A Call to Abandon Nukes on Chernobyl Anniversary

Greenpeace* today marked the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with a call to governments of Southeast Asia to abandon all plans of developing nuclear power plants in the region to ensure the safety of its citizens. Greenpeace is calling on Philippine President Noynoy Aquino to invest heavily in energy efficiency and harness clean, safe renewable energies to meet the country’s energy requirements instead of dirty coal and dangerous nuclear energy.

“Chernobyl is to date the world’s worst civilian nuclear accident, but the unfolding disaster in Fukushima, Japan, demonstrates that no amount of technological sophistication or safety culture can prepare any country or its people for the inherent dangers of nuclear energy. Like in Chernobyl, the Fukushima incident has shown that we cannot control or manage nuclear energy and its fallout,” said Amalie Obusan, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Climate and Energy Campaigner.

A quarter of a century after Chernobyl, the situation in the area surrounding the Chernobyl reactor shows few signs of improvement. Widespread contamination, constant resettlements and long-term health impacts still pose threats to communities. And, despite ‘modernizations’, the root causes of nuclear technology’s vulnerability to accidents remain the same: unexpected technological failures, operator errors, poor safety standards due to political and economic pressures, lack of transparency in the industry as a whole, and natural disasters. 

However, the Philippine Energy Plan for 2009-2030 still contains options for the adoption of nuclear power in the country. Under the Energy Reform Agenda of the current administration, part of the DOE’s thrusts for 2013-2016 is to strengthen policy researches and studies in aid of executive and legislative action that will facilitate the operation of a 2,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in 2025.

Strong public resistance in 2008 derailed plans to revive the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.  But the Philippines, as with rest of the ASEAN countries, despite their vulnerability to natural disasters in the Pacific “ring of fire” and their general lack of disaster preparedness, have not yet ruled out nuclear power and the great costs and risks it entails.

Costs to manage the Chernobyl disaster which up to now continues to drain Ukraine and Europe millions of Euro annually, is estimated to cost more than 13 times the Philippine government’s budget for 2011. The disaster also severely contaminated between 125,000 and 150,000 square kilometres (equivalent to around half the Philippines’ total land area) in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine. A Greenpeace-commissioned study based on Belarus national cancer statistics estimated that approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases will be caused by Chernobyl.

Greenpeace believes that to secure a safe and better future, countries must choose renewable energy over nuclear power. Greenpeace has long argued that renewable energy has the potential to meet a substantial share of our future energy demand. The Energy [R]evolution scenario details how – combined with energy efficiency and a transformed electricity grid – renewable energy could produce 95% of electricity worldwide by 2050. Other studies have made predictions for different time frames or regions. PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, predicts that Europe and North Africa could run on 100% renewable energy by 2050.

*Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.

Fukushima: What it Means to the Philippines?

Last week, 11 March 2011, at 2:46 PM (local time), Japan was struck by the largest recorded earthquake in its history off the coast of northeast city of Sendai. It was logged at 8.9 on the Richter scale that knocked out the electrical grid powering Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant facility. This was followed by a powerful 30-foot tsunami triggered by the earthquake that washed away the plant’s diesel fuel tanks flooding its critical switching gear. These emergency diesel generators were supposed to provide the power needed to keep water from pumping to cool its nuclear fuel rods (even if the reactor was shut down since the fuel still gives off heat). When the pumping failed, it caused its water to boil and created a steam which then heated the rods further and melted its zirconium alloy casings. The zirconium alloy reacted to the steam which then created a highly-volatile hydrogen gas that eventually exploded, causing the outer building of the plant blew off its roof.

The Fukushima incident has also triggered the more than two decades debate in the Philippines whether to revived the already mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or not.

The demand from the environment organization Greenpeace yesterday (16 March 2011), when they called on the Aquino administration to abandon all its nuclear power plans including those currently included in the Philippine Energy Plan and the Energy Reform Agenda has challenged the statement provided by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) chief, Mario Montejo, from his yesterday’s interview at ANC’s (ABS-CBN News Channel) Headstart.

According to Secretary Montejo, he supports the nuclear power option since it is still a viable source of energy for the Philippines despite of the partial meltdowns of nuclear reactors in Japan. "Nuclear power is a safe, economical source of power. You have to look at it in relative terms. Our power rates are too high. The only way to bring it down is to use nuclear power," he told ANC's Headstart. Secretary Montejo also said that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was designed to withstand an earthquake that would cause higher ground elevation than the magnitude 8.9 earthquake that hit the northeast part of Japan last Friday. "The assumption is, the BNPP is much stronger than the one in Japan," he said. He also added that the BNPP would need retrofitting to upgrade its technology using the lessons learned in the Japan incident1.

Secretary Montejo’s views were supported by the director of the University of the Philippines-National Institute of Geological Sciences (UP-NIGS), Dr. Carlo Arcilla, also during the interview at ANC’s Headstart2. He said that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is much safer than the Tokyo Electric Power Co. Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan because according to Dr. Arcilla, the plant is a very old nuclear power plant that uses boiling water reactor (BWR) technology that was used in the 70s. On the other hand, the nuclear power plant in Morong, Bataan uses pressurized water reactors used in many nuclear power plants in France and the United States.

Dr. Arcilla also said that there is an exact replica of the BNPP in Japan which up to now has been running properly since 1983. His own studies also showed that the BNPP was not built on an active fault. However, one could be near the plant. He also added that the only thing that damaged the Fukushima plant though it withstood a massive 8.9 earthquake was the 30-foot tsunami. The BNPP is built 18 meters above sea level, which is still higher than the 30-foot tsunami that struck Japan.

