PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear or Geothermal?



m1911a2
02-09-2009, 10:28 AM
Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?

KillerQueen
02-09-2009, 03:46 PM
Hi there M1911a2,

Allow me to post my few cents of opinion regarding this thread. It is but relevant to discuss this issue especially that Congressman Conjuangco is seeking to rehabilitate the long dead Bataan Nuclear Power Plant to the tune of $1 billion!

The arguments against the nuclear plant were well presented in a newspaper editorial. The most often mentioned by the local people who have taken to the streets is that the site of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant sits on the so-called Pacific “Ring of Fire”, an arc of volcanoes and fault lines encircling the Pacific Basin (Biliran island lies on this “Ring of Fire” thus it has Geothermal potential), and is therefore prone to seismic upheaval. Although nuclear plants can be built to withstand temblors, the public remains unconvinced. Can we imagine what would have happened if such a disaster occurred here, where the concern for public safety is plainly lacking? That in itself is a strong argument for opposing the nuclear plant. With corruption extant in almost all sectors, what if the money intended for safety measures is stolen or reduced for “kickbacks”? It is very unfortunate to note that ang mga katiwaliang nangyayari noon ay nangyayari rin ngayon.

If what happened in Chernobyl were to happen here, do we have the resources, the knowledge and the technology to prevent a major disaster? The cost of Chernobyl disaster was 8 billion and still rising when reported!

Contrary to some claims, nuclear energy is not clean. Nuclear waste is deadly and cannot just be dumped. The process of creating nuclear fuel doesn’t work in reverse. Uranium cannot be dispersed back into ore and buried. Newsweek has reported that “so potent is the fear of nuclear material that the US government has not yet found a State to accept it.

What was unsafe 20 years ago cannot be made safe by a congressional action.

Have you heard or read any in-depth study made that Geothermal Energy is unsafe, unclean, or that it can be a threat to a mountain? Another point i'd like to point out here is that contrary to the caption i saw in one of the posted picture/photo in the frontpage of BiliranIsland, Geothermal exploration, development and operation will not threaten any mountain. Let it be known that the mountains and surrounding of the Biliran Geothermal will be preserved for these will play a great part in a succesful Geothermal development/operation.

Jeff
02-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Technically speaking, both are okay besides we are not the only asian even in Japan known to in the ring of fire, who have this kind of power source. However, choosing the right design for example in Geothermal must be taken into consideration. The most important there is how to keep and manage the waste and toxic bi-products.

In the case of nuclear rehab of our un-use yet delapidated nuclear power plants, as a Deputy Design Manager in Babcock Hitachi power boilers, with the modern design aspect of nuclear plants yet very costly must be taken into consideration. Few among nuclear fall-outs happened now because of stringent safety measures we consider in our design.



Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?

madlangbayan
02-10-2009, 02:39 PM
Both nuclear and geothermal are alternative sources of energy in order for our country to achieve energy independence. The basic difference between the two however, is that nuclear energy is not renewable while geothermal energy is a renewable source of energy. Greenpeace has continually warned the government of the health hazards, environmental impact, and high cost of a nuclear power plant, while on the other hand, geothermal energy is the safest renewable energy source, since it reduces the greenhouse effect or helps to avert the adverse effects of climate change.
At present government and congress are mulling over the idea of tapping the Bataan Nuclear Power plant. The House of Representatives website (www.congress.gov.ph (http://www.congress.gov.ph)) said the "Bataan Nuclear Power Plant Commissioning Act of 2008," calls for the immediate rehabilitation and operation of the BNPP to prevent an expected power shortage by the year 2012.
The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was paid for and built by the government with the people's taxes to the tune of US$ 2.3 billion. In addition, as reported in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, "The Department of Budget and Management and the Bureau of the Treasury confirmed that the $50-million allocation (over P2.5 billion) in the 2007 budget represented the last of the BNPP debt (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=34486) to be paid by the government. (A small part of the BNPP borrowings was converted in 1992 to longer-term low-interest Brady Bonds due in 2017 and 2018)." Thus, the government is at quandary as to what to do with this asset that has been totally paid for by the government and the Filipino people. (Please see attachment, a speech of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile outlining the history of our energy problems, the why's)
And I totally agree with killerqueen that there is a misconception that mountains will be destroyed. Geothermal energy development and exploration calls for an integrated approach towards sustainable environmental management of the surrounding area. Geothermal energy is safe, clean and renewable.
The main difference between the two, the nuclear power plant was built by Filipino sweat, tears and blood through our taxes, while the Biliran Geothermal will be developed and built by a private investor without using any government funds.

