essay about bataan nuclear power plant

Intelligent insights & conversations with global power industry professionals

Generation Professionals Group

The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines: A Nuclear Plant, and a Dream, Fizzles

Nuclear Power Plant Engineer. In my study at KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School in which I specialized in Project Management in Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) Construction, my team and I...

• Member since 2020
• 19 items added with 69,149 views
• Comment (2)
• Jun 18, 2020 Jun 18, 2020 11:49 am GMT
• 38919 views

A case study conducted by Mark Gino Aliperio and Byeonghui Song.

In many ways, the Philippines is a good case study of the effect of public perception and response to the establishment of a nuclear power program. The country’s first and only attempt at nuclear power development was the 621-MW Philippine Nuclear Power Plant in August 1977. It was supposed to be the first of two nuclear plants to be built in the northern province of Bataan. It was also the first nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia, and deemed as a promising solution to the 1973 oil crisis that had adversely affected the global economy, including the Philippines.

Unexpectedly, the Chernobyl accident happened turning optimism quickly into skepticism. This was followed by political events rapidly unfolding in the Philippines and the 21-year rule of President Marcos, crumbled in the face of the People Power revolution that catapulted Mrs. Corazon Aquino to the presidency. Almost everything associated with Marcos was rejected, invariably including the completed and fully constructed and equipped Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). Thus, 1986 saw the first nuclear power plant in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia mothballed, because of an unfortunate association with an unlamented regime overthrown by the people. From thereon, the power plant was placed on ‘preservation mode’. But then, clamor for the reopening of BNPP was revived during the power crisis in the 90s and the skyrocketing of oil prices in 2007.

During these periods, the Department of Energy (DOE) actually came close to reconsidering nuclear power as a potential energy source for the country. An Inter-Agency Core Group on Nuclear Energy composed of the Department of Energy, the Department of Science and Technology and the NPC Power was organized to do the evaluation. But then the Fukushima nuclear plant incident happened in 2011, creating global panic and concerns about the safety and integrity of nuclear plants. Meanwhile, in the Philippines, the incident virtually led to an undeclared moratorium on all plans to go nuclear for power generation. If these weren't enough, adding to these various setbacks, the emergence of natural gas, wind and solar energy pushed nuclear power deeper into dormancy.

As public perception of nuclear technology has been tainted as a result of few but sensational incidents, Government has a clear role in regaining public trust. Government plays a key role in ensuring public participation and involvement which is critical at every stage of a nuclear power program. This case study takes into account the failure of public involvement and acceptance towards BNPP as it faced allegations of corruption and anomaly. Moreover, two surveys conducted by the Inter-Agency Core Group regarding nuclear energy utilization and awareness were analyzed.

Controversy and Timeline of Construction

Two proposals were submitted by reputable energy companies — General Electric and Westinghouse Electric. General Electric submitted a proposal containing detailed specifications of the nuclear plant and estimated it to cost US$700 million. On the other hand, Westinghouse submitted a lower cost estimate of US$500 million, but the proposal did not contain any detail or specification.

The presidential committee tasked to oversee the project preferred General Electric's proposal, but this was overruled by Marcos in June 1974 who signed a letter of intent awarding the project to Westinghouse, despite the absence of any specifications on their proposal. By March 1975, Westinghouse's cost estimate ballooned to US$1.2 billion without much explanation. The National Power Corporation would later construct only one nuclear reactor plant for US$1.1 billion. It would soon be discovered that Westinghouse sold the similar technology to other countries for only a fraction of the project cost it billed the Philippines.

Construction on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant began in 1976. Following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States, construction on the BNPP was stopped, and a subsequent safety inquiry into the plant revealed over 4,000 defects. Among the issues raised was that it was built near a major geological fault line and close to the then dormant Mount Pinatubo.

By 1984, when the BNPP was nearly complete, its cost had reached $US2.3 billion. Equipped with a Westinghouse light water reactor, it was designed to produce 621 megawatts of electricity. President Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution in 1986. Days after the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino decided not to operate the plant. Among other considerations taken were the strong position from Bataan residents and Philippine citizens as well as concern over the integrity of the construction.

The government sued Westinghouse for alleged overpricing and bribery but was ultimately rejected by a United States court. Debt repayment on the plant became the country's biggest single obligation. While successive governments have looked at several proposals to convert the plant into an oil, coal, or gas-fired power station, these options have all been deemed less economically attractive in the long term than simply constructing new power stations.

Anti-Nuclear Movement in the Philippines

The anti-nuclear movement in the Philippines aimed to stop the construction of nuclear power facilities and terminate the presence of American military bases, which were believed to house nuclear weapons on Philippine soil. Anti-nuclear demonstrations were led by groups such as the Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition and No Nukes Philippines. A focal point for protests in the late 1970s and 1980s was the proposed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was built but never operated. The project was criticized for being a potential threat to public health, especially since the plant was located in an earthquake zone.

The demand of the anti-nuclear movement for the removal of military bases culminated in a 1991 Philippine Senate decision to stop extending the tenure of US facilities in the Philippines. Tons of toxic wastes were left behind after the US withdrawal and anti-nuclear and other groups worked to provide assistance for the bases' cleanup.

Observations

In 2010, the Inter-Agency Core Group, led by the Philippine Department of Energy, the Department of Science and Technology, and the National Power Corporation, conducted a public perception survey to gauge the public’s appreciation of, as well as apprehensions towards, nuclear energy. This was part of an overall information and education campaign mandated by the Philippine Energy Plan 2009-2030.

The results of the survey indicated that there was a largely positive view with regard to the use of nuclear energy in the Philippines. These favorable views towards nuclear power generation were attributed to the escalating electricity rates during the period. The survey also surfaced the need to further improve the public’s perception of the application of nuclear energy by highlighting the benefits of nuclear power plants, and by focusing on the safety requirements/ guidelines and management of nuclear power plants.

In 2011, the nationwide Household Energy Consumption Survey, for the first time, included questions related to nuclear power. The survey aimed at determining awareness and perception of households on major energy issues, including nuclear energy, surfaced the following:

• Regardless of whether a household is aware or unaware of nuclear energy, one in every three households expressed their willingness to support nuclear energy as a viable and long-term option for electricity generation. Almost half of the total households (47%) remained undecided on the question of harnessing nuclear energy.

