Nuclear renaissance is undoubtedly gaining traction and sweeping policy agendas for global energy markets.

Within Asia, political and economic interests also converge tugging many countries to ride the wave of nuclear resurgence in the energy mix.

Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan are the region’s front-runners in the nuclear race; while Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia are also taking serious steps to join the bandwagon. Can the Philippines afford to be far behind?

“It will be the country’s choice, but it will lose against neighbors if it decides otherwise,” says Dr. Ian McKinley, a Swiss nuclear waste management expert who was recently on a working visit to the country; when asked on probable consequences if the Philippines would decide to write off nuclear option on its energy plan.

But like in other parts of the globe, the ‘ghosts’ of the past nuclear accidents (i.e. the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents) and the creeps over radioactive exposure continue to haunt any country’s plunge into nuclear power development program. As it is, public acceptance has always been the Achilles’ heel in pursuing the nuclear option.

Despite the tricky terrain ahead, the Philippines seem not losing sight though into re-aligning nuclear power to become part of the country’s energy plan for the future.

A legislative measure, principally authored by Pangasinan Representative Mark O. Cojuangco, has already been filed in Congress to open the country’s energy door toward the nuclear direction – the entry way would be the re-powering of the 620-megawatt Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or BNPP.

The function of policy

Mr. Cojuangco explained that a law to be passed by Congress will thrive as a stronger policy framework to underpin the country’s nuclear plunge, stressing that if the only aim is to rehabilitate and re-power the BNPP, that can be simply backed by an Executive fiat to be issued by the President.

“The reason I filed the bill and why I want it coming from the legislature is to make it a more stable national policy,” he enthused. An Executive Order, it was noted, is easier to revoke or alter on the whims of the sitting leadership.

Firstly, he clarified that the bill does not only delve with BNPP’s re-powering, but a comprehensive policy that shall set the framework for the rebirth of nuclear power development in the country. The feasibility study on the BNPP rehabilitation, currently undertaken by Korea Electric Power Corporation, will serve as a ‘validation’ of the passage of the legislative measure.

Since his first term in Congress in 2001, the lawmaker confessed that he already had his sights fixed on pursuing a legislative agenda that will revive the country’s interest into nuclear power. But with that persistence, he was chagrined and claimed to have learned a tough lesson -- that screwball politics will only prioritize popular agendas, not necessarily to champion policies that will benefit the Filipinos for a long-term.

Despite the drawbacks, he studied the rebirth of nuclear energy technologies in other countries – re-assessing the benefits in terms of probable cheaper electricity rates for consumers and the ensuing benefit to the environment. Additionally, he re-examined technology advancements taking shape in nuclear power projects improving on safety and security features past the TMI and Chernobyl accidents.

“There will come a time when nuclear renaissance becomes very obvious to everyone. And by then, if Filipinos are still paying one of the highest power rates while our neighbors with nuclear power are enjoying lower cost electricity, they will question why no one has taken a stand in pushing for our own nuclear program. So I decided to champion and defend this politically,” Mr. Cojuangco stressed.

His interest in nuclear power was first stirred up in the 1980s – having seen some of the nuclear facilities in California, while his family was on exile in the United States. He further related that: “at first, I was ambivalent about nuclear. But knowing that California is such an environmental state, questions formed in my mind, that if it’s okay in a state with very strict environmental policies, why would it be wrong to do it in the Philippines?”

For the nuclear power critics, he reminded them that the juggernaut of fossil fuel solution embraced after the BNPP mothballing is now hitting us back with a riskier dilemma of global warming.

Be that as it may, Mr. Cojuangco is aware that the way forward entails navigating rough political waters, especially in winning people’s approval for the policy to thrive. Is there any formula? Public information is key, he opined, and “it’s a matter of forming critical mass of thinkers who have open mind about paradigm changes.” There’s irrational fear on nuclear power, he added, because the public is ill-informed and it is being pictured that “as if we’re going to jump into it tomorrow without the right preparations.”

Preservation

As proposed, the budget for the re-powering of the BNPP shall not be more than US$1.0 billion, inclusive of cost allocations for decommissioning and radioactive and waste management disposal. The cost assumption is based on rehabilitation that will make use of the plant’s original specifications.