m1911a2
02-14-2009, 10:59 AM
The Senate and the Office of the President have in their possession an explosive study whose disclosure could very well result in the permanent shuttering of the mothballed Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and end the moves in Congress to reopen the facility.

According to environmentalist Nicanor Perlas, it is important that the four-year study be made public as Congress has now begun debates on a bill filed by Rep. Mark Cojuangco seeking to rehabilitate the BNPP at a cost of $1 billion.

He said the study, conducted in 1991 by local and foreign experts, showed that the plant’s most serious defect concerned its Quality Assurance Program, which the experts found to be sloppy and below regulation standards. This meant that there was no way to determine if the strict, precise procedures in the construction of a nuclear plant were followed which would have ensured that the plant was safe and the design specifications of Westinghouse Electric Corp., which sold the plant to the Philippine government, were met.

Even if $1 billion is spent to rehabilitate the plant, this would not be enough to cure the defects because in the first place, there is no way of pinpointing where all these problems are. There was no implementation of the Quality Assurance Program because there was no independent regulatory agency that oversaw the construction. With the absence of a Quality Assurance Program, i wonder how could someone say that this particular power plant is "okay"? I wonder if the world class certification body, ISO 9001, will certify this particular power plant.

We cannot afford to waste another billion dollars on a project that is rightfully dead. With so much to be spent for its rehabilitation, is this the time to revive this folly of Marcos corruption? Could the money not be used for more urgent needs of the poor like schools and hospitals? I hope Cong. Chong will take action to avert this move of his colleague in Congress in rehabilitating the BNPP.

In the know…
The 630 megawatt plant was built in 1976 at a cost of $500 million amid allegations that Westinghouse had paid bribes to Marcos to get the contract. The Aquino administration closed down the plant because of safety concerns, and sued Westinghouse in the US for the return of money paid for the plant. It lost the case in 1993. In 2007, the Philippine finally paid off the cost of the plant at a final price tag of $ 2.3 billion! CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT? THE PHILIPPINES PAID $2.3 BILLION FOR THAT USELESS PROJECT !!!

Jeff
02-17-2009, 11:48 AM
Contruction of any kind of power plants either using fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal...etc. must qualify or follow known regulations, such as ASME, EN, or METI code and standards. There will be third party inspectors (AI or NOBO) who will undergo series of verifications and evaluations like HSB, TUV and many known power plant auditors which our Government should employ to verify the capacity such as workmanship, design and technology, including the disposal and environmental concerns which being considered by the Turnkey contractors and allied technical consultants. Those contractors who can't comply will be disqualified to handle the project or refurbishment works.

Everything from start to finish shall be regulated and controlled.

KillerQueen
02-22-2009, 07:50 PM
I agree that the construction of any power plant must conform, qualify, follow known regulations from ASME, etc. but in the case of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, i must reiterate that "There was no implementation of the Quality Assurance Program because there was no independent regulatory agency that oversaw the construction." With this fact, how could the BNPP be "okay"?

How could our Government employ the HSB, TUV or any other power plant auditors when in the very first place there's no way to determine and verify if the strict procedure of constructing a nuclear power plant was followed?

Again, i will ask, "if what happen to Chernobyl were to happen here, do we have the facilities, the knowledge, the technology and the financial resources to prevent a major disaster?"

Jeff
02-23-2009, 01:41 PM
If that is true that our government that act as the buyer didn't have any consultant or a third party who will check the over all aspect of the project if it conformed to the prevailing standard then that is a very big blunder to us. So strange, it should not our government must chose technically but other party is more capable to award it to Westinghouse with out any verification and evaluation. However, if our Government is really serious of resurrecting this beleaguered, unpresidented nuclear power plant, the government must at first hire power plant designer and consultant like MHI, Babcock Hitachi, Foster Wheeler...to check and verify of the test records, Basic Design calculations, qualifications, material specifications (MTR or material test reports), commissioning and so on so forth. It's not only the quality assurance but the Design itself most important is the residual disposal and all pollution control system, water treatment and other by-products. There are always blue prints to check and verify and no way our Government can't find them.



