BNPP

BNPP
No. 1 concern with this was the radiation that will be emitted that might cause an illness to the people especially the children that will cause them skin cancer.

I’m totally against the plan of revival of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or also known as BNPP.

Having a concern to the environment I knew that it has a bad effect to our environment.

Although this will help us to get very enough source of energy but their are other source of energy if that was only the issue here we can get energy by creating Windmill it was affordable and it was very clean source of energy.

The government will spend Billion of peso for the rehabilitation of BNPP that will be paid by tax payer it means another responsibility for us.

It will be a little bit OK to me only if the government administration is not known for being prone in corruption.

News:
Nuclear myths used to hurry BNPP operation—Greenpeace warns

January 26, 2009

Manila, PHILIPPINES — Greenpeace today warned that Congress is off to speed up the passage of the Bataan Nuclear Plant revival bill regardless of serious social and environmental costs, and are using myths and abusing scientific data to support their bid.

In a press conference in Quezon City, Greenpeace Southeast Asia Executive Director Von Hernandez and geologist Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Adjunct Professor at the University of the Philippines’ National Institute for Geological Sciences disproved claims by Congressmen Mark Cojuangco and Mikee Arroyo that the mothballed 30 year old Bataan Nuclear Power Plant will yield, clean, safe and inexpensive energy.

Cong. Mark Cojuangco, whose family’s business interests include energy, is the author of a House Bill filed July last year seeking to revive the BNPP. House Bill 4631 has already hurdled the House Committee on Energy headed by Cong. Mikee Arroyo, and is currently in the Committee on Appropriations, whose report, according to Arroyo, is expected by mid-February.

“Nuclear energy is not clean, not safe and not cheap. In fact, it is probably the most dangerous and expensive power source there is. To say otherwise is to endorse patent falsehoods for the benefit of the nuclear industry. Greenpeace finds the intent of the bill, as well as the seeming haste with which it is being pushed in Congress highly questionable,” said Hernandez.

“The one billion USD [1] eyed to fund this project which will come from the pockets of ordinary Filipinos will be better spent on safe and cheap renewable energy. And if there must be haste, it should be for the finalization of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Renewable Energy Act, the real solution to energy security and climate change, which in contrast, sat in the Congress for more than a decade before it was passed,” he added.

Greenpeace asserts that nuclear plants are grotesquely capital intensive and expensive at almost all stages of its development. Historically, nuclear construction projects consistently run over budget, so even the 1 Billion USD projected cost for BNPP’s rehabilitation can be exceeded. The plant will also make the country dependent on imported uranium, a resource found only in a few countries. There are further costs for spent fuel storage and security, and should an accident occur, massive costs for evacuation, relocation of communities, health costs, aside from the repair of the plant and the rehabilitation of surroundings. From previous experience of nuclear disasters, these costs amount to hundreds of billions of dollars for a period of decades.

Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo whose study on fault lines and volcanic activity in the area was cited by Cojuangco in the Bill also refuted claims by the congressman that the location of the BNPP is safe. According to Rodolfo, the BNPP is situated on Mt. Natib, a dormant volcano which constitutes the entire northern half of the Bataan peninsula.

“People who are eager to reactivate the BNPP are dangerously misrepresenting scientific data. Given the burden the revival of the BNPP poses to all Filipinos, the government owes it to its citizens to vigorously, openly, and thoroughly explore all the ramifications of such a risky energy source,” said Dr. Rodolfo.

Around 800 volunteers from Greenpeace and the Network Opposed to BNPP (Bataan Nuclear Power Plant) form a giant ‘human banner’ spelling “No to BNPP” in a campus in Quezon City, as a message of solidarity opposing a House bill to revive the mothballed nuclear plant. Greenpeace is calling on Congress representatives not to support the proposal and to withdraw their signatures from the bill which would effectively lock Filipinos into dependence on the world’s most unsafe and most expensive source of electricity.

Courtesy of:www.greenpeace.org/seasia

About BNPP- Courtesy of :www.wikipedia.com

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a nuclear power plant, completed but never fueled, on Bataan Peninsula, 100 kilometers (60 miles) west of Manila in the Philippines. It is located on a 3.57 square kilometer government reservation at Napot Point in Morong, Bataan. It was the Philippines' only attempt at building a nuclear power plant.

History

The Philippine nuclear program started in 1958 with the creation of the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under Republic Act 2067.

Under a regime of martial law, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos in July 1973 announced the decision to build a nuclear power plant.This was in response to the 1973 oil crisis, as the Middle East oil embargo had put a heavy strain on the Philippine economy, and Marcos believed nuclear power to be the solution to meeting the country's energy demands and decreasing dependence on imported oil.

Construction on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant began in 1976 and was completed in 1984 at a cost of $2.3 billion. A Westinghouse light water reactor, it was designed to produce 621 megawatts of electricity.

Following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in the United States, construction on the BNPP was stopped, and a subsequent safety inquiry into the plant revealed over 4,000 defects.^[1] It was built near major earthquake fault lines and close to the then dormant Pinatubo volcano.^[2]

Marcos was overthrown by the People Power Revolution in 1986. Days after the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the succeeding administration of President Corazon Aquino decided not to operate the plant.Among other considerations taken were the strong opposition from Bataan residents and Philippine citizens.

The government sued Westinghouse for overpricing and bribery but was ultimately rejected by a United States court.

Debt repayment on the plant became the country's biggest single obligation, and while successive governments have looked at several proposals to convert the plant into an oil, coal, or gas-fired power station, but all have been deemed less economically attractive in the long term than the construction of new power stations.

Despite never having been commissioned, the plant has remained intact, including the nuclear reactor, and has continued to be maintained.The Philippine government completed paying off its obligations on the plant in April 2007, more than 30 years after construction began.^[2]

On January 29, 2008, Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes announced that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 8-man team led by Akira Omoto inspected the mothballed Bataan Nuclear power station on rehabilitation prospects. In preparing their report, the IAEA made two primary recommendations. First, the power plant's status must be thoroughly evaluated by technical inspections and economic evaluations conducted by a committed group of nuclear power experts with experience in preservation management. Second, the IAEA mission advised the Philippines Government on the general requirements for starting its nuclear power programme, stressing that the proper infrastructure, safety standards, and knowledge be implemented.The IAEA's role did not extend to assessing whether the power plant is usable or not, or how much the plant may cost to rehabilitate.