‘Nuclear renaissance’ is undoubtedly gaining traction and sweeping policy agendas for global energy markets, with the likes Germany opting to decommission nuclear fleets; while others are integrating this technology in the revolution of their future energy mix. The Philippines, too, is toying with the idea of a potential nuclear energy mix.
Within Asia, political and economic interests also converge -- tugging many countries to ride the wave of nuclear resurgence. 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 likewise took serious studies in weighing this as recourse in their power mix – although they eventually took a backseat on that option.
Can the Philippines be far behind? Certainly not – because Energy Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi had consistently espoused the possibility of reinvigorating the country’s nuclear power ambition.
He may have been the lone voice championing it for the last six years – but he has gained breakthrough when President Rodrigo Duterte issued Executive Order 164 mandating the crafting of a “nuclear energy program” for the country.
To Cusi, this is like an “unfinished symphony” when he finishes his term by June this year, but it is in his ‘wish list’ that the initial policies he laid down for nuclear power will eventually end up into a ravishing storyline in the power sector’s future – primarily in aiding the Philippines decarbonization targets and in bringing down electricity rates.
But like in other parts of the globe, the ‘ghosts’ of the past nuclear accidents -- i.e. the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl mishaps of the 1970s-1980s as well as the 2011 Fukushima tragedy -- plus the creeps over radioactive exposure risks continue to haunt any country’s plunge into nuclear power development program. Taking cue from these, public acceptance also served as the Achilles’ heel in pursuing the nuclear option.
Despite the tricky investment terrain ahead, the Philippines seem not losing sight into re-aligning nuclear power to become part of the country’s long term energy plan– and the Department of Energy (DOE) has been casting three-pronged approach to achieve this vision – either to repower the mothballed 620-megawatt Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP); push for greenfield nuclear power installations; or plump for the deployment of small modular reactors (SMRs) in many off-grid domains or the targeted microgrid systems in various parts of the country.
Gordian knot in policymaking
Cusi explained that a law to be passed by Congress will thrive as the strongest policy framework to underpin the country’s nuclear power development strategy – primarily in addressing the warranted regulatory toolboxes as well as in fleshing out the investment strategies that could guide interested project sponsors.
In the updated Philippine Energy Plan (PEP), nuclear power’s integration in the power mix is targeted by year 2035, although in the DOE’s current assessment, the installation of SMRs which are of smaller capacities, could even come as early as 2027 in the initially targeted sites in Cagayan Valley, Sulu and Palawan.
The energy chief conveyed though that “this would depend on the passage of necessary legislative policies on nuclear power, which are among the bills that have been certified to be passed by Congress.”
Energy officials are well aware that after botched nuclear ambition in the 1980s, the country will need to re-take ‘baby steps’ on propounded nuclear technology installations; and even on plans of bringing back the idled BNPP on stream.
The Philippines should have been ahead on this course – tracing back development plans in the 1970s to 1980s – in which the BNPP could have paralleled the Kori nuclear facility of South Korea, Krško of Slovenia and Angra of Brazil. Unfortunately though, because of politics and allegations of corruption, the country inauspiciously lost its track on this power development track.
The DOE admitted that the country will need to hurdle "exhaustive predicaments" for it to get back into the nuclear energy pathway -- as all the gaps in legal, policy and regulatory frameworks would need to be addressed first - and these processes could take decades to accomplish.
Bluntly, the issues and concerns when it comes to nuclear power developments already turned too long and varied – from public acceptance; humongous upfront capital investment which became a dilemma in nuclear new builds like the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project in the United Kingdom and the Olkiluoto-3 nuclear power development in Finland; then there are also recycling and storage/disposal concerns on spent fuel; safety and equipment redundancy installation as well as siting issues; nuclear liability and insurance coverage; upskilling of human resources and enabling of domestic expertise on nuclear power operations; and most importantly, the tricky policy and regulatory frameworks.
And in the restructured sphere of the Philippine energy sector that is now largely private sector driven, nuclear power facilities would also have extreme struggle finding their place under merchant market conditions.
At any rate, Energy Undersecretary Gerardo Erguiza Jr. noted that the crafting of the country’s nuclear energy program had been studied and recommended by at least 17 government agencies – spearheaded by the DOE and had been underpinned by the Departments of Science and Technology, Environment and Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, Health, Interior and Local Government, the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) as well as key government entities like the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) and the National Power Corporation (NPC), among others.
“The national position aspect, that was suggested also by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) -- it’s part of the 19 infrastructure issues and concerns because that’s the problem in the world – that one administration will put up a nuclear power plant, but it could be opposed by the next generation of leaders under the pretext that it is just the desire of a certain administration, so the next administration may not want it... that’s why the IAEA suggested this as an important aspect as a result of the whole-of-government approach to come out with policy,” he stressed.
Erguiza added that with the Malacanang-sanctioned policy, “We can say now that all the relevant agencies came out with comprehensive study and they made recommendations, so we now have a security in policy.”
On a levelized-cost basis, the DOE further argued that “nuclear power is an economical source – that could be high on productivity and reliability, and low on per kilowatt-hour cost and emissions.”
The operating life cycle 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, hence, the cost of electricity it will generate will turn out cheaper in the long run.
Uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power generation. For countries with scant resources, they import from uranium-producing countries like Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, South Africa, Namibia, Russia , and even China and India.
Nevertheless, the prospect of uranium importation similarly 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.
For the nuclear power critics, DOE officials also set a cautionary reminder that the juggernaut of fossil fuel solution embraced after the BNPP mothballing is now hitting us back with a riskier dilemma of global warming.
In fact, the President’s EO laid down that “nuclear power shall be tapped as a viable alternative for baseload power source, along with alternative energy sources, to address the projected decline of coal-fired power plants which come under increasing environmental opposition.”
BNPP’s fate
As reckoned from the outcomes of studies done by various international nuclear power experts from the IAEA, Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation of Russia; and the Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power of South Korea, the budget for the re-powering of the BNPP could range between $1.0 billion to $2.0 billion -- inclusive of cost allocations for decommissioning as well as waste management disposal.
The cost assumption is based on rehabilitation that will make use of the plant’s original specifications -- and the rehabilitation work could take 5-7 years, as culled from previous IAEA study.
When finally brought back into operation, previous estimates posit that BNPP’s selling rate may come cheaper by P2.00-P2.50 per kWh as compared to the prevailing generation tariff of more than P5.00 per kWh.
The mode of financing and which sector to undertake the project -- either private or public sector through build-operate-transfer (BOT) or public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements -- are among the issues yet to be decided also in the policy domain.
The BNPP rehabilitation financial plan, the IAEA report further recommended, “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, according to experts. That will then afford the country enough leeway to scout for more permanent site on waste storage.
Concerns have likewise been raised about manpower skills and the scale of technical expertise that must be gained for the plant’s operation. Previous legislative measures propounded to initially waive the nationality requirement, so foreign experts and technical support can be engaged in the interim -- and a 10-year timeframe must be provided to build on domestic expertise in nuclear power development and operations; in tandem with incorporating nuclear power as part of university curricula.
Energy officials are convinced that the BNPP can still be brought back into operation and offers service to the Filipino consumers – us, who were all made to pay for that $2.0 billion behemoth, but mothballed investment facility.