On the other hand, the bulk of households (79 percent) that belonged to the highest income group were cognizant about nuclear energy and its uses. However, the proportion of households with knowledge about this particular energy source dropped to 22.3 percent at the lowest income group.

• The National Capital Region (NCR) was the only region where at least half of the total household population was aware of nuclear energy, while the rest of the regions registered lower percentages.
• The results imply that income had a positive effect on a household’s awareness of nuclear energy – since households with higher income tended to have more access to various sources of information about nuclear energy, such as those obtained online and from the internet.

But before any further plans of the Core Group could come to fruition, the Fukushima incident in 2011 again turned receptivity into skepticism. The incident was a game changer – creating widespread concern about nuclear power plants, and invariably leading to their undeclared moratorium in the Philippines. The political issues associated with the Bataan nuclear power plant, the external catastrophes involving nuclear power plants in other countries, juxtaposed against the availability of cheaper sources of energy, such as natural gas, and the generally favorable reputation of other forms of renewable energy for power generation, consequently put nuclear power in the back burner.

Analysis and Conclusion

Public perception of nuclear technology has been tainted as a result of few but sensational incidents. These have not only eroded trust in the technology, but also in the ability to balance the need for safety and the need for an economically viable operation of nuclear power plants. Once nuclear power plant lose the trust, it is difficult to regain the confidence. The public contemn government corruptions and are terrified at nuclear incidents. Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents erased utilization of nuclear technology energy from people in the Philippines. Even the public perception survey and household energy consumption survey indicated that there was a largely positive view with regard to the use of nuclear energy, the BNPP being unsafe sat close to inactive volcano Mt. Natib has been causing an incredibly serious problem which people mistrust nuclear technology.

With a view to re-establishing public relations, NPP stakeholders and government has to evaluate BNPP and inform the public of the results. Fukushima was designed for a seismic acceleration of 0.18g, while the Bataan plant had a higher threshold of 0.4g. On the basis of these technical information, NPP stakeholders have to build relationship and two-way communication channel to improve public perception and awareness.

Regaining pubic trust is a prerequisite for a successful energy program and it involves two major aspects. On the one hand, educating the stakeholders, whether the general public, NGOs or other involved parties, not just on the benefits of nuclear technologies, but also in the many ways that technology has progressed. From the vast improvements in safety mechanisms to what the latest generations of reactor types can bring to the table. Both in terms of safety and in terms of efficiency of operations, there is much to talk about. Given the complexities of increasing grid capacities in countries like the Philippines – consisting of about 7.700 islands – small modular reactors may be special interest. As a country that is afflicted by earthquakes at regular intervals, new passive safety features are definitely of interest as well. But it also the trust in the state that needs to be affirmed. All decisions, from the initial stages through siting, safety and environmental issues, require public input, not just education. The trust of the public in the institutions tasked with establishing a nuclear power program has to be earned.

This case study of the Philippine's unsuccessful communication and public acceptance in the nuclear power industry, has been conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the course EA201 Stakeholder Management and Public Acceptance.

References:

[1] Valdez-Fabros, Corazon, "The continuing struggle for a nuclear-free Philippines". WISE News Communique. (1998-10-16); [2] Magno, Alex R., “Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino People” Asia Publishing Co. Vol. 9, ISBN 962-258-232, pp. 204–205 (1998); [3] ABS-CBN News. (2007). ABS-CBN Interactive Retrieved 2007-06-13.; [4] Lee Yok-shiu, Jeff So, Alvin Y., (October 1999). Asia's Environmental Movements: Comparative Perspectives (Asia and the Pacific). M E Sharpe Inc. ISBN 978-1-56324-909-9; [5] Goodno, James. (1993-07-24). Fossil fuel plans for nuclear station. New Scientist

• clean-power
• communications-&-pr
• policy,-regulatory-&-legal
• public-power

Discussions

Sign in to participate.

Regaining pubic trust is a prerequisite for a successful energy program and it involves two major aspects. On the one hand, educating the stakeholders, whether the general public, NGOs or other involved parties, not just on the benefits of nuclear technologies, but also in the many ways that technology has progressed. 

This seems to be a universal need when it comes to nuclear projects-- do any countries/regions come to mind as having been particularly successful in this regard? What are some best practices that might be learned from those successes (if they exist)?

• Sign in or Register to post comments

This is an excellent example of what has happened with nuclear.  The public is, on the one hand, often too fickle to make informed decisions which require the long term commitment that nuclear requires. On the other hand, cost escalations and nuclear disasters undermine any chance of achieving long term public trust. The "shifting sands" of successive authoritarian governments exacerbate the situation.

Is France the only exception? But, even there faith in nuclear is waning.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309228697_The_future_of_nuclear_power_in_France_an_analysis_of_the_costs_of_phasing-out

• Advanced Welding Techniques for Nuclear Power Plant Construction
• Reactor Containment Building Liner Plate Modularization: Advanced Construction Technology for Nuclear Power Plants
• Open Top Method: Advanced Construction Technology for Nuclear Power Plants
• Data-centric Integration and Automation Technology for Nuclear Power Plant Management System

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network® is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

Start a Post »                  Learn more about posting on Energy Central »

• Start a Post

Lead Protection & Control Engineer Blue Ridge Power Asheville, North Carolina

Energy Resource Planning Analyst Central Electric Power Cooperative Inc Columbia, South Carolina

System Operations Trainer Chelan Public Utility District Wenatchee, Washington

Telecommunications Engineer I-III (DOQ) Snohomish County PUD Everett, Washington

Principal Account Manager (Energy/Electrical/Technical) Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA-Texas) Austin, Texas

Electric System Operator City of Tallahassee Tallahassee, Florida

Senior Energy Market Analyst Denton Municipal Electric Denton, Texas

Analyst, Wholesale Energy Services, Mid-Continent Customized Energy Solutions Mid-Continent States, Remote

Chief Executive Officer Baldwin EMC Summerdale, Alabama

Sponsors & Partners

Essay on Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Students are often asked to write an essay on Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

About the bataan nuclear power plant.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is in the Philippines. It was built during the 1970s. The goal was to help with the country’s energy needs. But it was never used to create power.

Why it was not used

The BNPP was finished in 1984. But it was never turned on. This was because of concerns about safety. It was also because of the high cost of nuclear power.

