 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| The Nuclear Option By Antonio C. Abaya Written Feb. 14, 2006 For the Standard Today, February 16 issue Former US Vice-President Al Gore made a media splash last week when he warned, in a speech before a Makati audience, that some two million residents of Metro Manila would have to be evacuated from their homes when rising ocean levels, induced by the melting of the polar ice caps due to global warming, inundate low-lying areas around the world. This insight is not new. I recall writing a column in the late 1980s or early 1990s, citing data from meteorological scientists that if the temperature of the world�s oceans were to continue to rise at their current rates, by 2030 sea levels will have risen by 30 to 50 centimeters. Enough to permanently flood, I reckoned, parts of Metro Manila and Central Luzon. I suggested in that article that the Philippine government prepare a topographical map of the country showing the areas most vulnerable to rising ocean levels, and that the Philippine military acquire a fleet of amphibious vehicles that can navigate flooded areas and tow trains of rafts for rescue operations. We have enough floods, as it is, from regular monsoon rains to be able to fine-tune these vehicles, in preparation for the Great Flood. Al Gore�s dire warning are well taken, but it could well have been part of the opening salvos in the US political season that will culminate in the midterm elections in November. In his State of the Union address last month, President George W. Bush promised to cut US dependence on Middle East oil by 75% by the year 2025. He was applauded for this target, but many were skeptical that the US economy could really undergo such a dramatic sea change in so short a time Even the born-again Evangelical Christian conservatives, Bush� biggest single source of political support, have called on him to address the problem of global warming. After all, it was the Bush administration that pointedly refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol that committed all signatory countries to reducing emission of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. So have China and India, whose surging mega-economies consume vast and increasing amounts of fuel, mostly of the polluting kind. Concerns about global warming and about being held hostage to Middle East oil - or any other (dwindling) supply of oil, for that matter � are converging to force a rethink about the nuclear option. (Sweden, one of the most environmentally clean countries in the world, announced last week an explicit government policy to completely cut its dependence on fossil fuels by the year 2020. To replace oil, Sweden will develop more of its vast timber and hydro resources and use more wind energy along its long coastline. Having chosen to phase out its nuclear power plants more than ten years ago, without actually dismantling them, Sweden may reconsider the nuclear option if the need arises). Even new technologies that have pushed ethanol and other forms of �vegetable energy� into the limelight do not really address the problem of global warming. When ethanol, coco-diesel, �clean� methane gas, and new fuels derived from the breakdown by enzymes of cellulose molecules in plants and trees�.are burned, they still emit carbon dioxide since they are all carbon-based, if renewable, fuels. The melting of the polar ice caps will still continue and global flooding of low-lying areas will remain a clear and future danger. What to do? The fashionable non-oil alternatives are inadequate: wind and solar energy are not on tap 24 hours a day and cannot be generated in massive scales, not all countries have geothermal and hydro assets, and fuel cells are not yet economical. Nuclear fusion, which uses deuterium from seawater as fuel and emits little radioactivity, is decades away from becoming a viable alternative, if ever. In its February 8 issue, Newsweek reports that the nuclear (fission) option is becoming more and more attractive, the technology having been around for half a century, even if the problem of radioactive waste is still with us. At present, says Newsweek, the US has the most number of nuclear power plants (104) but they generate only 20% of its energy needs. France has 59, generating 78% of its needs. The other nuclear countries are: Japan (56 � 30%); Russia (31 � 16%); the UK (23 � 19%); South Korea (20 � 38%); Canada (18 � 15%); Germany (17 � 32%); India (15 � 3%); and China (9 � 2%). On the basis of the above numbers, France � followed by South Korea, Germany, and Japan � has been the most prescient in following the nuclear path. But China is not sitting idly by. Aside from the nine it already has, China is currently building two more, and is planning another 30 nuclear power plants, more than the rest of the world combined. Do the Chinese � and the French, the South Koreans, the Germans and the Japanese - know something we don�t? We have had only one (expensive) experience with nuclear: the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant near Morong. Built at a cost of more than $2 billion, the BNPP was mothballed by President Aquino in the late 1980s without generating a single watt of electricity, due to the agitation against it, led by the communist movement and radical environmentalists. For the communists, demonizing the BNPP was part of demonizing the US military bases in nearby Clark and Subic which, almost certainly, housed nuclear weapons, and whose continued existence were up for debate in 1991. For radical environmentalists, some of whom were also members of the communist movement, their main objection to the BNPP was that it was located near an earthquake fault line and was thus unsafe to operate. No one bothered to check how many of the dozens of nuclear power plants in earthquake-prone Japan and Taiwan were located on or near earthquake fault lines, and what their safety features were, in anticipation of a tremor. There were also allegations that a relative of Imelda Marcos, Herminio Disini, received tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks from the equipment supplier, Westinghouse. But that was not a logical reason for junking a plant that