit over 500 MW as against its available capacity
of 778 MW while peak load hit 1,316 MW.

The revival of the nuclear energy portfolio inevitably will generate in 4-5 years 620 MW of power supply, with the rehabilitation of
the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant—a 650MW, 2-loop Westinghouse pressurised water reactor, and even potentially 1200 MW when
a second plant is built. With the recent study of KEPCO that due rehabilitation of the plant of 4-5 years, this will alleviate the strain
from the demand for electricity in the Luzon region when the BNPP runs in 2013-2014. Apart from where the Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant is located, other provinces are also opening in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao regions, with expected nuclear power
plants built to solve the looming power gap.

Cleaner, more affordable energy for base load plants

Base load plants are energy plants devoted to the production of continuous energy demand and produce energy at a constant
rate, usually at a low cost per kwh relative to other production facilities available to the system. These plants are by nature very
expensive as they run 24 hours, 365 days without fail, except in the case of repairs or scheduled maintenance. The Philippines
uses coal-fired thermal power plants as the number one source of electricity and account for a total of 3,967 MW or 25% of the
country’s total installed powered generating capacity.

Today, compared to other sources of base-load electricity, notably coal and gas, nuclear-generated electricity is very competitive

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 2 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

in most countries. Since the cost of uranium fuel for nuclear power plants amounts to only about 5% of the cost of nuclear-
generated electricity, the latter is very stable and this long-term stability is an important asset for electricity-intensive industries.
General thinking in the Philippines agree that the use of nuclear energy for burning coal will mitigate the use of the single biggest
source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and a major cause of climate change and will mitigate the adverse effects of coal,
which emits 29% more carbon per unit of energy than oil and 80% more than gas.

Uranium’s high energy density (1 gram of uranium produces the same energy as 10,000-16,000 grams of oil with current
practices) means cheaper electricity. 1 kilogram (kg) of uranium is worth $132/kg. As uranium needs to be converted to fuel
assemblies, price of 1kg uranium will be between $750 and $1,000, which is equivalent energy of 5,000 tons of coal costs a very
different value of $169,000.

A 2005 international comparison of the levelised costs for nuclear, coal and gas power plants shows nuclear to be competitive
with coal and gas, whilst the oil prices have quadrupled with other fossil energy prices.
The challenge however relates to investment funding rather than the levelised cost of generation. Returns from existing nuclear
energy investments have in many cases been increased through improved stability, power uprates and licence renewal; world
average availability has increased by 10 percentage points in the last 15 years, now reaching 83%. Many plants have been
uprated some by as much as 20%; a significant number of reactors have had lifetimes extended from 40 to 60 years.

With the encouraging economic value of this energy resource at economical feedstock rates, the Philippine government as well
other Southeast Asian nations are refocusing on nuclear energy to enhance the competitiveness of domestic industries and
underpin economic growth—mitigating the economic and social consequences of the present economic crisis. Notably, regional
leaders at the 16 ASEAN Summit in Hanoi, Vietnam in April 2010 welcome and promote international efforts at peaceful uses of
nuclear energy, as a follow-up to the 13th ASEAN Summit’s statement promoting civilian nuclear power, alongside renewable and
alternative energy sources. Governments such as the Philippines’ will need to mitigate the financial risks associated with licensing
and planning, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, to encourage investments in nuclear plants.

Regional security of supplies for energy

The 2005-07 spike in petroleum prices topping out at US$100 a barrel has prodded economic planners across the globe to
reconsider their energy options in an age of growing concern over global warming and carbon emissions. The Southeast Asian
region’s economies, beneficiaries of an oil and gas export bonanza through the 1970s-1990s, now find themselves in an energy
crunch as once-ample reserves run down and the search is on for new and cleaner energy supplies.

The Philippines’ efforts to develop nuclear energy will mitigate the effects of fluctuating prices of oil and coal. International and
local experts support these efforts. According to Swiss nuclear energy expert Dr. Ian McKinley, the growing demand for limited
energy sources such as coal and oil will only lead to more price increases, causing consumers to suffer more. Nuclear power
plants will reportedly reduce electricity rates due to the predictability of uranium prices, unlike coal and oil which are vulnerable to
various price risk factors, such as geo-political tensions. The fuel – uranium – comes from diverse sources and the main suppliers
are operating in politically stable countries. For his part, National Institute of Geological Sciences Dr. Carlo Arcilla said he is in
favor of reviving the Bataan nuclear power plant (BNPP), which would cost the government more than $800 million. "Having a
nuclear facility will lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and IPP (independent power producers)."BNPP is the country's first
nuclear power facility, finished in 1984 and fully paid by 2007.