What happened next

After it was built, the BNPP was left alone for many years. It cost a lot of money to maintain. Some people wanted to turn it on. Others did not.

The future of the BNPP

Now, there is talk of using the BNPP again. Some people think it could help with energy needs. But others are still worried about safety. The future of the BNPP is not clear.

250 Words Essay on Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

The bataan nuclear power plant.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a big structure in the Philippines. It was built during the 1970s and 1980s. It was made to produce electricity using nuclear energy.

Construction and Cost

The building of the plant cost a lot of money, about $2.3 billion. It was built by an American company called Westinghouse Electric. The plant was finished in 1984.

Non-Operational Status

Even though the plant was finished, it was never used. The government was worried about safety. They were afraid of accidents like the one in Chernobyl, a city in Ukraine. So, they decided not to use it.

Debate on Reactivation

Many years later, people started talking about using the plant again. They said it could help solve the problem of not having enough electricity. But others were still worried about safety.

Current Status

Today, the plant is still not being used. It is a place where people can learn about nuclear energy. The government is still thinking about whether to use it or not.

In conclusion, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a big part of the Philippines’ history. It shows how people are always trying to find new ways to make electricity. But it also shows that safety is very important.

500 Words Essay on Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Introduction to bataan nuclear power plant.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a big structure built to generate electricity. It is located in the Philippines, on the Bataan Peninsula. This plant was made during the 1970s and 1980s. It is unique because it is the only nuclear power plant in the Philippines.

Building of the Plant

The building of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was a big project. It started in 1976 under the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a company from the United States, was given the job to build this plant. The work was completed in 1984. The plant cost about $2 billion, which made it the most expensive project in the Philippines at that time.

Controversies and Issues

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant faced many problems. People were worried about its safety. This was because it was built near a volcano and an earthquake fault line. People were afraid that a natural disaster could cause a nuclear accident.

Also, there were issues with corruption. Some people said that President Marcos and others took money from the project for themselves. Because of these problems, the plant was never turned on to produce electricity.

The Plant Today

Today, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is not being used to generate power. But it is not completely empty. It is used for educational tours. People can visit it to learn about nuclear power and the issues related to it.

There have been talks about reopening it. Some people think that it could help solve the problem of not having enough electricity in the Philippines. But others are still worried about the safety risks.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a part of the history of the Philippines. It shows the challenges of using nuclear power. Even though it was built many years ago, it is still a topic of discussion today. People continue to learn from it and use it to think about the future of energy in the country.

This plant teaches us that while nuclear power can provide a lot of electricity, it also comes with big risks. It is important to think carefully about these risks before deciding to use nuclear power. This is a lesson that can be applied not just in the Philippines, but in any place in the world.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Batman
• Essay on Bats
• Essay on Battle Of Uhud

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Introduction

Governing Council

By Projects

By Publications

By Initiatives

• ASEAN Reseacthers Network on Energy Climate Change (ARNECC)
• Cleaner Energy Future Initiative for ASEAN (CEFIA)

ASEAN Energy Database System (AEDS)

ASEAN Nuclear Energy Portal

ASEAN Wind Power (A-Wind)

Conferences

Consultation

Cooperation

• ASEAN Energy Management and Accreditation System (AEMAS)
• ASEAN-Japan Energy Efficiency Training of Trainers (AJEEP-TOT)
• ASEAN Energy Business Forum (AEBF)
• ASEAN International Conference on Energy and Environment (AICEE)
• ASEAN Energy Awards (AEA)
• ASEAN Energy Youth Awards (AEYA)

Opinion Editorials

Press Releases

Newsletters

News Clipping

Procurement

Waking Up the Sleeping ‘Giant’: What Should the Philippines Do for Bataan NPP Revival Plan?

Introduction  

As stated in The Philippines Energy Plan 2020-2040 , one of the ways forward to achieve the reduced GHG emission target is by starting to introduce nuclear power as a long-term energy option. Nuclear energy is not a new concept in the Philippines, as the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the Philippines, Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) was initiated in 1976 and nearly completed by 1984, with a nameplate capacity of 621 MW, which could significantly contribute to energy mix. Due to the political situation in the Philippines, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino decided not to operate the plant because of potential hazards to the health and safety of the public. Additional to that event, the construction of the BNPP coincided with the Chernobyl incident in Ukraine in 1986, which made the public perception of nuclear energy’s safety still vulnerable.  

After nearly four (4) decades of mothballing the BNPP, the plan to revive the BNPP came up as it was debated to be the fastest way for the Philippines to include nuclear energy in their energy system. This idea arose for reasons relating to the Philippine response to current energy security and energy transition issues. With such a considerably high capacity, BNPP is expected to contribute up to 5% to the country’s current energy supply to support growing energy demand while accelerating the country’s effort towards carbon reduction.  

However, considering the age of the plant and technology, reviving BNPP may give a lot of homework for the Philippines, both in terms of technical, social, and regulatory aspects.  

Learning from Temelin Nuclear Power Station  

The first step that may be taken by the Philippines to start this revival project is to look to the successful predecessor of a similar case. One of the successful Nuclear Power Plant developments can be seen in the Temelin Nuclear Power Station (TNPS) with a nameplate capacity of 2000 MW, with two operation units of 1000 MW each, in the Czech Republic. The planning for TNPS began in the 1970s and was submitted in 1985 by Energoprojekt Prague. The construction was then started in 1987 and was expected to be completed in 1987. However, due to the political and economic situation in the 1990s, mainly because of the Velvet Revolution, cost overrun, anti-nuclear issues, and some design changes, the first nuclear fuel was finally loaded to the first operation unit (TNPS 1) in July 2000 , and it was started its first commercial operation in 2002. Currently, the TNPS can generate electricity of up to 2052 MWe net. Its presence is advantageous, as its operation in 2022 can yield CZK 80 billion (about USD 3.44 billion) in response to the Russian invasion and the energy crisis , which previously its dependency on Russian gas about 97%, now has dropped to only 4% by the end of summer of 2023.  