I agree that the construction of any power plant must conform, qualify, follow known regulations from ASME, etc. but in the case of Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, i must reiterate that "There was no implementation of the Quality Assurance Program because there was no independent regulatory agency that oversaw the construction." With this fact, how could the BNPP be "okay"?

How could our Government employ the HSB, TUV or any other power plant auditors when in the very first place there's no way to determine and verify if the strict procedure of constructing a nuclear power plant was followed?

Again, i will ask, "if what happen to Chernobyl were to happen here, do we have the facilities, the knowledge, the technology and the financial resources to prevent a major disaster?"

madlangbayan
02-24-2009, 02:02 PM
Well all your comments hold water. I think the government is in big bind right now. It's a damn if you do, damn if you don't kind of proposition. The problem is if they don't make use of it, why the hell did we pay for it. And if we decide to use it, is it really safe. I guess that should have been decided after Marcos left the country, in that way, we would not have wasted our precious dollars just to pay off that debt. Sometimes, government really misses on some important decisions and planning.
Now we are left with a power plant, unsure of what to do with the thing.

Jeff
02-25-2009, 03:07 PM
Verifying from the drawing board will take time and huge amount to do so, added the amortization of debt that we have to pay until now. Bottom line there is no assurance if that power plant is really safe, viable and worthy to resurrect.

pinoyisip
02-26-2009, 04:54 AM
Again, i will ask, "if what happen to Chernobyl were to happen here, do we have the facilities, the knowledge, the technology and the financial resources to prevent a major disaster?"


Simple answer, KQ:
People will just die of course....he he he...
and that's how our corrupt politicians/"those brilliant guys" will laugh
all the way to their banks...:D


ho! ho! ho! - poor/pity, us people, oh, dear God.:bawling:
Malo-oy intaon mo.....

m1911a2
02-26-2009, 06:20 PM
Huh? Since when that what’s been dead could and would hold water? Here’s these points I’d like you guys to note and note very well:

1.) The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a Marcos folly. Our taxes were used to pay for this hazardous, useless piece of junk. Are we gonna let another foolish congressman waste our taxes for this hazardous, foolish and useless piece of junk? If you’d ask me what to do with this junk, I’d say let it sit there and let every passersby know be reminded how corrupt the Philippine government was and is now! A very expensive monument of corrupt government huh?

2.) No matter how many experts the corrupt Philippine government would hire, no matter who this experts are, no matter how many times these experts would evaluate and verify the design and it’s calculations, they cannot, I repeat, they cannot guarantee and am very certain that they would not certify that this Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is practically sound. What is theoretically and technically sound doesn’t mean to be practically sound. The Carnot and the Rankine engines were all theoretically and technically sound but they’re not practically sound, that’s why we have this Re-heat and Regenerative cycles.

3.) Bobcock and other power plant and engineering firms were not enough to ascertain that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is safe. Remember guys that this BNPP was built by Westinghouse and that Marcos and his allies received bribed money for this project. How could we be sure that foreign power plant engineering firms and our corrupt government will not have another collusion in rehabilitating this BNPP? The ultimate assurance that a power plant is technically and practically sound is a third, independent body that would oversaw the project, before, during and after its construction.

4.) What has to be done to ensure the safety of the BNPP during it’s construction stage cannot be ascertained that it was done, and since it cannot be ascertain it follows that the BNPP is and will not be safe no matter how much dollars this government would spend.

KillerQueen
03-01-2009, 10:45 AM
Hi M19,
Allow me to add the result of my research:

The International Atomic Energy Agency had checked the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and found out that if it become operational, BNPP will be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in the world. Wow! A magnificent title huh? Are we gonna be proud that our beloved country has that power plant?

IAEA also said that the BNPP which has a light water reactor made by Westinghouse did not conform to the current safety standards. IAEA added that the design of the BNPP was not only outdated but also faulty.