Addressing the safety concerns and fears

Dangling rewards, however, do not distract the major stakeholders—Filipino taxpayers and local residents—from the concerns at
stake in terms of safety and investment returns. Yet recent facts and developments in the local and world nuclear energy
landscape provide a solid case for nuclear power in response to those who fret and fume about cost, safety and policy concerns.
Internationally, in 22 years, 99% of all immediate fatalities in the power generation industry were not nuclear related. Today,
hundreds of nuclear power stations safely provide 16% of the world’s electricity. The safety performance of nuclear power plants
and other nuclear facilities in OECD countries is excellent, as reflected in a number of safety performance indicators. This strong
safety record reflects the maturity of the industry and the robustness of the regulatory system.

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 3 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

Some remain to be convinced that nuclear energy is the way for the country—as it is located near the foot of Mt. Natib, a dormant
volcano and near the Manila Trench, on the Pacific Ocean side of the Philippines. These are now looking into reports to ensure
that BNPP is in tip top shape when it is revived. Just last year, safety reports on fault lines were made available, showing that
there is actually no fault line under the plant. This is why, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant has stood for 20 years "subjected to all
kinds of threats, earthquake, typhoon and has withstood all natural phenomena in resilient peace.

Recently, the Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Bureau of Mines and Geosciences, the Philippine Institute of
Volcanology and Seismology, the University of the Philippines National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP NIGS) have issued
certifications that there is no fault line under the plant. Dr. Arcilla, head of UP NIGS did a resistivity analysis around the plant and
did not find any fault line. There are also encouraging reports on the stability of the plant’s design to withstand any seismic
eventuality—0.4G for the “balance of plant structures” and 2.0G for the NSSS (nuclear steam supply side) structures. In
comparison, a structure in Metro Manila with 100% compliance with the National Building Code regarding seismic design could
only withstand between approximately 0.1G to 0.15G, and yet still the country’s main economic interests and activity are in

BNPP’s strength lay in the fact that its structures were designed to withstand earthquakes in Japan which is even more
seismically active than the Philippines or California, which is beside the San Andreas Fault. There is evidence to show that Mt.
Natib is 12,000 years since its last eruption. Geologists have said that this makes it “dormant, extinct”.

But in the eventuality that it ever erupts, geological standards put safe distance at six times (6x) Natib’s vertical height of 1,253
meters, which is approx 7.5 km. The BNPP is 13.8 kilometers away from the center of Mt Natib, almost 200% this safe distance.
The BNPP will also benefit from new technologies available to address pyroclastic flows—a seismic warning infrastructure to give
the local residents the best chance of an early warning, without which such pyroclastic flows will destroy the residential areas in
the vicinity, being much nearer to the volcano than the plant. The plant is near the tip of a peninsula (Napot Pt.); putting out to the
South China sea, this location is farthest away from Mt Natib, among the built-up area in the vicinity.

There are also existing seismic sensors to trigger a shutdown of the plant within 2 seconds of an intensity 4 or greater earthquake.
It physically shuts down and lowers control rods, within just 2 seconds. Intensity 4 is classified as a mild earthquake, about half
the intensity of the last major earthquake to hit Manila and Luzon in 1990. It is BNPP therefore which may end up saving the
people should Natib erupt, which probably will be. For perspective and proportionality, a nuclear plant is only expected to operate
for 40 years with possible extension for only 20 years afterward.

The way forward is to ensure safety through upgrades and rehabilitation and national policy that will support the revival of the
nuclear energy portfolio. Benchmarking with successful countries such as the US, France and South Korea and increasing
education campaign, information dissemination on the safety activities for the plant and transparency for investment to ensure
that money is invested wisely and justly are the key steps to ensuring successful nuclear energy development. There are constant
improvements in the nuclear industry’s safety performance, such as reactors of new designs now have passive safety features
that can maintain the plant in a safe state, in particular during an unexpected event, without the use of active control. The
international community has initiatives in progress to increase regulatory effectiveness and efficiency, in view of the growing
interest in new nuclear build and the next generation of designs.