The TNPS was built with many challenges, and besides costs , two main things we can learn from are public opinion and safety . The TNPS was initially planned with the construction of four (4) reactors, but due to political issues, construction was carried out for only two reactors. The IAEA assisted the construction of the TNPS to address safety concerns. With several stages of safety assessments conducted from 1990 to 2001, the IAEA, the US, and other Western countries’ safety principles, criteria, and requirements were mostly applied to TNPS. In addition, several international safety review missions confirmed the fact that TNPS already met the safety principles, criteria, and requirements. Regarding public opinion, there was fluctuating support for operating the TNPS. In a 1999 opinion poll, 47% of Czech citizens were in favour, while 53% were against nuclear power development. In a 2001 opinion poll, 58% were in favor, and 42% were against it. Despite the challenges posed by varying public opinion, as a result of political changes and design modifications to meet safety standards, Reactor-1 commenced commercial operations in June 2002.  

Following what has been done with TNPS, a comprehensive assessment of the safety features and technological upgrades is imperative when reviving BNPP. The plant’s original design must be modernised to meet current international nuclear safety standards, and it should undergo thorough inspections and stress tests to ensure its structural integrity. Transparency and open dialogue with the public are key to addressing safety concerns, as well as involving international experts to provide unbiased assessments. Additionally, a robust regulatory framework must be established, including stringent safety protocols and a clear emergency response plan. Proper training for operators and regulatory personnel is crucial to maintaining the highest safety standards. Collaborations with countries experienced in nuclear energy, such as France, the U.S., Japan, and Russia, who have been exposed to developing and maintaining their nuclear energy for extended periods, can help the Philippines to provide guidance and share their expertise.  

Challenges in Reviving Bataan NPP and Way to Accelerate the Revival  

Besides public opinion and safety, the high cost of revival also becomes a major hurdle. While Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) estimated it at USD 1 billion to revive the plant, the Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) suggested it might reach USD 2.3 billion . These estimates are substantial, especially considering the country’s current economic situation and competing energy sources.   

Some actions have been taken by the government as its eagerness to revive the plant. One of them is cementing relations with the KHNP and starting the new phase for an in-depth study of the feasibility of repowering the BNPP. Besides, consultation with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (the company that constructed the plant) was done in May 2023. It concluded that the use of some analogue technologies in the revived BNPP may still be acceptable as it is common and still used in some power plants, such as in South Korea and Slovenia. The government had also collaborated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) back in 2008 to reassess the chance to rehabilitate the plant. Reflecting on their report, the IAEA concluded that BNPP may still have hope for reviving with some notes on the importance of technological modernisation, the tendency for high-cost in the upfront of rehabilitation, and the urgency of a consistent policy and regulation.  

The revival of BNPP necessitates bridging various missing links to fit within the broader nuclear-specific policy and framework that may called the Philippines’ Nuclear Power Program. These links include establishing a comprehensive legal framework for nuclear energy, investing in human resource development to ensure skilled personnel are available for safe operation, involving stakeholders in open dialogue and decision-making processes, developing robust emergency planning for potential contingencies, and addressing the crucial issue of radioactive waste management, which demands strict and sustainable procedures to minimise environmental and public health risks.  

The Philippines should also focus on integrating nuclear power into its broader energy strategy, using it in combination with renewable energy sources to ensure a diverse, sustainable, and resilient energy portfolio. Considering the social and environmental implications, a comprehensive public awareness and education campaign is essential to build public trust and support for the revival of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. In doing so, the Philippines can harness the benefits of nuclear power while ensuring the utmost safety and environmental responsibility.  

In reviving the Bataan NPP, the Philippines may need to comprehend and extend its nuclear-related standards, policies, and regulations to gain public trust and political affirmation. This may be concluded by establishing a country’s Nuclear Power Program that also confines other aspects that have not been covered yet in the present policy. Finally, further financial assessment and financing schemes may also need to be explored to avoid high-cost overruns.

ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) is an intergovernmental organisation within ASEAN structure that represents the 10 ASEAN Member States’ (AMS) interests in the energy sector.

User Dashboard

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

From Megaproject to White Elephant: Lessons from the Philippines's Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

2018, Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints

Related Papers

ADRI Occasional Papers

Edwin P . Santiago

A critical analysis of the "Build, Build, Build" program of the Duterte Administration

UPSE Discussion Papers

Cristine Margaret Atienza

Primer C Pagunuran

Countries that have shown progress prove that good infrastructure is crucial to move people, goods, and services which enhance economic activities. In terms of Philippine infrastructure and development, there are many players in the field. The constellation of players adds to the labyrinth of vulnerabilities in the road works system. The vulnerabilities in the road works are observable in the various phases of the road system, such as, in the pre-implementation phase, during the implementation phase, and in monitoring and evalution. The management of the Special Road Funds, which is characterized by a wide latitude of discretion, offers an opportunity for vulnerabilities and potential corruption. There are identified possibilities for reform to address the vulnerabilties in the system and emphasize changes from within the agency itself and changes from without. The role of the civil society and the private sector is crucial in these changes and reforms.

The chapter explores the various strands of analyses that explain the constraints to Philippine growth and development in the past decades. It then proceeds to drilling down to the crux of the crisis upon which it outlines a trajectory of governance reform that takes into account the requirements for the country‘s political development along with achieving economic and social development.