Currently, the Philippines has the highest residential power rates in the world which is at 18 US cents per kilowatt-hour which overtook Japan at 17 cents, followed by Singapore at 15 cents, eight in Thailand, seven in Malaysia, five in Indonesia, three cents in Vietnam, and five cents in Indonesia. In terms of the commercial rate, it is 14 cents in Singapore, 13 in the Philippines, 12 in Japan, eight in Thailand, seven in Malaysia, six in Vietnam, and five cents in Indonesia3. Again, Japan is in the top 3 while the Philippines is in the second spot next to Singapore which has the highest commercial power rate in the world. Now we would wonder, Japan, which has 14 nuclear reactors placed all over their country is still among the nations that has the highest residential and commercial power rates? These then would challenged the claims of Secretary Montejo as well as Dr. Arcilla that the BNPP would lead to lower power rates?

Dr. Arcilla also said that nuclear power is the cheapest to produce in the entire world since it is not reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and oil as well as uranium is readily available. The Philippines is very much dependent in oil importations which is currently at US$135 per barrel for diesel albeit similar scenario would take place for uranium in case that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant will be in its full operation. Importation from uranium-rich countries like Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Nigeria, Namibia, and Uzbekistan would again prompt the country in its dependence with the said primary resource for the nuclear power.

The 2007-2035 Philippine Energy Plan released by the Department of Energy states that the Philippines - a net energy importer - must consider a renewed nuclear power program amid oil price volatility. With the said proposal, the Aquino government is not keen on reviving BNPP due to safety concerns that also made more certain with the nuclear reactor incident in Fukushima.

To be continued...

References:
1 abs-cbnNews.com, DOST chief still supports nuke power option, posted by David Dizon, 16 March 2011
2 abs-cbnNews.com, Bataan nuke safer than Fukushima plant: UP-NIGS chief, posted by David Dizon, 17 March 2011
3 eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html. As of February 2011, the Philippines has the highest cost, not just in Asia, but in the world, philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=660035&publicationSubCategoryId=63

A Call to Scrap All Plans for Nuclear Power

Environment organization Greenpeace* reiterated their position today, 16 March 2011 on their stance against reviving the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. They called on the Aquino administration to abandon all nuclear power plans, including those currently included in the Philippine Energy Plan and the Energy Reform Agenda, and instead focus on achieving long term sustainable progress through safe and renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

The environment organization also challenged legislators, particularly those who have just this week reversed their pro-nuclear stance, to author a bill that would declare the Philippines a nuclear energy-free zone.

“Our thoughts remain with the Japanese people, who in aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami are now faced with a dreadful situation, where instead of being able to plough all resources into rescue and relief efforts, the government is dealing with a crisis caused by the inherent and inescapable risks of nuclear power,” said Amalie Obusan, Climate and Energy Campaigner of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.

Ms. Amalie Obusan, Climate and Energy Campaigner
with Mr. Tara Buakamsri, Campaigns Director,
both of Greenpeace Southeast Asia

“It is unfortunate that Philippine nuclear proponents need a tragedy such as the one unfolding in Japan, for them to reflect on their dangerous propositions. But they should go beyond merely statements that they are reconsidering their position on nuclear energy, or are putting a moratorium on their nuclear proposals. Nuclear power should be removed from the country’s current and future energy plans: it should be deleted from the energy agenda, and there should be legislation to block all future nuclear proposals,” she added.

Nuclear proponents in the Philippines have been trying to promote the technology with claims that nuclear power is ‘safe,’ and that it is a ‘cheap’ source of electricity. But the statements from the nuclear lobby are more rhetoric than reality. Nuclear power has been proven to be an economic and environmental disaster around the world, aside from threatening peace and stability, and shrouding communities residing near nuclear power plants and waste sites under constant fear of accidents.

Japan, which has 54 nuclear reactors (eleven of which have been shut down since the quake), still has one of the highest costs of electricity in Asia1. France, which operates 58 reactors that provide 83 percent of the country’s electricity needs, is the largest nuclear energy user, but looking at its economic development for the last 40 years with comparable countries that have made very different energy choices reveal that no competitive advantage can be attributed to nuclear power2.

In the Philippines, the lack of a nuclear safety framework, which include legal and governmental infrastructure, radioactive emergency response and management systems, protocols on radioactive materials transport and nuclear waste management, and accident liabilities, are questions that nuclear advocates have never addressed.

“After more than half a century of study, development and use, nuclear technology still cannot guarantee energy security, much less the safety and health of people and the environment. Nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and an expensive distraction. Progress can only be achieved through clean renewable energy, unhindered by dirty, dangerous and finite fuels. The government must phase out both nuclear plans and fossil fuels as soon as possible, and invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies that are not only environmentally sound, but also affordable and reliable,” said Obusan.

References:
1 eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html.  As of February 2011, the Philippines has the highest cost, not just in Asia, but in the world, philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=660035&publicationSubCategoryId=63
2 cleantechasiaonline.com/philippine-bataan-nuclear-power-plant-revival-lessons-french-experience; global-chance.org/spip.php?article89

Greenpeace is proposing a roadmap targeting 50 percent RE and 20 percent EE by 2020 for the Philippines. greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/What-we-do/Climate-and-Energy/The-solution-an-Energy-revolution/

*Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behavior to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.