The renewed public trust in the administration led by the new President Benigno Aquino III and his leadership by example are one
of the important steps to achieving this. The fears of lack of investment and corruption will be mitigated through initiatives toward
transparent reporting and austere financing. Since 30-35 percent of the investment is hardware and equipment and the remaining
65% is civil works, site development, building, power lines, manpower, etc, an austere solution is to buy a reliable, albeit older
model, which will help the country save time and money over building a nuclear plant from scratch.

The end to controversy and the beginning for reaping benefits

From major discussions, the Filipinos believe that the time is ripe to finally benefit and realise returns from this investment. “Yes, I
would take a chance with the Bataan nuclear power plant. We are being nuked with high electricity charges anyway,” says Joel
Caluag, a resident of Bulacan. At present, electricity in the Philippines is the third most expensive in all of Asia, according to
studies by University of the Philippines engineering professor Rowaldo del Mundo, with power in Iloilo City the most expensive in
the whole world according to the Freedom from Debt Coalition, costing consumers PHP 12.95 per kilowatt-hour. This means that

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 4 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

an average refrigerator alone, consuming about 1100 kWh per year, costs a household about PHP 1,187 per month in electricity
bills, not yet counting the family’s other electrical appliances. More and more Filipinos are seeing that they will not be held by their
fears to move the country’s energy plan and development forward. Over USD 2.3 billion has already been spent and paid for the
Bataan nuclear power plant and USD 800,000 is needed each year for its maintenance. The Filipino people are no longer allowing
political differences to prevent the Philippines from making progress.

Under the DOE energy plan, the country could start up its first 600-megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant by 2025. The DOE noted
that the new nuclear power facility is expected to contribute 0.885 million ton oil equivalent (MTOE) to the projected energy mix
and reach up to 3.54 MTOE by 2035. The good news is that with the recent study by KEPCO on the rehabilitation of the Bataan
Nuclear Power Plant finding it will only take 5 years to get the plant running once again (estimated at only USD 800 million to USD
1 billion), efforts to support this progress with appropriate policy and legislation and other technical and safety requirements are
underway and will be moved forward at the Nuclear Power Forum Philippines in Manila on December 10-11. Discussions will also
ensue on the best option for rehabilitating BNPP, whether this will be undertaken by the government or by the private sector.

Major provinces are now being shortlisted by the government for nuclear power plant sites. Specifically, the candidate sites for
the first nuclear power plant in Luzon will be in Mapalan Point in Morong, Bataan; San Juan, Batangas, Padre Burgos, Quezon;
Port Irene/Matara Point and Rakat Hill in Cagayan. For Visayas, the possible sites to host the first nuclear facility in the country are
Tagbarungis, Inagauwan in Southwest of Puerto Princesa and Concepcion, Tanabag in Northeast Puerto Princesa; Cansilan Point,
Bayawan in Negros Oriental; Baluangan, Cawayan, Negros Oriental. In Mindanao, the government has identified Piacan Point in
Siocon Zamboanga del Norte; Cauit Point in Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte and General Santos, Sarangani.

Jobs, jobs, jobs when BNPP runs in 2014

The Philippines can lead a valuable global advantage as it advances its skill in Southeast Asia in being the region’s power and
knowledge hub for nuclear energy engineering and other applications. Globally about 700-1000 permanent jobs are created by
building a large nuclear reactor. The National Power Corporation originally had 710 nuclear engineers who were trained by
Westinghouse and Ebasco Overseas Corp. in the 1980s to run the BNPP, but this has declined to about a hundred, many of
whom are due to retire in the next five to 10 years. Congressmen are now urging the University of the Philippines—the Philippines’
premier state university—to start offering nuclear engineering courses to address the skills gap when legislation gets approved for
the revival of the nuclear power plant.

Why Filipino taxpayers stand by their shareholder role

In the 1990s, power outages lasted from four to six hours per day, which the World Bank calculated economic losses to have
reached between $600 million and $800 million a year—lost by all Filipinos. The country’s citizens and residents would not want
to incur these economic losses once again, mustering all the information they can gather to understand how nuclear energy can
address the looming power crisis.

Even for people who are not yet convinced that nuclear energy is the way to go are now becoming more receptive with the revival
of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), formerly the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant, to solve this issue, with a condition that
safety concerns in the plant are addressed, especially the need for its upgrading and ensuring that it has a failsafe technology,
allowing it to respond correctly and effectively in the unlikely eventuality of volcanic activity in the area.