had already been built and had been paid for by the banks that had financed the project. So the BNPP was ordered mothballed by President Aquino and 620mw of generating capacity were scratched off the Luzon grid. This slack would have been taken up by the 300mw Calaca plant in Batangas and the 300mw Masinloc plant in Zambales, but the commissioning of these two plants was delayed interminably by objections from radical environmentalists, on the grounds that they were coal-fired and were thus pollutive. The net result was that, without the 620mw from the BNPP, the 300mw from Calaca, and the 300mw from Masinloc, a power shortage hit Metro Manila and Luzon in 1990-1992, and hundreds of companies and thousands of households, faced with power outages lasting up to 10 hours a day, were forced to buy and operate their own generators, thus causing more pollution, right in the middle of the metro, than would have been caused by the embargoed power plants if they had been allowed to operate.. The moral of the story is that radical activists and radical environmentalists, shrill as they often are, do not necessarily have the right answers to the problems of society. But the nuclear story does not end there. Everyone should be reminded that the worst ever nuclear accident did not happen in a profit-mad capitalist country supposedly unmindful of the citizens� welfare, but in a supposedly high-minded, allegedly scientific socialist one: Chernobyl in the Ukrainian SSR, part of the then USSR, in 1986. It was not even a nuclear explosion, but only a chemical one, when an accumulation of hydrogen gas was somehow ignited and blew off part of the reactor wall, sending clouds of radioactive dust swirling into the sky to as far away as France and northern Finland. It was also determined that the design of the Chernobyl plant was so primitive it would not have been approved for operation in the capitalist West And now that socialist China (now admittedly a �stinking capitalist� country, according to Ka Roger) is building or is planning to build 32 more nuclear power plants, what will be the tenor of the debate here when the nuclear option is discussed, as it inevitably will be? ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to "The Nuclear Option
" I completely agree with your views re nuclear option published in today's Manila Standard. Twenty years ago, when crude oil cost a pittance per barrel and I didn't have a fuel-consuming vehicle to drive, I was vehement against the Monster at Morong. Now, older and presumably wiser, I am thinking that as a country, the Philippines really has no other viable option aside from the nuclear one in order to sustain its growth and pull its citizens out of poverty. We need energy! The problem is that we, or our leaders, are not creative enough to look for other sources other than crude oil. Countries with better access to oil resources than us are going or have gone nuclear. You mentioned France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, and USA, and I might add, oil-rich Iran. Are these countries going to get their relatively cheap and reliable energy (even if they are rich enough to pay more for it) while old RP (which cannot afford) pays through its nose for fossil fuel? As a country with nil oil reserves, our leaders continue to plan for more coal-fired power plants (What's this about a new such plant in Cagayan de Oro?) instead of figuring out how to resurrect our mothballed nuclear power plant on which we have mortgaged part of our future. What's this about the plant being located in an earthquake zone? Being located in the Pacific Rim, the whole country, like Japan and Taiwan, is in an earthquake zone. All we need to do is review the design of the plant and add earthquake-proofing measures if necessary. What about nuclear waste? Well, how do other countries deal with theirs? Big deal! I think these leftist inspired agitation against nuclear power is a lot of hogwash. Nuclear power has been with us for more than fifty years and it has proved to be a safe energy source as shown by its track record. Sources such as hydropower, geothermal, wind, solar and others can provide energy but not on a scale required to make a significant dent on our reliance on fossil fuel. We need to operate two or three more nuclear power plants in order to substantially reduce our dependence on imported energy. So long and thanks for the enlightening article Herminigildo Gutierrez, gutierrez [email protected] Feb. 16, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr Abaya, Thanks for copying me on your article. Again, I could not agree with you more. If you ever have the time, I highly recommend Michael Crichton's new novel, "State of Fear". It is fictional, of course, but a lot of research has clearly gone into it. I am sure you will find Crichton's take on global warming and other environmental issues quite interesting. David de Padua, [email protected] Feb. 16, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thank you. It is really high time that we centrists start talking and have our commonsensical views heard. Our silence allowed the stupid few to scare the nation into uncompetitiveness. Now we are wallowing in poverty never seen before. It is high time that we centrists should fight for the truth and save our country from the perdition of a vocal few. Any ideas to revive the BNPP? Jun Apolonio, [email protected] Singapore, Feb. 16, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, I was curious: does the Philippines have the technology currently to build a nuclear plant? If we do not have this technology but are close to acquiring it, how come the Philippine government isn't doing more research into this area? If Phil was to go nuclear it would go a long way to curing our energy problems. I think, based on your paper, 10 -12 nuclear plants spread across the nation would solve most of our energy demands. And the multiplier effect would be enormous. If there are security concerns I think the military is more than capable of protecting the sites. Having nuclear power would definitely raise the Philippine status in the world. On another subject, do you have insight into why the Philippine government isn't doing