Philippine Resources Journal

Fernando S . Penarroyo

Philippine energy regulators have taken a technology-neutral stand on possible solutions to the country's growing demand for energy. Policy makers are now seriously considering nuclear energy as a possible alternative. There is a pending need for more energy sources especially with the depletion of the Malampaya gas field and the country being relegated to third spot in the list of the world's biggest producers of geothermal energy. On the other hand, abundant and low-cost natural gas, renewable energy generation programs and the risk averse investment climate persisting since the global financial crisis in 2008, appear to be the main factors affecting investment decisions for nuclear power projects. However, climate change and green house gas issues, air pollution, energy supply security, energy mix diversification , and volatile fossil fuel prices, make it imperative for countries to develop or reconsider their nuclear development policies. Economic and market factors, environmental goals, and natural resource constraints seem to be much larger drivers of deployment decisions on nuclear energy. The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant ("BNPP")-the Great White Elephant The 620-MW BNPP, the country's first attempt at nuclear-power development, was identified as a solution to the 1973 oil crisis. The project did not push through because of corruption scandals involving its commissioning and was discontinued after the fall of the Marcos administration. Previous administrations have contemplated to revive the nuclear power option as a stable, carbon-free energy source but the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant incident in 2011 brought concerns about the safety and integrity of nuclear plants. Former Minister of Energy, Geronimo Z. Velasco believed the BNPP could have been the single biggest achievement of Marcos' energy development plan but the anti-Marcos opposition successfully packaged this pioneering project as the ultimate source of corruption. Velasco quoted BNPP's most prominent opponent, the late Senator Lorenzo M. Tanada, who said that the BNPP was a "monument to corruption, greed, and folly." Ironically, Velasco remarked that the icon of the anti-nuclear plant movement was the same man who, as a senator in 1968, ensured the passage of the very law that enabled the Philippine government to venture into nuclear power development. The Ateneo School of Government made a case study using Sanderson's (2011) framework in assessing the setbacks of the BNPP from its planning stage to its completion. As per Sanderson's framework, strategic rent-seeking as an explanation of megaproject underperformance involves conscious tweaking of project proposals in order to win project bids. It appears, however, that in the BNPP case, Westinghouse's success in winning the BNPP contract was fueled more by a deliberate effort to strategically wield existing political ties to serve private interests than a conscious attempt to deceive project evaluators.

Miguel Antonio Barretto Garcia

This essay attempts to challenge conventional perspectives in crafting Philippine development policies. The Philippines has been enmeshed in a development paradox where the country has promising potential to develop given its pool of human and natural resources but has failed to take off and develop due to persistent systemic problems in the country’s political and economic institutions. The essay explored various dimensions in development economics, political economy, Philippine history, and Philippine culture in order to shed some light behind the country’s development puzzle. From these reflections, we argue that development policy can only be relevant and effective if we genuinely include Filipino behavior and institutions into the analytical framework. But to do that, we need serious rethinking in our core economic principles, public policy prescriptions, and development strategies. The fast-emerging perspective in new institutional economics is seen as a suggested framework in fine tuning our policies to fit Filipino institutional and behavioral contexts.

Journal of Agrarian Change

Filomeno Aguilar

Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies

Peter McCawley

Diane Desierto

RELATED PAPERS

Studi di Memofonte, 29

Angelamaria Aceto

Evan Skillman

Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation

Jean Marc Cavaillon

Jason Bengtson

Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca

Elena Estrelles

Phạm Khánh Linh

Nature Reviews Neurology

Maurizio Pocchiari

Ingeniare. Revista chilena de ingeniería

Dario Quiroga

Ginggar Garlika Khameswara

Physical Review A

Paul Cahill

Journal of Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences

M Saeed Heydarnejad

Boletin Del Ministerio De Justicia

Ricardo Pazos

RePEc: Research Papers in Economics

Claudiney Pereira

Journal of Marine Systems

Nathalie Niquil

Buy verified Cashapp accounts BTC Enable

Applied Psycholinguistics

Michela Baldo

Sokalyan Mao

mehmet demirtaş , Mehmet Demirtaş

ISNAINI DAIRINA DAIRINA

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Controversy of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

Teo camacho may 24, 2017, submitted as coursework for ph241 , stanford university, winter 2017.

The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is an interesting case study of nuclear energy. Completed back in 1980s and costing $2.2 billion, the BNPP currently stands in Morong, Bataan, atop Napot Point that overlooks the West Philippine Sea (as seen in Fig. 1). However, it never achieved its goal of generating 623 MW of electricity. The BNPP is currently the only nuclear power plant in the Philippines and more interestingly, was still the only nuclear plant in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as of 2014. [1]

Nuclear energy first came to the forefront of Philippine politics back in the 1950s when the U.S. gave the Philippines a nuclear fission reactor. [2] The government then formally established a nuclear program in 1958 under the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). The BNPP was then proposed in the 1960s and approved under the Marcos regime (1965 - 1986) in July of 1973. The final contract was given to Westinghouse Electric. The project was completed in 1984. [2]

Controversy

Before, during, and after the construction of the BNPP, this power plant was surrounded by controversy. From President Marcos's connection to Westinghouse, to the dispute of General Electric and Westinghouse, to issues of following protocol during and after construction, the BNPP faced many issues that led to criminal charges being brought against Westinghouse. The whole controversy was described in detail by Dumaine two years after the plant's completion. [3]

One of the biggest controversies was the Marcos connection with Westinghouse. First, Marcos requested that National Power Co. (the government owned electric utility) negotiate a deal to buy two nuclear reactors. Westinghouse used connections to Marcos to strike the deal. Already known to be more expensive than other options, the Westinghouse contract jumped from $650 million for only one reactor to $2.2 billion. Later, evidence of large sums of money going to President Marcos himself was found. Westinghouse denied corruption accusations. [3]

Another controversy was how Westinghouse was able to gain the contract over General Electric. It is documented that National Power was negotiating with General Electric before Westinghouse came into the picture. However, once the connections between Westinghouse and the Marcos regime were established by Hermino Disini, a friend of the president himself, General Electric appeared to be strung along, as thought they were still in contention even though they actually were not. There is documentation that contract negotiations began before General Electric could pitch its proposal to the government. [3]

Additionally, there were issues during and after the construction of how Ebasco Services (hired for safety testing) were observing protocol. Librado Ibe, Marcos' top nuclear expert questioned Ebasco's work of checking the siting. He is documented as saying that he was offered bribes to approve the site for construction and reluctantly did end up issuing the construction permit in 1979. [3] After the construction was completed in 1984, William Albert, an advisor from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was brought in by new Aquino government to do inspections. Albert brought up issues of welding, working hours, base plates, pipe hangers, water values, and transmission cables. He attibuted all these shortcomings to quality control. Even though these issues were brought up to National Power, who had the final say whether the plant was to be operable or not, there is no evidence that the structural issues were dealt with appropriately. [3]

Current News

Currently, there are talks about the Philippines reviving the BNPP. This is mainly because of Philippine energy needs. [4] The talks about reopening the BNPP are being debated in the Senate, and there are voices on both sides of the issue. Proponents for reinstating the plant say that the energy source is cheap and that after the initial investment to upgraded the plant and it can help with the issue of the supply of electricity. However, opponents staunchly disagree saying that the revival of the plant is too expensive even to consider and that the money would be better spent on other electricity generation projects. [4]

Nevertheless, scientists are also still considering the plant's siting issues. There is still uncertainty about the eruption history of Mt. Natib, a volcano only a few miles away. Because of this problem and the proximity to active faults, seismologist are proposing to set up more sensors to do testing before reconsidering opening the BNPP to electric generation. [5] However, proponents of reinstating the plant as soon as possible point out the the BNPP was allegedly built to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis. [1] It is clear that the issue of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant will be talked about in the Philippines for months and years to come as the country tries to deal with supplying electricity to a continually growing population.

