search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
1982 | FROM THE ARCHIVE


The Pearl of the Orient Sea going nuclear?


By John C.H. Lindberg FRSA


The Philippine government’s decision to build a nuclear power plant was motivated by the 1973 oil crisis, but while a station was built, it never operated


Above: Wallchart showing the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant, first published in 1982


The January 1982 issue of Nuclear Engineering International was dedicated to the then-under construction Philippine Nuclear Power Plant (PNNP-1), nowadays more commonly known as the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Construction of the 620MW reactor on the Bataan peninsula, 100km west of the Philippine capital of Manilla, began in 1976. This was in response to the 1973 Oil Crisis, which had made the country’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil and saw policies be put in place to lessen imports. The Philippines at the time imported some 95% of


their energy demands, of which 95% came from the Middle East. The reactor, sold to the country


by Westinghouse on a limited turn-key contract, was in essence completed in 1984, but construction had been halted following the 1979 Three Mile Island accident to reassess the security of the plant, and to decide whether nuclear power was still to be pursued. While a decision to go ahead was made, the Philippines was shook by revolution in February 1986, which saw President Marcos — who had played a key role in the inception


of the project — overthrown and democracy was restored. With the Chernobyl accident two months later, the newly formed government led by Corazon Aquino took the decision not to operate the plant, despite it being completed. A major driver behind the decision was widespread public opposition, especially in the local area. Despite the decision to not allow


the reactor to enter operation, the plant was still being maintained, something that continues to be the case to this day. The Philippine government continued to pay


Westinghouse for the unit. In 2007, the last payment was made. As some of the articles pointed out, the PNNP-1 project brought several benefits to the Philippines, including major skills transfers and capacity-building for various supply chains. However, the decision to mothball the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant represents a missed opportunity for the Philippines, with these significant investment into skills and supply chains having de facto been squandered. The country remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels — the energy mix is composed of coal (47%), natural gas (22%), renewables ie hydro, geothermal, wind, solar (24%), and oil (6.2%). Given the current volatility on international gas markets, and with the increasing need to decarbonise the economy (whilst ensuring access to abundant energy), there is a strong case to revisit and revive the Bataan plant. Indeed, it will be imperative that


countries like the Philippines rediscover the virtues of nuclear energy to ensure that we can continue to spread economic prosperity around the world in a sustainable fashion. Without nuclear power, it is unlikely that we’ll be able to achieve a just transition to a low-carbon future, and a major lesson that needs to be learned from Bataan is the importance of ensuring public acceptance. In many ways, Bataan was another victim of Chernobyl, and the fallout of the communications fiasco that it in many ways represented. ■


The PNNP-1 project brought several benefits to the Philippines, including major skills transfers and capacity-building for various


supply chains. However, the decision to mothball the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant represents a missed opportunity for the Philippines, with these significant investment into skills and supply chains having de facto been squandered


www.neimagazine.com | January 2022 | 11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45