The business case for running the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant lives in the fact that the BNPP is already fully paid for at more than
USD 2.3 billion. Filipinos are increasingly understanding what their role really is in terms of putting into good use the USD 2.3
billion dollars already invested in this viable technology and are standing by their role as stewards of the said investment. Many
believe that the economics of reviving the Bataan power plant is encouraging especially that the global trends in the technology
are also developing, as owners of existing plants also have seen their profits rise, thanks to sharply higher output and fewer
shutdowns for maintenance or safety problems. The average nuclear plant is now online and producing electricity 90 percent of
the time, up from an average of 55 percent in 1980. Since fuel represents a fraction of the cost of operating a nuclear plant, the
soaring cost of fossil fuel — especially natural gas — has further tipped the scale in favour of nuclear. As it turns out, nuclear
plants have even better total lifetime output and return on investment than originally estimated.

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 5 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

Technologies, policies, requirements needed in the Philippine nuclear energy programme

Finally the discourse on whether to revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and the nuclear power programme in the Philippines
are filled more with arguments on actual facts and figures on profitability, ‘real’ economics of a plant, how many jobs will be
created, specific safety systems and technologies for managing waste, what policies will work for the country and even through to
the specifics on where the actual fault line really is, how dormant is the Mt Natib volcano, how many years it has not erupted and
how likely it will erupt again. These fact-driven discussions mark a progress of the debate concerning the Philippine nuclear
energy portfolio to now include concrete facts and not just personal sentiments and past grudges, and clearly highlight that the
Philippine government—grounded in basic principles of good faith, stewardship and accountability—are seeking solutions,
techniques and technologies needed to ensure that USD 2.3 billion dollars of investment generate returns for the Filipino people
and that technologies are tapped to ensure safe and affordable electricity for all.

The ‘Holy Grail’ for Luzon/Visayas/Mindanao is a technology where building is simpler and easier, meltdowns are less likely, waste
cannot be turned into a weapon, the waste is easier to handle and it could be built near small and big municipalities—to provide
local power. Globally, a growing relevant solution are Small Modular Reactors that are now being explored to be commercialised,
reported to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems. Their small size makes them suitable to
small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants. A 2009 assessment by
the IAEA under its Innovative Nuclear Power Reactors & Fuel Cycle (INPRO) program concluded that there could be 96 small
modular reactors (SMRs) in operation around the world by 2030 in its 'high' case, and 43 units in the 'low' case, none of them in
the USA. Pebble bed nuclear reactors—originally from Germany—are also being researched by Chinese and South African
companies heavily. These could be built near small municipalities to provide local power. Larger models (210MW and 250MW,
now in testing) could be used for larger citie or in multiples for major metropolitan centers.
Another significant line of development is in very small fast reactors of under 50 MWe. Some are conceived for areas away from
transmission grids and with small loads; others are designed to operate in clusters in competition with large units. Already
operating in a remote corner of Siberia are four small units at the Bilibino co-generation plant. These four 62 MWt (thermal) units
are an unusual graphite-moderated boiling water design with water/steam channels through the moderator. They produce steam
for district heating and 11 MWe (net) electricity each. They have performed well since 1976, much more cheaply than fossil fuel
alternatives in the Arctic region.

Storing and disposal of waste safety technologies is another critical technology that is required. Reprocessing and immobilising
high-level waste are the two most resilient methods being used. There are also techniques of storing spent nuclear fuel by
encasing it in dry caskets which are rebar-and-concrete fortified. Canada, most of Europe—and especially France—have made
substantial efforts to educate their citizens about nuclear power, also regarding the safe storage of nuclear waste. Solidification
processes have been developed in several countries over the past fifty years. Liquid high-level wastes are evaporated to solids,
mixed with glass-forming materials, melted and poured into robust stainless steel canisters which are then sealed by welding.

A fast breeder type of reactor has come to the fore to address this as well. This is a closed cycle nuclear technology where the
waste is also potent fuel. These 4th generation types of reactors use "waste" as fuel. New technologies such as Molten Salt
Reactors where the fission process would produce 250 times less waste that last about 1,000 years less as long as the "once
through spent fuel" of today's nuclear plants are also being brought to light. Final disposal of high-level waste is delayed for 40-50
years to allow its radioactivity to decay, after which less than one thousandth of its initial radioactivity remains, and it is much
easier to handle. Hence canisters of vitrified waste, or used fuel assemblies, are stored under water in special ponds, or in dry
concrete structures or casks for at least this length of time.