When finally brought back into operation, initial estimate posits that the selling rate from the re-powered BNPP may be cheaper by P2.00-P2.50 per kilowatt hour (kWh) as compared to the prevailing grid rate of state-run National Power Corporation. The rehab plan cast for the facility is 5 years. Nevertheless, a team report submitted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the Philippine government indicated that it may stretch over 7 years; while development of any greenfield nuclear plant may take 15 years, at the shortest.

The mode of financing and which sector to undertake the project (either private or public sector through build-operate-transfer (BOT) arrangement) are among the issues yet to be fleshed out though in the policy domain. The BNPP rehab financial plan, according to the IAEA report, “must comprise the total capital investment, the nuclear fuel cycle cost and the establishment of debt/equity targets and the assessment of potential funding sources.”

Nuclear waste management through dry cask storage, as full-proof safe practice in other countries, has also been proposed. It is not a very expensive option and capable of storing nuclear wastes for 60 years or longer, experts said. That will afford the country then leeway to scout for more permanent site on waste storage.

The operating life of a nuclear plant is typically for 40 years, and feasible for extension by 20 years; and a second extension of another 20 years – altogether, that would run up to 80 years of operating life.

Taking his cue from that, Mr. Cojuangco shared that BNPP already exhausted half of its initial operating life – but as qualified by the IAEA, it may still be re-operated based on the parameters set for delayed nuclear power plant (NPP) projects.; similar to those of Angra 1 in Brazil; Krsko of Slovenia and Kori 2 of South Korea.

Concerns have also been raised about manpower skills and the scale of technical expertise that must be gained for the plant’s operation. The bill proposed to initially waive the nationality requirement, so foreign experts and technical support can be initially engaged for the BNPP operations; and a 10-year time frame is provided to build on domestic expertise in nuclear power development and operations; in tandem with incorporating nuclear power as part of the University of the Philippines’ curriculum. The other policy concerns are on regulatory and licensing aspects.

Mr. Cojuangco is convinced that the BNPP can still be brought back into operation; and will then offer back service to the Filipino consumers – us, who were all made to pay for the $2.0 billion behemoth investment in the facility.

“BNPP had gone through hot-function tests. And even if it was not allowed to operate, NPC exercised some degree of preservation for the facility,” he stressed. For instance, he bared that a full-time chemist was tapped to regularly check the hydrazine concentration in the plant’s steam generators. “And even if there’s no hydrazine, I believe it would still be okay because it is made of inconel, a high nickel chromium-based superalloys that is very high corrosion-resistant,” he explained.

Global nuclear craze drifting into Asia

With carbon-constrained world permeating, combined with the growing consumer chorus for more affordable electricity, the appetite for nuclear power is evidently rising. As of end-2008, a total of 438 nuclear reactors are already operating in 31 countries. Europe and Commonwealth Independent States (CIS) are the leading regions in nuclear power generation; followed by North America.

According to French firm Areva, a leader in nuclear energy development, “most of the medium-term growth potential for nuclear power will be in Asia”; with the timeframe stretching from now until 2015. Around 44 nuclear reactors have been reported for construction until last year; and Far East countries corner the lion’s share with 35 reactors in construction phase. There are several types of reactors in use worldwide, but the most popular is light water reactor (LWR) -- categorized as boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water reactor (PWR), typified by the differences in their steam generating mechanism.

Uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power generation. For countries with scant resources, they import from uranium-producing countries such as Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa, Namibia, Russia, and even China and India.

The prospect of uranium importation also raises debate against the Philippines’ bid for energy independence. But nuclear advocates said there is less fuel use for every megawatt of power produced from nuclear; and the enrichment process being done on uranium (either through gaseous diffusion or centrifuge process) holds promise of further increasing fuel efficiency.

With the world’s increasing pitch for nuclear, Mr. Cojuangco pointed out that the country can’t just be left behind if it wants to compete on an equal footing with neighbors.

The choices we may take are wide open. But if in the end, Filipino consumers still complain of higher power rates, that’s because the leadership ignored to take bold steps on the alternatives.