© Teo Camacho. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

[1] J. P. Terry and J. R. Goff, Natural Hazards in the Asia-Pacific Region: Recent Advances and Emerging Concepts (Geological Society of London, 2012).

[2] A. Volentik et al. , "Aspects of Volcanic Hazard Assessment For the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, Luzon Peninsula, Philippines," in Volcanic and Tectonic Hazard Assessment for Nuclear Facilities , ed. by C. B. Conner, N. A. Chapman and L. J. Conner (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 229-256.

[3] B. Dumaine, " The $2.2 Billion Nuclear Fiasco ," Fortune, 1 Sep 86.

[4] D. L. Lucas, " Duterte Gives Nuke Plant Green Light ," Philippine Daily Inquirer, 12 Nov 16.

[5] J. R. Uy, " Scientists Want Faults, Volcano near Nuke Plant Studied ," Philipine Daily Inquirer, 2 Dec 16.

• My View My View
• Following Following
• Saved Saved

Philippines approves revival of nuclear power to help replace coal

• Medium Text

• Philippines previously froze nuclear programme over safety fears
• New order says nuclear can help as coal power phased out
• Duterte orders study on Bataan nuclear plant reopening
• Greenpeace warns of safety risks from the nuclear plants

Sign up here.

Reporting by Enrico Dela Cruz Editing by Ed Davies

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Business Chevron

Stocks fall despite Nvidia boost as inflation concerns weigh

U.S. stocks ended lower on Thursday, even as a strong revenue forecast for Nvidia prompted a surge in its shares, but that was overshadowed by economic data showing inflation was still a concern that could delay any Federal Reserve rate cuts.

The pros and cons of reopening the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant

This story is the first of a three-installment feature on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Read more on the costs of building a new nuke plant , and why people are saying we should forget about nuclear energy .

The mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) has been in the spotlight since the Department of Energy (DOE) admitted they are looking at the possibility of utilizing nuclear energy to augment the country’s power supply as our growth rate progresses.

The Philippines has the second highest electricity rate in Asia next to Japan. The DOE estimates that we will need an additional 10, 191 megawatts (MW) of power to meet the country’s demands until 2030.

Energy secretary Alfonso Cusi said 7, 200 MW will be coming from baseload plants and 2, 931 MW will be supplied by mid-merit or peaking plants.

The private sector places the country’s current power requirement at 11, 500 MW, which can increase to 14, 000 MW in five years and 17, 500 MW in 10 years.

What can we gain from opening the plant?

The BNPP, with a capacity of 620 megawatts (MW), was also expected to supply at least 10 percent of the country’s total projected demand.

Its operations will also lower the risk of power shortages in the country and avoid raising yellow and red alerts on the grid.

A yellow alert means the power supply has gone to a level below the required reserve or the capacity of the largest running power plant in the grid, which is the Sual power plant with a capacity of 647 MW.

A red alert status signifies that there is not enough supply for the electricity demand.

Opening the BNPP will help the country achieve lower electricity prices. Nuclear plants can lower the costs of electricity to up to P2 per kWh, in comparison with the rates of coal-fired power plants which can go for as much as P6 kWh.

Much of the opinion surrounding the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is concerned with the political issues involving dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who allegedly received $80 million in kickbacks from the plant developer Westinghouse.

In 2007, the Philippines finally completed the $2.3-billion debt that funded the construction of BNPP between 1976 and 1984.

Following the Chernobyl incident in 1986, President Cory Aquino mothballed the plant. She signed an executive order that would maintain the plant until such time that the Philippine government can decide what to do with it. Annual maintenance costs ranged from P40 to P50 million.

During his term, former president Benigno Aquino III said he had no plans to reopen the BNPP. In contrast, his cousin Mark Cojuangco is an advocate for nuclear power.

Cojuangco’s father, Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco is the chairman of San Miguel Corporation (SMC), the largest food and beverage company in the country. SMC has assets in the energy sector.

Previously, the National Power Corporation (Napocor) signed a memorandum of agreement (MoA) with the Korean Electric Power Company (KEPCO) to conduct a feasibility study on the plant. However, talks halted after the Fukushima incident in Japan.

In 2011, the government turned the BNPP into a tourist attraction to gain revenue, with scheduled tours. During one of these tours, Mark Cojuangco claimed that eating a banana actually exposes people to more radioactivity as opposed to standing in front of a nuclear plant for a whole year.

A banana has 0.1 microsieverts of radiation while a year of exposure to a nuclear plant has only 0.09 microsieverts of radiation, he said.

“Not an answer to climate crisis”

Despite the claims that nuclear power emits less carbon dioxide than coal plants, which typically generate 3.5 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, some argue that “the BNPP is not an answer to climate crisis, nor an alternative to renewable energy.”

This is because mining uranium, the fuel used to run nuclear plants, as well as the milling, plant construction and decommissioning of plants all emit carbon dioxide. Uranium, however, is only available in a few countries. Importing these will not be cost-effective as it seems, as it is subject to price hikes.

A case for uranium has been laid out: it contains 120, 000 times more energy per kilogram compared to the country’s main source of energy, coal. In addition, only 20 tons of this fuel is needed to operate a nuclear power plant for 18 months. This will allow the BNPP to generate 8.1 billion kWh over this period.

The cost of rehabilitation

Rehabilitating the BNPP is more cost-efficient than building a new one, as it will only cost $1 billion and four years to train operators. However, it must be noted that the construction of existing nuclear plants commonly went over-budget with two to three times higher than the estimates.

As part of its rehabilitation, over 80 percent of the plant needed to be overhauled while the rest had to be replaced.

Safety concerns

There are many safety concerns involved in the plant, since its location is less than 100 miles away from four volcanoes and three geological faults.

