ENERGY experts on Monday thumbed down the possibility of injecting nuclear energy into the country’s energy mix, saying it is unviable and unprofitable.
Sara Jane Ahmed, an energy finance analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), said during a virtual press briefing that nuclear energy in the Philippines will not take off without government subsidy.
“Nuclear obviously has tail risks and, as an analyst, I will look at it from a financial perspective. I am overtly negative on nuclear because when we look at the data, look at the top 10 major nuclear developments in the world, most of them are 10 to 15 years behind schedule and they are double or triple the original investment and the cost to consumers is prohibitively expensive without a lock in subsidy,” said Ahmed during the briefing on future-proofing the Philippine energy market, including the Covid-19 context. The event was hosted by Renato Redentor Constantino, Executive Director of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities.
These subsidies, Ahmed said, are usually implemented for at least 20 years up to over 40 years, “and Epira (Electric Power Industry Reform Act) will simply not allow this capital subsidy to be spent by government.”
As such, she described nuclear energy as “totally uneconomic without government subsidy.” Ahmed continued: “So, if we look at it in a rational financial perspective and put aside climate and environment factors and only look at the economics, it doesn’t make sense without a government subsidy.”
DOE chief for nuke
Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi, who did not want to extend the feed-in-tariff allocation so that consumers pay only the true cost of electricity, wanted to include nuclear power in the Philippines’s energy mix to meet growing electricity demand.
During the 5th Global Conference on Energy Efficiency in June this year, Cusi had said: “I personally feel that the time is ripe for intensified and informed public discussions on nuclear energy, as well as its potential role on our energy security agenda. Today, in fact, the Philippines is the only Southeast Asian country that has an active nuclear power program.
“Despite growing opposition, the push for nuclear energy’s inclusion in the energy mix will help ensure the country’s energy security and address possible future power emergencies.”
The agency’s approach in the energy mix is technology-neutral, which imposes no cap on the type of technology.
“I have been asked many times why we adopted this ‘technology neutral’ policy. We have to be real: we lack capacity and there is an urgent need for the Philippines to build its power capacity fast. And to attain energy security, we must make sure that we have abundant sources at this stage,” Cusi explained.
The technology-neutral approach, added Cusi, “leads me to one of the most controversial and politicized topics in the Philippine energy sector—the utilization of nuclear power for energy security and efficiency.”
The Philippines was one of the first Southeast Asian countries to embark on a nuclear power program with the creation of the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) in 1958.
Two decades after PAEC’s establishment, the country became host to Southeast Asia’s only nuclear power plant in the 1980s—the 621-megawatt Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). Its construction started in 1976, with total investment amounting to $2.3 billion by the time it was completed in 1984. The plant’s operation never saw the light of day, having been hounded by allegations of overprice and safety. The President who pushed it, Ferdinand E. Marcos, was overthrown in the 1986 People Power revolt.
Cusi, however, has a strong pitch for nuclear: “I strongly believe, and I have said this already several times in the past: It is high time for the Philippines to be open to the idea. Nuclear power is a reliable alternative to attain energy sufficiency and meet future power demands. All those arguments that have been said against the nuclear power plant had been answered by time. In hindsight, the Philippine economy would have been different had we tapped nuclear power in the 1980s.”
‘Most inflexible’
Alberto Dalusung III, energy transition advisor of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities, commented during the virtual briefing that nuclear is the “most inflexible power in the grid.”
“You don’t want to ramp it up or ramp it down because you want it running steady. That’s not the kind of capacity we need based on the DOE plan,” he said.
President Duterte on July 24 signed Executive Order (EO) 116, which paves the way for the creation of the Nuclear Energy Program Inter-Agency Committee (NEP-IAC).
The DOE will lead the committee, while the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) is the committee vice chairman. The interagency body is mandated to primarily conduct a study for the adoption of a national position on a Nuclear Energy Program (NEP).
Cusi said the signing of the EO is a “major step toward the realization of a Philippine nuclear energy program.”
EO 116 requires the NEP-IAC to submit an initial report to the Office of the President within six months or by January 2021.
Senate Committee on Energy chairman Sherwin Gatchalian has called on the DOE to proceed with “utmost transparency” in the conduct of the feasibility study.
“The public should be well-informed on the inherent risk and the potential of nuclear power. Only an open and free discussion of this technology will deepen the comprehension of the public,” the senator said.
Nuclear energy, he commented, is a “complicated” energy source and a “very risky business.”
“The world is always in constant debate on the adoption of nuclear power because of its inherent risk to public welfare. Moreover, it is an energy source that is very complicated and demands high-level knowledge to fully maximize its utilization without sacrificing public safety,” said Gatchalian.
EO slammed
Consumer group Power for People Coalition (P4P), meanwhile, condemned the issuance of the EO.
“We are dismayed at the casual disregard for the risks of nuclear power to a country like the Philippines, vulnerable as it is to earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and the threat of climate change,” said P4P convenor Gerry Arances.
“We have grave reservations about the ability of the DOE to manage nuclear power without causing a Chernobyl or Fukushima. If we need more power, the renewable energy potential of our country is already at 250 gigawatt hours, and that excludes solar energy.
“It is an untapped resource that is safe, reliable and perfect for scaling from small communities to big cities. We invite the DOE to review our Philippine Energy Plan and Power Development Plan toward increasing the share of renewable energy,” he added.