The ultimate disposal of vitrified wastes, or of used fuel assemblies without reprocessing, requires their isolation from the
environment for long periods. The most favoured method is burial in dry, stable geological formations some 500 metres deep.
Several countries are investigating sites that would be technically and publicly acceptable. Solution providers who could ensure
the safety of the design for near surface disposal facilities for radioactive waste would also be vital. A big issue that will be
discussed is whether the plant with its design can fully be utilised for the capacity it is intended to generate, hence, a technology
and advanced design is also needed to help operate the Bataan nuclear power plants safely with greater efficiency and output.

Looking for adequate funding and cost-efficient returns are also critical to continue to increase the confidence level in the
Philippines. “Global financial resources are more than adequate to meet the potential demands from the energy sector,” says

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 6 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

Benjamin Austria, Program Committee Chairman, World Energy Council. He suggested that among the key elements for attracting
private finance are:
 rules of law and contract enforceability;
 creditworthiness both at the macroeconomic and enterprise levels;
 sector policies, including ultimate market-related pricing based on reducing subsidies over time to reflect full energy
costs to the point of delivery; transparent legal and regulatory frameworks to signal
 pricing/tariff policies;
 bankability of investments;
 creation of effective domestic capital markets and institutional capabilities; and
 government commitment to sustain an effective action to reform, long-term planning, and change.

But it can be seen that given the proper incentives with transparency; stable, consistent, conducive policy and regulatory
environment; and willingness to absorb part of the risks by the government, the private sector can help countries face the
challenge of financing energy projects as well. Transparent reporting and really cautious investment strategy is needed from the
government to ensure that projects are done safely, on time and within budget.

The Philippines is acting fast on nuclear energy development

The Philippines recognises that it is in the new frontier of nuclear energy development and that it must act fast if it were to
transform its vision into action of generating safe, affordable and clean energy. A very successful case study in the world is
available—France, 75% of whose electricity is powered by nuclear technology, enjoys the cheapest electricity bill and the
cleanest air in the world. As a result of the 1974 decision to expand the country’s nuclear energy capacity, France now claims a
substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of
CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro. It is also world's largest
net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. As most
Southeast Asian neighbours are already resolute in taking this up as a reliable, clean and affordable power resource, it would be
beneficial for the Philippines to be a part of and benefit from this value chain. Soon, the Filipinos recognise, high-yield energy from
nuclear will, in time, pay for itself and become economical as it has become in France and will boost the Philippine economy. The
presence of a clear policy on nuclear energy will guarantee success towards all efforts to create a world-class nuclear energy
portfolio, a matter which will be discussed extensively at the upcoming Nuclear Power Forum on 10 December in Manila.

With local and national government, experts and the Filipino people already bought in to this idea, the time is now ripe for private
stakeholders to make sure to strike the iron while it’s hot, for the Filipino people to continue to support the progress of this
discussion and for the government to provide the policies, economic and technical safeguards and information to be able to
ensure that shareholders’ value is fully realised.



“Lawmaker seeks rehab of Bataan nuke” (2010). 13 July 2010.

“Major powers reaffirm backing for nuclear non-proliferation pact” (2009). 16 May 2009. Agence France-Presse. http://www.abs-

“No Fault Line Underneath Bataan Nuclear Power Plant” (2009). 10 March 2009. Technograph.

Nuclear Energy Outlook 2008. Nuclear Energy Agency France.

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 7 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

“Philippines ‘seriously’ considering nuclear power plant: energy secretary” (2010). 20 July 2010. Xinhua.

“Philippines eyeing local nuclear plant technology” (2010). 4 March 2010. Joong Ang Daily.

“Should Philippines consider Nuclear Energy” (2010), 6 July 2009. The Baltimore Sun. Forum Threads.

Abaño, Imelda V (2009). “Revisiting the case for or against nuclear energy.” 28 May 2009. Business Mirror. http://www.abs-

Austria, Benjamin (1999). “Development of the Energy Industry in the Philippines.’ Challenges and Opportunities in Energy. pp
107-110. Conference Papers and Proceedings on Second Workshop on Economic Cooperation in Central Asia: Challenges
and Opportunities in Energy.

Chavez, Leilani (2009). “Push to revive Bataan nuclear plant timely?” 21 December 2009. http://www.abs-

Chung, KunMo (1990). “Nuclear power and public acceptance.” February 1990. IAEA Bulletin. pp13-15.

Clarke, Michael C, Douglas R Ebeling and Donato L Cordero (1995). “Options for the Conversion of the Bataan Nuclear Power
Plant to Fossil Fuel Firing.” A Study of the Conversion Options for the Bataan (Philippines) Nuclear Power Station for
M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. Executive Summary of a major report formed the basis of a paper presented at the 1st Philippine
Conference on Energy Efficiency and Demand-side Management, Manila, January 1995.

Dittmar, Michael (2010). “What Nuclear Energy Renaissance?” 16 August 2010. http://www.project-

Elchico, Alvin (2009). “RP must consider nuclear power: expert.” 6 July 2009. ABS-CBN News. http://www.abs-

Falk, Jim, Jim Green and Gavin Mudd (2006). “Australia, uranium and nuclear power.” International Journal of Environmental
Studies, Vol 63. No 6, December 2006, pp 845-857.

Fehrenbacher, Katie (2010). “Nuclear Power By The Numbers.” 19 February 2010.

Gatdula, Donnabelle (2009). “Decision on nuclear power plant re-activation out soon.” 3 December 2009. The Philippine Star.

Gatdula, Donnabelle (2010). “Lopez Group not counting out nuclear energy.” 2 August 2010. The Philippine Star.

Gatdula, Donnabelle (2010). “Mindanao is best site for nuclear facility – Ibazeta.” 10 May 2010. The Philippine Star.

Gunn, Geoffrey (2008). “Asia’s tigers eye nuclear future.” 15 February 2008. Asia Times Online.

Kotler, Mindy L and Ian Hillman (2000).”Japanese Nuclear Energy Policy and Public Opinion.”Japanese Energy Security and
Changing Global Energy Markets: An Analysis of Northeast Asian Energy Cooperation and Japan’s Evolving Leadership
Role in the Region. Prepared in conjunction with the an energy study sponsored by The Center for International Political
Economy and The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, May 2000.

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 8 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 •  
Energy Development in Asia Series
Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics Journal © 2010.
All Rights Reserved.

Milani, Joel (2010). “Homer Simpson: Nuclear Energy Technician, Career Role Model.” 22 April 2010.

Marketman (2010). “Commissioning a 30 Year Old Unfinished Nuclear Plant”. 13 May 2010. Market Manila. A Forum Thread.

Mogato, Manny and Manolo Serapio, Jr (2009). “Cojuangco son ponders reopening Marcos-era nuclear plant.” 3 March 2009.

Montinola, Fernando (2010). “Job Opening: Energy Czar.” 3 February 2010. KPMG Corner.

Moynihan, Philip I (2009). “The ignorance behind anti-nuclear bias.” 4 December 2009.,0,6458483,print.story

Ohnishi Teruaki and Tadashi Tsujimoto (2000). IRPA Proceedings. 10th International Congress of the International Radiation
Protection Association (IRPA). British Journal of Radiology 74 (2001),883-885 © 2001 The British Institute of Radiology
Commentary, R H Corbett, MBChB, DMRD 1 R Y L Fong, BSc, MSc 2 and C A Lewis, BSc, PhD 3 (eds). The
corresponding conference was held 14–19 May 2000 in Hiroshima and

Rodolfo, Kelvin (2009). “On the safety of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.” Testimony given on behalf of the Philippine Climate
Watch Alliance To the House Committee on Appropriations, February 2, 2009.

Schoen, John W (2007). “Does nuclear power now make financial sense?” 26 January 2007.

Sovacool, Benjamin K (2008). “How Much Will New Nuclear Power Plants Cost?” 2 November 2008.

Valmero, Anna (2010). “Noynoy urged to revive Bataan nuclear plant.” 7 June 2010.

Villafania, Alexander (2010). “Does RP have a nuclear future.” 2 February 2010.

Wald, Matthew L (2010). “Nuclear Energy.”19 September 2010. The New York Times.

Center for Energy Sustainability and Economics meetings are powered by Arc Media Global
Page 9 of 9
• +65 6844 2080 •  +65 6844 2060 • 
• Robinson Road PO Box 176, Singapore 900326 • 