However, Renato Solidum of the Philippines Institute of Volcanology and Seismology previously said that BNPP is at least 64 kilometers south of the Iba Fault in Zambales, 78 kilometers northwest of the West Valley Fault system in Marikina, and 83 kilometers south of the East Zambales Fault. This, Solidum said, puts the BNPP away from the hazard of ground rupture when faults move.

The BNPP’s design is said to be safer  than its sister plant in Busan, South Korea, and the Fukushima plant in Japan. The Fukushima plant was designed to withstand an intensity 7 earthquake, which it did, before being submerged by the tsunami that followed.

In comparison, the BNPP was designed to withstand an intensity 9 earthquake and is located 18 meters above sea level. An intensity 9 earthquake will typically result in a 10 meter tsunami.

Richard Lazatin, a former executive at the National Power Corporation, said that Bagac, Bataan, the site of the BNPP housing 16 kilometers from the plant site in Morong, was also meant to be the construction site for the plant. However, site studies found a record of a 35-feet tsunami that hit Western Bataan. During this time, the Bagac site was only five to 10 meters above sea level and the designers decided to move the site to Morong, which increased the costs by $50 million.

During the time that the BNPP was being built, planning nuclear power plant facilities did not take into account internationally accepted guidelines regarding volcanic hazards, and permits were granted based on studies guided by local practices based on science that do not take into account the developments in nuclear power and volcanology in the last few decades.

Lazatin said, however, that the BNPP was designed to address volcanic hazards from the nearby volcanoes Mt. Natib and Mt. Pinatubo.

A study  conducted by The Geological Society of London in 2012 revealed the probability of a volcanic eruption on Mt. Natib, the site where the BNPP is located, and said that “Natib’s active volcanic hydrothermal system means that Natib has credible potential for future eruption.”

The roofs of the BNPP were also designed to withstand the weight of 12 inches of wet ash fall. The Pinatubo ash fall was only two inches at the plant’s site.

The site is also underlain by deposits of pyroclastic flows and surges and lahars. Lava deposits were found proximal to the site. Pyroclastic density and lava flows cannot be addressed by engineering solutions, but the potential hazards of lahar can be solved by engineering design.

In the event of any nuclear incident, living within a 10-mile radius of a nuclear power plant will make the air unsafe to breath. Water and food sources within 50 miles may also be unsafe.

And while the DOE is exploring all options to address the power supply shortage in the coming years, Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi said he is in favor of using nuclear energy to meet the country’s energy needs.

“My point is just that, with all the new findings, technological advancements and successful experiences of countries around the world, nuclear energy holds much promise for our national interest, especially in light of our collective quest to implement our long-term energy plans,” Cusi said.

He added that while using nuclear energy might not be a popular choice, but it is the country’s responsibility to look at all options and study it for nation building.

There are 5 comments

And how will the nuclear wastes be managed?

Volcanoes may erupt again, even after it stays calm for 100 years. Mt. Pinatubo is an example. Geologist from London may be right after all. If you insist on operating the nuclear power plant, Bataan and Metro Manila may be affected with radiation after a disaster.

How about clean drinking water first,for this great nation,full of wonderful people,who deserve it clean fresh water for all.

That’s right . Clean water should first be available to all people in the neighboring areas. A nuclear power plant should have two sources of potable clean water with low chlorides and calcium carbonates in order to operate safely. Without a reliable cooling water supply, the power unit is bound to fail.

I would ask the earthquake experts to tell us the fraction of major quakes that are from unknown faults. It is very high. The distance from known faults is therefore irrelevant.

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

• DOE says alerts do not need to result in interruptions if demand is aligned with supply
• US greenlights funds for advancement of electricity transmission
• ERC signs MOA with BOI for support in investments
• Small islands and underserved areas ideal testing sites for solar, policy advancements
• High demands affect market prices in April, mid-May
• DOE signs MOU to bolster clean energy goals
• DOE mandates higher biodiesel blend beginning October 2024
• Former DOE USec: PH should consider exploring oil and gas initiatives
• USDA: PH biofuel use to increase with stricter blending guidelines
• NGCP: Tuy-Dasmariñas line might be pushed back

• Subscribe Now

[OPINION] Bataan Nuclear Power Plant: Open or close sesame?

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

( Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this commentary belong solely to the author, and not to any organization that the author is affiliated with. )

Among the different energy sources on Earth, nuclear energy is the most controversial. This reputation is the result of different nuclear accidents that transpired in the past – the Three Mile Island accident (1979), Chernobyl disaster (1986), and Fukushima Daiichi disaster (2011). Despite these horrific events, several countries tap nuclear energy primarily for electricity and consider it as a critical component of a net-zero emissions future. Still, safety is the major issue of today’s society for this energy source. 

A few weeks ago, Prof. Winnie Monsod penned an opinion piece about the rehabilitation of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). The esteemed professor of economics opined in her article that, considering the benefits that the country could gain, it is due time that the government rehabilitate and switch on the BNPP, tutal bayad na rin naman . Prof. Winnie highlighted key details about nuclear energy which led to her stand on the matter. Here are some of the details that I’d like to focus on:

• A 2019 survey cited in the recently signed Executive Order No. 164 showed that 8 out of 10 Filipinos approve the rehabilitation of BNPP.
• Rehabilitating the BNPP is way cheaper than building a new nuclear power plant.
• Electricity generated using nuclear energy is cheaper than coal- or oil-generated electricity.
• Nuclear electricity generation emits less carbon than solar-generated electricity.
• Nuclear power is the safest way to make reliable electricity. 

Sorry, Prof. Winnie, but I disagree with your position. We should not rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant . Let me justify my position and clarify some points about nuclear energy.

First, the survey cited in EO 164 shows that some Filipinos are becoming less averse to nuclear energy. However, a 2018 Pulse Asia survey showed that 9 out of 10 Filipinos prefer more renewable energy sources to be used for our electricity. This 2018 survey reveals that more Filipinos want renewables in the country’s energy mix, as it should be. Figure 1 shows that fossil fuels comprise more than half of the country’s energy supply since 1994. Therefore, vox populi was disregarded, and so was a 2015 circular by the Department of Energy prescribing a 30% minimum share of renewables in the total power generating capacity of the country.  