more to modernize the military. We are an island nation yet our Navy is a joke. We need a strong Navy to protect our borders. How come the government does not set up manufacturing sites throughout the country that do nothing but build ships and military equipment. It would cost a lot in government spending but the benefits would be tremendous. Think of the multiplier effect. It would put a lot of unemployed Filipinos to work. They in turn would spend the money they earned. This would be a major boost to the economy. This type of spending is how the U.S got out of the Depression. I'm really hoping the government will settle with the Muslims this year. Then soon after, a federalist form of government is implemented. I really feel if these two things happen the Philippines will become a power in the region. Let the federal government worry about the big picture; defense spending, guiding the economy, tax collection, education etc..The states would of course be involved in these matters as well (except for defense) but the implementation would be different since it would be done locally and affect only that state's population. Would really appreciate your thoughts on these matters. Teo Rusle, [email protected] Feb. 16, 2006 MY REPLY. The Philippines does not have the technology or the money to build its own power plants, be they coal-fired, hydro, geothermal, wind, solar or nuclear. These have to be imported from industrialized countries. We just never developed the industrial base for these things. It does not mean that it cannot be done, but it needs a lot of investments in both industrial infrastructure and human resources, as well as political will. Under President Suharto, Indonesia started to manufacture its own helicopters and aircraft, naval and maritime ships, electric generators, diesel engines, telecom equipment, railroad equipment, armaments, etc. I was given a tour of these industries in 1988 and 1992. But after Suharto was overthrown, in 1998, his successors did not continue most of these industrial projects. As for federalism, my views on it are expressed in my article �Federalism No Panacea� (July 26, 2005). wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Alack, indeed, the opposition to nuclear technology, like the idiotic opposition to mining, is IDEOLOGICAL. I met Ted Casino in Baguio last night. I told him I am his critic but said I hate to see him as an enemy because the fellow is good looking. I voted for Bayan Muna in party list as I have done so for many elections. The best antidote to the trapos. Ross Tipon, [email protected] Baguio City, Feb. 18, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thank you for sending me the article on Nuclear Option. I forgot to mention that during an information drive on the EPIRA law conducted by the Department of Energy last October 6-7, 2005 in Davao City, one of their resource persons estimated that to meet the country's energy requirement for the next ten years, a certain amount in billions of pesos is needed in order to put up the required coal-powered plants. Someone asked why only coal- powered plants are included in the estimate. Why not wind power, hydropower, geothermal, solar, and other alternative energy sources? He replied that these sources are not capable of delivering the large amounts of energy needed at the right place and at the right time. The resource person gave the impression that the government, despite grand pronouncements of tapping alternative energy sources, is still focused on fossil-based energy. This reliance on fossil fuels can be our quickest way to dam nation. Practically, speaking, we do not have fossil fuel resources (i.e. crude oil) and the way crude oil is being depleted in other countries which do have them, its price will shoot $100 per barrel sooner than expected and our country will be "pupulutin sa kangkungan" as a former president likes to say. The thing to do is develop energy sources which do not rely too much on foreigners. One such source is the nuclear power plant as you have convincingly explained. Another perhaps is geothermal. Iceland gets more than 90% of energy from geothermal power plants and this country seems to be doing very well. With our numerous volcanoes, surely we can still add to the present number of such plants already possessed by the country. During that information drive, the resource person talked about "augmenting" the capacities of existing plants. What? No plans to build additional plants? Then we have the solar-based energy. Consumerist Ralph Nader once said that "if the same billions of dollars spent on nuclear power research have also been similarly spent on solar power, we'd be on solar power today." The reason solar power is impractical, as the afore-mentioned resource person implied, is that comparatively not much have been spent on its research and development; research on this in the Philippines is practically zero. At any rate, who said that solar energy is to be used to power factories? Maybe solar energy research should focus on its application to households. If solar energy can reduce my electric bills by half at a reasonable cost, this will mean huge savings on my part and on the part of the country in terms of reduced fuel importation. Lastly, we have to learn how to conserve more energy. This entails giving better incentives to households and persons to save electricity, plan trips, use bicycles, cut airconditioni ng use, etc. Whatever happened to the energy task force that is supposed to monitor energy use in government offices? Don't answer, let me guess. It's extinct, right? Like all other "ningas-kugon" drives in this country. Hey, why not use our "ningas-kugon" mentality to power energy plants? While wer'e at it, we can also add the hot air generated by our "politicos" as energy source, and the crap coming out of their mouths every time they grandstand as raw material for biogas generation. Herminigildo Gutierrez, [email protected] Feb. 18, 2006 MY REPLY. The DOE resource person is partly correct. Wind and solar are not capable of generating energy in massive scales. But hydro and geothermal are, if we have the rivers that can be dammed and volcanoes that can be tapped. The government is pushing ethanol from sugar cane, which has been used widely in Brazil since the 1980s. Re Iceland, please see my article �Learn from Iceland� (Aug. 14, 2005), archived in www.tapatt.org. The Philippines is actually second only to the US in the use of geothermal energy. But geothermal, although non-fossil, is not entirely clean either.. It produces the poison hydrogen sulfide from volcanic sulfur, which comes back as acid rain. As for nuclear, it will not make us independent of foreigners. The power plant will have to be imported from abroad, and so will the uranium fuel. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The following article was emailed to us by Angie Collas of Portland, Oregon. Those who have a background in Science will appreciate the humor even more: New Element Found From Ray G. The recent hurricanes and skyrocketing oil and gasoline prices helped to prove the existence of a new element. In early October 2005, a major research institution announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium." Governmentium (Gv) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called 'morons' which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called 'peons.' Since Gv has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Gv causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second! Gv has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay; but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming 'isodopes.' This characteristic of moron promotion leads most scientists to believe that Gv is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as 'Critical Morass.' When catalyzed with money, Gv becomes "Administratium' (Am) - an element which radiates just as much energy as Gv, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reactions to �Before the Da Vinci Code� (Jan. 31, 2006) Dear Mr. Abaya, I would just like to share these very interesting links regarding the 'Da VInci Code" movie. http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060216 http://tfp.org/what_we_do/index/d_v_c_launching_rochester.htm I'm due to receive copies of the book by the American TFp called "Rejecting the Da Vinci Code" and I would like to send you a copy. To which address may I send it? Jose Maria P. Alcasid, [email protected] Feb. 18, 2006 MY REPLY. In this secular day and age, calling for a boycott of a book or a film, especially for religious reasons, will just drive more people to read that book or watch that film. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Interestingly, many critics of the Da Vinci Code have not read the novel before commenting, (like the gentleman above)�..It�s fiction with historical merits��Check it out. Gunshy, [email protected] Feb. 16, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reactions to �GMA to the USA?� (Feb. 12, 2006) Don�t you know that one of the main reasons why President Gloria Arroyo, Speaker Joe de Venecia, and their gang of thieves in the Lakas-NUCD leadership want to cancel the May 2007 national and local election because they are afraid the opposition candidates that exposed the filth of the GMA administration will win landslide. This will be a death knell to the present dispensation. With the opposition running both houses of Congress, La Empiratress Gloria and her ilk had just sealed their epitaph at the Campo Santo. GMA particularly will be impeached easily by her enemies who will control the decision in Congress. With the said scenario,GMA � bad for her - will not finish her term up to 2010, she will instead serve it inside the prison cell as what happened to ex President Erap, and those former presidents in South Korea. Remember mga kapatid, the last laugh will still be on us exploited pinoys The 80 percent of the Filipinos who wanted her to step down presently according to the Social Weather Station will rejoice up to heaven. Imagine, in the entire history of the political system of the Philippines, she is the most unpopular according to credible survey outfits. She got minus 30 (and it�s worsening because of another tax imposition last week that inflate prices of goods & services). Marcos will be laughing in hell. He thought he got the worst rating of plus 7 before the aftermath of his disposition. Same with Erap who felt vindicated with his better survey result than her. And now brace yourselves folks: Entered.. Adolph Hitler who torched 6 million Jews (the ascendants of present Israelis) , experts said that abysmal rating of our present president would shame the butcher of the Third Reich. I can only mumbled: anak ng bibingkang hilaw na buhay �to! The unpopularity of GMA ( kasali na rin dito ang kanyang mga galamay) is the result of the �Hello Garci� scandal, lengthy and exhaustive senate inquiries into the jueteng controversies that allegedly involved her families, the alleged diversion of the P 728 million in fertilizer funds to the election campaign of this hated president, the government P50 million a year contract with American lobby group Venable, the illegal raid on the residence of former NBI writing expert Segundo Tabayoyong and the confiscation of election documents, the $5oo million North Rail project, and the latest brouhaha, the P 500 million diverted Department of Agrarian Reform funds (intended by law to purchase lands for the landless) to the Department of Agriculture (remember that #!*@ guy named Jocelyn �jok joc� Bolante) which was used for the 2004 presidential election . Mortz Ortigoza, [email protected] Dagupan City, Feb 14, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony---so sorry to see the terrible disaster in Leyte. My condolences to the Filipino people. Just read a local Malaysian newspaper --- Dr. Mahathir had a meeting with George Bush---going back a couple of years ago. They were seen to be having some differences of opinion. Somebody paid somebody (Karl Rove was mentioned) over US$1 million to the lobbyists to arrange for a formal meeting. Also notice that the press is reporting good things about the business climate and the future for Indonesia. Encouraging stuff. That�s it, mate. Catch you next time around. John Craige. [email protected] Malaysia, Feb. 21, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |