Certain policy makers and government officials are pushing for the revival of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) under the pretext of addressing global warming, energy dependence and impending energy crisis.

A project by former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the BNPP construction started in 1976 and was completed in 1984 at a cost of $2.3 billion. It was President Aquino who declared in 1986 that BNPP has roughly 4,000 defects and was unsafe to operate. Even though the BNPP has never produced a single watt of electricity, the Filipino people still paid a total of Php21.2 billion for principal and interest since 1986.

It was the most expensive single debt item the Filipinos ever paid for, and was paid for completely only in 2007. It was considered a white elephant then but a renewed interest in the plant has taken hold of its promoters.

The leading proponents of House Bill 4631 or Mandating the immediate re-commissioning and commercial operation of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, Rep. Mark Cojuangco, son of businessman Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco, and Rep. Mikey Arroyo want the public to believe that the BNPP project is safe, reliable and cheap. The legislators, along with Korean company KEPCO have tagged the rehabilitation of BNPP to cost around $1 billon.

Sen. Miriam Santaingo, on the other hand, authored Senate Bill No. 2665, or the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Re-commissioning Act of 2008, that claims "to revisit and utilize the nuclear power option" to address global warming and the "shortfall in the electric generating capacity of the country in 2012."

For all that the benefits the revival of the BNPP is said to yield, its promoters are pushing for the bill to be approved at the lower house before the end of February. However, there is not yet a comprehensive report on the technical and economic feasibility of the project or of its environmental and social costs. The public is also left out of the debate and not yet informed of its implications and negative effects. Un acceptable fact, since it will be left to the consumers and ordinary Filipino to shoulder the cost of the BNPP.

There is much yet to be studied and assessed before nuclear power is to be considered as a viable energy option in the Philippines. In its current context though, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits and the myths exceed the facts. On these account, Philippine Climate Watch Alliance oppose the revival of the BNPP.

The following are the grounds for disproving the arguments in favor of BNPP revival:

1. BNPP will not address global warming.

Global warming is brought primarily by the unsustainable production, use and emission of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases (GHG) in the last two centuries. Industrialized countries and their transnational corporations (TNCs) in the North particularly the United States, Japan and European countries are the main contributors to the total global CO2 emission since 1840. The situation is aggravated by the fast and relentless destruction of the earth’s forests, which act as natural sinks of carbon in the atmosphere.

There is an international consensus that GHG emissions must be reduced drastically especially by those responsible to avert the catastrophes that will be felt mainly by developing countries. This reality has prompted many governments and businesses to explore other alternatives and the to resuscitate nuclear energy as one option.

Though it is true that a nuclear plant does not emit carbon dioxide and other GHG directly when compared to other resources, nuclear is not the ‘winner’ in this respect.

A nuclear power plant employs energy-intensive and fossil-dependent industries such as uranium mining, construction and decommissioning of nuke facilities, processing, transport and storage of radioactive wastes, all of which involves carbon and GHG emission.

According to a feature in Nature Reports by Kurt Kleiner, the total carbon emissions of a nuclear plant from extraction to storage, can range from a low of 1.4 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh produced up to a high of 288 grams. The article points out that the reasonable average, 66 grams per kilowatt hour, is still twice as much carbon than solar photovoltaic and six times as much than the carbon emissions produced by wind farms.

Another study has cited that it would take thousands of mega nuclear plants to make a dent on global carbon emission reduction levels. According to a 2002 report by Arjun Makhijani of the US-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), to produce a noticeable reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions, it would be necessary to build approximately 2,000 large new nuclear reactors each with 1,000-megawatt capacity. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change outlines a scenario whereby 3,000 nuclear reactors would be needed by the year 2100.

Of course, the Philippines has insignificant contributions to world GHG emission levels and should be focusing more in ensuring that the majority of the population can adapt to and be protected from the adverse effects of climate change. But, if the government is really keen on lowering our GHG emissions, there are better options than nuclear power.

2. BNPP will not make us energy independent.

Uranium, the mineral needed to run the nuclear power plant, is not indigenous to the Philippines and is also of limited supply. Uranium are obtained from mining countries Canada, Australia, Russia, Niger, Namibia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, South Africa, and the USA.

According to the European Nuclear Society, there are about 3.3 million tonnes of uranium reserves, which costs up to US $ 130 per kilogram. This can supply the 438 operating nuclear power world-wide for several decades. Although the total uranium reserves are much greater than this, they are usually of low grade and of low concentrations, so mining them will be volume-intensive. As the publication of NIRS/WISE explained, the demand for uranium is much higher than those produced by uranium mines which resulted prices to shoot up.

Not only are the additional materials needed to operate the plant are from foreign sources, the experts that will run BNPP will be provided by foreign corporations. This is tantamount to letting foreigners and private corporations control the BNPP, as the KEPCO is being tagged to do and contrary to the claim that the BNPP will lead us to energy independence.

3. There is still the problem of the waste storage.

One unresolved problem of nuclear plants is waste storage. It is said that the biggest overhead of the nuclear power industry is how the waste will be stored. The current methods are only temporary and a long-term solution is yet to be discovered. The lifetime of period of nuclear waste spans for thousands of years. This is a major concern as the end products of nuclear plants are radioactive in nature and pose a grave health and environmental hazard.

5. The problem of the safety and operability of BNPP is still in question.

A consensus has not been reached by our local and leading scientists if the BNPP is safe to operate or sited appropriately. The plant lies on Mt. Natib, a volcano, and is also near major fault lines making it susceptible to earthquakes and other seismic activities. There is also not one extensive and independent study if the nuclear plant can still be operated as it is nearing the end of a nuclear plant’s lifecycle of 40 years.

4. Other sources can also provide baseload power.

Nuclear plants are said to be able to supply baseload power as opposed to renewable energy, which can supply only a fraction of the energy demand. Makhijani has refuted this in his paper and attributed it to renewable resources not fully exploited. The intermitancy of the suplly of renewable energy can be overcome by coordinating the energy sources and careful planning. There are already technologies available like energy-storage solutions that can compensate for the disadvantages of wind and solar power.

5. There are other viable options

The Philippines is rich in renewable energy resources. These are energy that comes from natural processes and are naturally replenished. Energy from sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat are examples of renewable energy sources as well as those from waste materials. The Philippines has also proven reserves of fossil fuels and other indigenous sources, such as coal, natural gas and oil.

Despite the fact that nuclear power has been subsidized for the past 50 years, its costs are rising. On the other hand, technologies that utilize renewable sources are rapidly being developed making its costs fall rapidly. In the last 10 years the cost per kWh of electricity have fallen by 50% and 305 from wind turbines and photovoltaic cells respectively. If these resources can be tapped, then the looming energy scarcity can be prevented.

Instead of developing and tapping these resources to achieve genuine energy independence, these resources are being offered to private and foreign corporations by the government. Through the policies of the national government, such as the EPIRA, our energy resources are either extracted or developed giving the monopoly and control away from the hands of the national government. The ordinary consumer is left to follow the dictates of these private corporations and the government unaccountable for providing the basic needs of the majority.

The BNPP is being packaged to answer to critical problems the country is facing. However, the grounds for justifying the revival of the BNNP are misleading if not outright false. Also, there are still a lot of contentious and unresolved points for the public to arrive at an informed decision if this will indeed benefit the majority or just a select few.

In the Philippines, global warming is currently one of the major concerns of the people. Studies made both by government agencies and independent institutions point out that the Philippines is among the countries in the world that are most vulnerable to the impacts of global warming. In particular, the country is forecasted to experience increased frequency of tropical cyclones and rising sea levels. The recent tragedies caused by 'super typhoons' that have killed thousands of people and the record-breaking temperature extremes in the past ten years are deemed part of the effects of global warming on the Philippines.

In the midst of these, the Arroyo administration still lacks a genuine program to mitigate the impacts of climate change and help the people to adapt to the effects of global warming. This is compounded by the fact that the administration's globalization-oriented policies and programs for the energy, mining, forest, agriculture and trade sectors are making the Philippines more vulnerable to the effects of climate change and will increase the country's GHG emissions in the long run. In its strategic energy development program, construction of private coal power plants continues and the dependence on coal as source of power iand other foreign sources of power increases.

If the promoters of the BNPP are really sincere in addressing the fundamental problems of the Filipinos, global warming for one, then a genuine analysis of the problem is necessary to arrive at real and effective solutions. Projects masquerading as solutions that banks on misconception and deception should be looked at closely.

Philippine Climate Watch is one with Network Opposed to BNPP Revival (NO 2 BNPP Revival)--a broad alliance of scientists, environmentalists, experts, personalities and multi-sectoral formation opposed on the revival of the BTTP as it is not the answer to climate change, will not address the energy crisis and only will be a burden to the common people.