http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080517-137202/Case-against-nuclear-energy
The Philippine Network on Climate Change called on the government to reject nuclear power as a source of energy because of concerns such as the location and security of the plant and its health and environmental impact.
Delfin said reviving the BNPP was urgent amid the high oil prices, the demand to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the need for reliable power to fuel economic growth.
A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that visited the country in January said the government would need at least $800 million to jumpstart its nuclear power program. The amount would cover the two-year feasibility study that the government plans to undertake and the construction of a new facility that would use the BNPP.
The IAEA team will recommend whether to rehabilitate and refire the BNPP, convert it into a plant that will use another type of fuel, or just junk it altogether. -- Ed.
* * *
Nuclear power not part of a viable nonfossil-energy future
By the Philippine Network on Climate Change
F.G. DELFIN’S proposal to revive the nuclear program is unmistakably oblivious of the mandate under the country’s 25-year development plan crafted by the Ramos administration, which enunciated that the use of nuclear energy will not be considered an option at least until after 2022.
Reviving such a program will entail the need to examine a range of factors that include the location, safety and security of the nuclear power plant, transport of nuclear fuel, health and environmental impact, social acceptability and disposal of nuclear waste.
Extreme caution
The Philippine Network on Climate Change (PNCC) urges extreme caution on any decision to move forward with nuclear power. Such a move would go against the trend in the European Union, which has the highest level of political commitment in the world to deal with environmental and climate change issues.
Countries such as Germany, Sweden, Belgium and Spain have already decided to phase out their existing nuclear power projects. The trend is clear: European countries are replacing nuclear energy with other renewable energy sources. In 2007, the addition of wind power capacity in Europe totaled 8,504 megawatts (MW), while at the same time the net capacity of nuclear power decreased by 1,203 MW.
Even the new nuclear reactor in Finland, which is being touted by Delfin as a good model, has been mired in controversy throughout its ongoing construction phase. After three years of construction, the project is running two years behind schedule, leading to heavy economic losses. The builder has failed to meet safety standards and has therefore been heavily criticized by the Finnish nuclear safety authority.
In addition, the project’s financial arrangements are being investigated by the European Commission because of suspected illegal subsidies.
Alarm bells
Transitioning to nuclear power must trigger alarm bells for a host of reasons.
With the technology concentrated in the hands of a few foreign companies, mainly in Europe and the United Sates, and the inputs necessary to fuel nuclear power not being locally available, the Philippines would be locked in a dependency relationship with the supplier and would be at its mercy.
As getting out of the industry (decommissioning) would be even harder than getting in, the country would be vulnerable to the whims and dictates of the supplier.
Nuclear waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years and there is still no safe way to store it.
With regard to safety, an unanticipated environmental disaster similar to Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 that affected at least 9 million people can never be ruled out. This bears serious consideration in the Philippines, being situated in the “Pacific Ring of Fire,” which renders the country highly prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. This is notwithstanding the country’s undeniable lack of capacity and resources to fully ensure its environmental soundness and safety.
In this era of heightened security, the existence of a nuclear facility will make the country an easy terrorist target. And if nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran were to be used as example, going nuclear would attract unwanted and unwarranted external scrutiny.
A nuclear power plant will never meet its capital and operational costs through the sale of energy. It will warrant huge subsidies that ultimately will have to be borne by the taxpayers. This case is worsened by allegations that the industry is not being transparent.
Renewable energy
Adding the external cost of nuclear power to the equation, considering its cost of potential environmental damage and adverse effects on human health, will far outweigh the projected economic benefits claimed by Delfin.
Irrespective of these concerns, how can nuclear power mitigate climate change? Even the International Energy Agency, in its World Energy Outlook 2007 report, suggested a small role for nuclear power in its “Alternative” scenarios section. In contrast, the report suggested a much larger role for renewable energy and energy efficiency, which, together, are expected to displace six to nine times more fossil fuel emissions than nuclear energy.
Cut fossil dependence
The Philippine government must then focus its efforts on the development and deployment of renewable energy (such as solar, wind, biomass and mini hydro) and energy efficiency (reducing consumption and demand) if it is truly serious about addressing the expected energy crunch in the country.
In its recent study, the University of the Philippines Solar Laboratory (UPSL), in collaboration with World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)-Philippines, emphasized the country’s huge renewable energy potential such as small hydro (2,308 MW), solar (4.7 to 5.4kWh/m2-day), wind (7,404 MW) and geothermal (4,000 MW).
Based on the “Power Switch” scenario established by this study, increasing the share of renewable energy in the country’s power mix will reduce dependence on imported fossil fuel such as coal and oil and will result in savings amounting to $2.3 billion over a 10-year period.
This strategy will also have the dual benefit of addressing climate change, thus reducing our country’s climate footprint, which is on the rise, and stepping forward to achieve the country’s self-sufficiency in energy.
In addition, PNCC cautions organizations and policymakers calling for a carbon tax as a means to address climate change. Such a tax will play into the hands of the nuclear industry and let it in via the back door. The alternative would be to push for an environmental tax instead.
Based on these considerations, nuclear energy is clearly neither an option nor an imperative for a nonfossil energy future. The PNCC, therefore, calls on the government to reject nuclear power as a potential source of energy for the Philippines. It should not unwittingly play into the hands of promoters of an industry whose main motivation, as some commentators have argued, may simply be to get rid of its obsolete technology.
(The Philippine Network on Climate Change is an alliance of nongovernment organizations involved in the advocacy of climate change and sustainable development issues. It is composed of Haribon Foundation, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan, Lingkod Tao Kalikasan, Miriam Peace, Mother Earth Foundation, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Soljuspax, Tanggol Kalikasan, Upholding Life and Nature and Yamog Renewable Energy Development Group. Established in 1992 after the Rio Earth Summit and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the network sits as member of the government’s Inter-Agency Committee on Climate Change and the Steering Committee of the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol.)
* *
It’s the most risky source of energy
Page A14
By Antonio M. Claparols
President, Ecological Society of the Philippines
NUCLEAR POWER is the most risky source of energy. Accidents such as the Chernobyl meltdown and the Three Mile Island are testaments to the risks involved.
Last year, even France, the leader in nuclear energy, had to restudy its energy policy because temperatures in the Loire river rose due to the nuclear plants there. This made the French Atomic authorities think twice.
The world can move on using renewable energy.
Those who ignore renewable energy just don’t want to change the oil-based infrastructure, which is hastening climate change.
Unmitigated climate change will destroy all of humankind and biodiversity.
Our planet will cease to sustain life. The symptoms are here and are felt all over. Our food and water sources and biodiversity are already suffering from the effects of climate change. Poverty is on the rise.
We are running out of food as we are feeding cars with biofuels. How many more countries will suffer from social unrest fueled by a worsening food crisis? Ours is one in the making.
Nuclear power is not the answer. Stop greenhouse gas emissions, go full scale on renewables. Stop logging and start planting trees. Have more carbon sinks and we will have enough food, water and a healthy ecology.
Plant organically and we fight poverty and climate change. No more monocrops for biofuels and certainly no nuclear plants.
Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What more now. No Nukes.
No comments:
Post a Comment