Revisit nuclear fuel

The question of whether to activate the long-mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) rose once again after the country’s vulnerability to brownouts surfaced weeks ago with the unscheduled outages.

The narrative about the evils of harnessing nuclear energy has long been controlled by various interest groups, the majority of which were anti-nuke.

Before and soon after Ferdinand Marcos’ ouster, the BNPP was not a popular project to push. Church and environmental groups joined those of the Left in exposing its evils.

It never had a chance to redeem itself with its potential performance, even when the country was beset with problems in energy production and distribution.

Solutions were offered, yet we encounter the same outages every now and then, as power generation could not keep up with the population boom and the outward expansion of communities.

A disclosure: This rubbernecker, in his young age, was among those who marched against the

BNPP.

Some of the issues then, aside from its safety, were about the corruption that wrapped the BNPP’s construction. They’ve long been discussed, provided with exegesis, but without settlement.

With the new talks and with the Filipinos encouraged to put behind the Marcos-Cojuangco/Aquino rivalry behind them, we ask: Should we give the BNPP a chance to operate this time?

Ironical it is that a Cojuangco is pushing for the BNPP’s operation.

Mark Cojuangco, now a businessman after his stint in the House of Representatives, is a leading proponent to calls to shift to nuclear energy. He is the son of the late Danding Cojuangco, a cousin of former President Cory Cojuangco-Aquino.

“No other technology can cut current power cost by half except nuclear power plants,” he said.

His call is timely as most parts of the world seem to be overlooking an imminent catastrophe of a depletion of the supply of fossil fuel reserve for oil, coal and gas.

A study made in 2009 claims supply of oil is good for less than 30 years, coal for less than a century and gas for just three decades, too, if we keep using them at our current pace.

Proponents, including Cojuangco, say nuclear is the way to go.

Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi is not keeping it a secret that the government is seriously considering making the shift.

Concerns about nuclear safety have long been addressed by experts, although further talks and debates are welcome.

While we’ve heard mostly the negatives, various publications are now swearing to the safety of nuclear for

use as energy.

The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology Information of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) has debunked some nuclear myths.

Among them is radiation, as there are naturally occurring radiation everywhere. The ANS says only 0.005 percent of the average American’s yearly radiation dose comes from nuclear power — “100 times less than we get from coal, 200 times less than a cross-country flight, and about the same as eating one banana per year”

It says it is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon.

It’s not made for that.

It takes different configurations to make a nuclear bomb.

Reactors emit no greenhouse gases during operation, comparable to other renewable forms of energy like wind and solar. They require less land use than most other forms of energy.

Injuries are less in operating a nuclear reactor. The ANS cited nuclear energy’s use the past five decades to prove it.

Nuclear waste can be transported via a truck and requires very little space. A football field can accommodate every nuclear waste the past 50 years. Ninety-six percent of this “waste” can be recycled.

Fear of another Chernobyl has long been debunked, too. Air pollution and tobacco use cause more cases of cancer in persons than the feared exposure to radioactive materials.

Safety precautions have been introduced since Chernobyl. We’ve learned lessons, too.

Most advanced countries have long been using nuclear energy.

If it’s time for us to do so, then let the debates begin for us to know if it will work for us, too.

“It says it is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon. It’s not made for that.

“Most parts of the world seem to be overlooking an imminent catastrophe of a depletion of the supply of fossil fuel reserve.