Second, according to a 2019 assessment by a South Korean firm, the BNPP is still in a good condition but some of its components require replacements. The overall rehabilitation of the facility could cost around $1 billion (₱52 billion) and could take four to five years to accomplish. Despite the positive assessment, rehabilitating BNPP cannot immediately proceed because the government cannot own a power generation facility such as a nuclear power plant. Section 6 of the two-decade-old RA No. 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) privatizes the generation sector of the country. For the rehabilitation plans to run smoothly, amendments to EPIRA must be worked out before anything else. 

[OPINION] Decommissioning BNPP, and storing the nuclear dragon’s radioactive manure

Third, one of the best ways to compare the cost of electricity from different energy sources is through their levelized costs of electricity (LCOE). LCOE is the estimated cost per generated energy throughout a power plant’s lifetime. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) , while it is true that the LCOE of nuclear is cheaper than that of coal, the LCOE of renewables such as solar, onshore wind, and run-of-river hydro are cheaper than that of nuclear.

Fourth, the term “carbon emissions” in this aspect must be clarified to avoid confusion. Electricity generation from solar and nuclear energy sources do not emit any greenhouse gases, but other processes involved in such generation (e.g. raw material extraction, construction of power plant) do. These cumulative emissions are called life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and are usually expressed in terms of g CO 2 eq per kWh of electricity generated. Harmonized data presented in Figure 3 show that although nuclear energy has a lower median life cycle GHG emissions, it is still greater than that of wind energy. 

Finally, the safety of a power plant is a broad term but an important factor to consider. Safety could mean that of the workers (death rate) and the residents living within the facility’s proximity (health impacts). The death rate of both solar, wind, and hydropower per TWh of electricity generated is lower than that of nuclear energy. On the other hand, the health impact of nuclear energy should not be limited to its contribution to air pollution, which is almost negligible, but also the impact of nuclear waste and its disposal. The Lancet Journal article mentioned (although improperly cited) in Prof. Winnie’s opinion piece is most likely by Markandaya and Wilkinson (2007) which only included a health impact assessment of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and biomass. Other renewables such as solar and wind were not included although the authors recognized that the health impacts of these sources could be small and indirectly due to electricity generation. 

[OPINION] Activating BNPP would give cancer to workers and adults living nearby

Strictly speaking, the number of barriers faced by nuclear energy development in the country is enough reason to abandon any rehabilitation plans for BNPP nor the immediate adoption of nuclear energy in the energy mix. More studies about the viability of nuclear energy in the country must be conducted, something that is clearly recognized in EO 164. It is in this aspect that renewables outperform nuclear energy. Enough policies to pursue renewable energy development in the country (primarily R.A. No. 9513 or the Renewable Energy Act) are already in effect. Unlike nuclear, renewable energy resources are domestically available which could increase the country’s energy self-sufficiency and reduce susceptibility to global energy market shocks. The current state of renewables in the country is still far from perfect, but it is improving. Maybe, just maybe, the government should focus on this matter instead of bringing the dead back to life?

Perhaps the best way to end this piece is to answer the last question in Prof. Winnie’s article: What are we waiting for?

We are waiting for the day when our country will not anymore import nor be dependent on dirty fossil fuels; the day when our countrymen will not suffer from high electricity rates, frequent power failures, and worry about the health impacts of pollution from fossil-fired power plants. Nuclear energy may provide answers for these worries, but it certainly is not the best option. Rehab BNPP? Why not try “ RIP, BNPP ?” – VDP

Vince Davidson J. Pacañot is currently a graduate student at the University of the Philippines Diliman. He is studying the environmental impacts of energy systems and ways to decarbonize these systems.

Add a comment

Please abide by Rappler's commenting guidelines .

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

How does this make you feel?

Related Topics

Recommended stories, {{ item.sitename }}, {{ item.title }}.

Checking your Rappler+ subscription...

Upgrade to Rappler+ for exclusive content and unlimited access.

Why is it important to subscribe? Learn more

You are subscribed to Rappler+

Switch language:

Serving the nuclear industry since 1956

Philippines approves revival of nuclear power

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has signed an executive order to introduce the use of nuclear power, as authorities prepare for the phasing out of coal-fired power plants.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

It instructs an inter-agency panel to consider reviving the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). "Considering this demand and the depletion of natural gas resources, nuclear power will play an important role to contribute to the required capacity to achieve energy security, especially to meet the needs of an emerging upper-middle-income country," the order says.

Duterte had ordered energy authorities to study the possible use BNPP in 2020 and to consult the concerned communities. The Philippines spent $2.3 billion on a 621MWe Westinghouse pressurised water reactor at Bataan during the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos. It was completed in 1984 but was never fuelled or commissioned following allegations of financial irregularities and concerns about safety.  It was formally mothballed in 1986 and since 2009 has functioned as a tourist attraction, helping defray the cost of maintaining it. 

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) in 2018 had reviewed the status of nuclear infrastructure development in the Philippines using criteria from Phase 1 of the IAEA's Milestones Approach. The INIR review team was hosted by the Philippines’ Nuclear Energy Programme Implementing Organisation (NEPIO), established by the Department of Energy in 2016. 

In July 2020 Duterte had issued Executive Order No 116 creating an inter-agency committee to evaluate and assess the need and viability of introducing nuclear power into the energy mix. The Nuclear Energy Programme Inter-Agency Committee, chaired by the Department of Energy, was asked to consider the economic, security, and environmental implications as well as engagement of the public and the relevant stakeholders. The committee was also directed to review the existing legal framework and study the viability of nuclear energy.

Referring to the latest executive order, Duterte said nuclear power would be tapped as a viable alternative baseload power source as the Philippines seeks to retire coal plants to help meet climate targets.

Energy Undersecretary Gerardo Erguiza Jr said a regulatory framework for nuclear power still required legislation and its future would also depend on the policies of the next administration – Duterte ends his single six-year term in three months. The son of former President Marcos  – Ferdinand Marcos  Jr –  who is the favourite to win the May presidential election, has said he plans to "revisit" the BNPP project.

Sign up for our weekly news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Partner Content

Tyne usa inc, meggitt sensing systems, fomas group, more relevant, saudi arabia contracts finland’s stuk to build nuclear regulator, eskom to co-operate with coega development corp in nuclear development, areva to upgrade i&c at calvert cliffs, fuel debris removal to begin at fukushima daiichi unit 2, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the Progressive Media network.