NUCLEAR ENERGY

Background
Nuclear energy in the Philippines has long been a contentious and
controversial issue. The country's nuclear program started in 1958 with the
creation of the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, a government agency
responsible for developing and researching peaceful uses for nuclear energy.
Under the Marcos administration in 1976, construction started on the 600 MW
Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, shown in Fig. 1, the first such nuclear power plant
in Southeast Asia. [1] However, the project was mired by numerous setbacks as
public sentiment in the country rallied against the plant's operation. In 1986, with
the plant nearly ready for operation, the Chernobyl incident prompted the
government to indefinitely mothball the project. [2] Since the overthrow of Marcos
and the return of democracy, there have been a series of unsuccessful attempts
to revitalize the nuclear energy program.

Current Situation
Since 2010, the Philippines GDP has grown by an average of 6.3%,
among the fastest in Southeast Asia. Despite this, the country suffers from some
of the highest electricity prices in the region. [3] This is partly due to the
Philippines being a 7000-island archipelago, that makes transmission difficult and
costly. To sustain the robust recent economic growth, the government has made
it a priority to further provide safe and affordable power. In line with this initiative,
the government is beginning to seriously consider nuclear energy as a major
component of its long-term energy plans. Energy Secretary, Alfonso Cusi has
pointed out that nuclear power may be a viable solution to the country's growing
power needs "with annual electricity demand expected to rise by an average 5
percent until 2030". [4] Furthermore, nuclear power may help the Philippines in
its transition to renewable energy sources, as the price of nuclear energy
generation remains the cheapest worldwide. [5] The Philippines recently signed
an agreement with the Russian State Atomic Energy Corp. to develop the
country's nuclear infrastructure and personnel training and to flesh out methods
of rallying public support for nuclear technology. [5]

Despite the need for additional sources of energy in the Philippines, there remain
many reasons why nuclear energy may not be adopted anytime in the near-term
future. Firstly, in light of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, there are concerns
that earthquakes or tsunamis in the seismically active island country may
compromise the security of future nuclear plants. Furthermore, public backlash
against a nuclear program would have to be addressed. The fact remains that
nuclear power remains an unpopular option in the country, despite the perceived
economic advantages, in part due to opposition from the widely influential
Catholic Church. [6]

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/litonjua1/

ADVANTAGES

Nuclear energy is actually very safe

A 2013 study by NASA found nuclear energy to be far less dangerous than other
sources of electricity. In fact, the study estimates that nuclear energy causes the
fewest deaths per unit of energy produced.

But what about nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Supporters of nuclear energy point out that people are more likely to remember
big disasters. We hear a lot about nuclear accidents in the media. But we rarely
hear about diseases caused by air pollution. Every year, millions of people die
because fossil fuels are burned to produce electricity.

It is also important to remember that facilities like Chernobyl were old and poorly
maintained. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) strictly regulates
the country’s nuclear power plants. The CNSC works to protect the health and
safety of people and the environment. It also makes sure that Canada follows the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Nuclear energy does not pollute the air

Nuclear energy can provide round-the-clock electricity generation without
polluting the air.

Currently, about two-thirds of the world’s electricity is produced by burning fossil

fuels. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the air. Greenhouse
gases include carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxides (NOx).

Like solar and wind energy, nuclear energy generates electricity without
releasing greenhouse gases. Of course, greenhouse gases are released when
nuclear plants are built. The same is true of solar panels and wind turbines when
they’re being built or installed. But overall, greenhouse gas emissions from these
facilities are far lower than power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Nuclear waste is not released into the air. Instead, it is stored in containers under
very strict safety guidelines.
Nuclear power plants can also produce electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. In other words, they provide a baseload supply of electricity. Solar and
wind energy can supplement baseload power. But they can’t supply electricity
when it’s dark or when there’s no wind.

Nuclear energy is embracing the future

Existing nuclear reactors were built using technology developed before the
1980s. Back then, the atomic age was in full swing. A lot has changed since
then, but scientists and engineers are working hard to update nuclear
technology.

For example, nuclear reactors currently run on uranium. But they could soon
switch to other types of fuel, like thorium (Th, atomic number 90). Compared to
uranium, thorium is more abundant and produces less waste. The waste is also
less radioactive. Besides, it’s way more difficult to turn thorium into nuclear
weapons.

What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy?

More efficient. According to experts, 6 grams of nuclear fuel will yield the same
amount of energy as 1 metric ton of coal.

No direct emissions. In the United States, nuclear is the largest source of clean
power. The US DOE said it generated nearly 800 billion kilowatt hours of
electricity and produced half of the country’s carbon-free electricity in 2021.
Some 470 million metric tons of carbon emissions were avoided in 2020, which is
equivalent to removing 100 million cars off the road.

It is important to note, however, that nuclear power plants still contribute to

climate change because mining and refining uranium emit carbon dioxide.

Smaller land area. The US DOE said “nuclear energy produces more electricity
on less land than any other clean-air source.”

https://www.rappler.com/business/pros-cons-marcos-jr-nuclear-energy-dreams/
Nuclear energy as best option
Dr. Carlo Arcilla, DOST-PNRI director, asserts that nuclear energy is the best
option for the country’s long-term plans for more affordable power generation.

“Ask anyone who has relatives abroad, and they will tell you the stark difference
between their electricity rates and ours,” said Dr. Arcilla, who strongly advocates
for the Philippines to finally establish its own nuclear power program. “That’s how
the Philippines lags behind other countries in terms of power cost.”

“Nuclear is simply the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient means of producing
electricity. Nuclear power will especially spare the poorest among the Filipinos
who are the ones actually allotting the lion’s share of their income just for electric
bills,” said Dr. Arcilla.

Solution to climate change

Nuclear energy has the capacity to produce baseload power for a continuous
supply of electricity 24/7, according to Dr. Arcilla.

Conventional sources such as coal and natural gas also has similar capacity, but
nuclear does not entail the high cost of refueling fossil fuels or the carbon
emissions that are the bane of a world ravaged by climate change.

A single pellet of uranium fuel almost the size of a pencil eraser contains as
much energy as a ton of coal (907 kg), three barrels of oil (149 gallons), or as
much as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, says Dr. Arcilla.

These advantages of nuclear energy have been acknowledged by the DOST-

National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), the country’s leading
advisory and scientific recognition body.

In a statement issued last year, DOST-NAST formally recommended nuclear

power for the country’s energy mix, saying that “nuclear fuel can be a viable
solution to mitigate the effects of climate change.”

DOST-NAST further states that nuclear serves as an alternative to fossil fuels not
only in terms of environmental impact, but also in terms of its economic
feasibility.
“[T]he dependence on imported fossil fuels makes the country vulnerable to
world energy price volatility. By comparison, the cost of generating nuclear
energy is less sensitive to nuclear fuel price due to the larger component
contributed by its capital cost.”

Regulatory body for nuclear

Aside from advocating nuclear science and technology, the DOST-PNRI also
continues to push for the enactment of the Comprehensive Atomic Regulatory
Act which will create an independent nuclear regulatory body in the Philippines.
International standards prescribe a separate agency that will handle the
regulation of all activities and facilities involving sources of ionizing radiation.

“While we are waiting for a law creating an independent body, RA 5207 is still a
basis for pursuing nuclear power as it was when the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant
was being licensed in the 70s and 80s,” says Dr. Carlito Aleta, former DOST-
PNRI director, DOST Balik Scientist specializing on nuclear engineering, and
consultant of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “Let’s hope a new bill will
be passed by Congress creating a new regulatory body.”

RA 5207 or the Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968 encourages,
promotes, and assists the development and use of atomic energy for all peaceful
purposes, including the production and use of atomic energy facilities and atomic
energy materials, subject to regulations.

The regulations will cover matters involving nuclear power, nuclear and
radioactive materials, facilities and radiation-generating equipment used for
diagnosis and treatment of diseases in hospitals and medical centers, and other
industrial activities in the country.

Currently, the DOST-PNRI serves as the national regulatory body for nuclear and
radioactive materials.

Increasing electricity rates and occasional power outages only worsen the
national mood as the country continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://www.pnri.dost.gov.ph/index.php/2-uncategorised/670-dost-backs-revisit-of-nuclear-
energy-policy-to-address-rising-power-cost
Why the Philippines Pursues Nuclear Energy
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), adopting a national position is
a critical first step to embarking on a nuclear power programme. A national position serves
as the foundation for the future development and implementation of the nuclear power
programme.

Most importantly, a national position explains why nuclear power is being chosen, while
taking into account the results of long-term energy planning and national priorities, such as
energy security, climate change actions, including the mitigation of greenhouse gases, and
economic development.

The Philippines has indeed considered these key factors in recent years to determine why it
might need nuclear power in its future energy mix. However, its government must address
critical issues and challenges to ensure the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear power.

With the projected growth of the Philippine economy and population, the increasing need for
additional reliable power sources and worsening environmental problems associated with
overreliance on imported fossil fuels in the country generate a strong demand for cleaner
and more sustainable alternative sources.

The Department of Energy (DOE) of the Philippines considers nuclear energy as a long-
term energy option. It included nuclear power in its strategy to strengthen the country’s
energy security through the diversification of energy sources, mostly low-carbon, as the
Philippines moves toward the clean energy transition. The projected demand for clean
energy in the Philippines will grow by 4.4% annually, requiring 65 gigawatts of additional
capacity by 2040.

“While nuclear power may not be an option under the Duterte administration, it is still a
viable power source for the country’s baseload requirements moving forward,”[1] Philippine

Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi said during the recent Alliance Global Group Sustainability
Conference in the Philippines. The energy department head have yet again thrown his
support in pushing for a nuclear program for the country.

https://th.boell.org/en/2020/01/02/why-go-nuclear-philippines

ARTICLES

Why Go Nuclear, Philippines?

Philippines relaunches nuclear energy programme

 Is the Philippines ready for nuclear energy?

Philippines Considering Nuclear Energy

Philippines Taking New Look at Nuclear Power

The nuclear power position in the Philippines

Philippines approves revival of nuclear power to help replace coal

Nuclear power: A go or no?

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines:

A Nuclear Plant, and a Dream, Fizzles

FILES

The Case for Nuclear Energy in the Philippines and

the Experience of the Republic of Korea

Challenges in Energy
and the Philippine Energy Plan