The BNPP’s compliance to IAEA nuclear plant construction and site selection protocols were already in doubt even before BNPP was finished. BNPP was never evaluated according to standards of the IAEA which was raised after the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown. Today’s present standard for nuclear reactors is “Generation 3”, which has double containment for its reactor and passive safety systems. The BNPP has a “Generation 2” reactor. IAEA cannot ascertain whether the BNPP can be upgraded to meet the current reactor standards.

Modern Power Systems, a US based publication on power systems, revealed that Westinghouse reactors were breaking down with alarming regularity because of design defects, including cracks in the main steam turbines, rapid deterioration of the steam generator tubes and the reactor pressure valve turning brittle. They also cited problems of other nuclear plants designed by Westinghouse and similar to the BNPP in Brazil and South Korea, which were plagued by outages and leakages of radioactive water.

A recent study made by nuclear experts headed by James Keppler, a former official of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that his review team found pervasive and significant defects on the plant’s design, construction, quality assurance and start-up testing procedure.

According to Keppler, the identified deficiencies are so pervasive and severe that the plant cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health and safety.

As you can see, detailed and extensive studies had been made asserting the negative side of the BNPP. How can this nuclear power plant be “okay”? Are we gonna sacrifice the safety of the many for the benefit of the few?

Jeff
03-02-2009, 03:09 PM
In time of crisis, our government should look better alternative power source rather than resurrecting a putrefied plant.



Huh? Since when that what’s been dead could and would hold water? Here’s these points I’d like you guys to note and note very well:

1.) The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is a Marcos folly. Our taxes were used to pay for this hazardous, useless piece of junk. Are we gonna let another foolish congressman waste our taxes for this hazardous, foolish and useless piece of junk? If you’d ask me what to do with this junk, I’d say let it sit there and let every passersby know be reminded how corrupt the Philippine government was and is now! A very expensive monument of corrupt government huh?

2.) No matter how many experts the corrupt Philippine government would hire, no matter who this experts are, no matter how many times these experts would evaluate and verify the design and it’s calculations, they cannot, I repeat, they cannot guarantee and am very certain that they would not certify that this Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is practically sound. What is theoretically and technically sound doesn’t mean to be practically sound. The Carnot and the Rankine engines were all theoretically and technically sound but they’re not practically sound, that’s why we have this Re-heat and Regenerative cycles.

===> Under ASME Section III, this can be verified but long process since this will entail rigorous review from the drawing board to commissioning stage (if there is). All of this process undergo ITP or Inspection Test Package (but this has to be verified deeply).


3.) Bobcock and other power plant and engineering firms were not enough to ascertain that the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant is safe. Remember guys that this BNPP was built by Westinghouse and that Marcos and his allies received bribed money for this project. How could we be sure that foreign power plant engineering firms and our corrupt government will not have another collusion in rehabilitating this BNPP? The ultimate assurance that a power plant is technically and practically sound is a third, independent body that would oversaw the project, before, during and after its construction.

=====> Boiler Designer and Manufacturing firms like Babcock has the capacity to investigate and submit reports to our Government and our Government will have to hire the service of HSB or TUV to check the reports and the records then this NOBO or certifying body will give the final conclusion to the Government. However this will cost fortune to reinvestigate again. This need serious attention and lots of painstaking expenses from the pockets of our fellow filipinos.

4.) What has to be done to ensure the safety of the BNPP during it’s construction stage cannot be ascertained that it was done, and since it cannot be ascertain it follows that the BNPP is and will not be safe no matter how much dollars this government would spend.

KillerQueen
03-02-2009, 05:26 PM
Yes your right, Japan has a number of nuclear power plant and yes they too sits under the so-called "Pacific Ring of Fire" but none of these nuclear power plants were designed and built by Westinghouse. The Japanese government allowed an independent, third party to oversaw the construction. The NUS and DNV certified their start-up and commissioning procedures. The International Atomic Energy Agency certified Japan's Quality Assurance Program.

In contrast, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was built by Westinghouse. It's design and construction was outdated and faulty. There's no need to hire Bobcock, TUV or HSB. Nuclear power plant experts from US Nuclear Energy Commission and IAEA had already made their investigation and already made public their findings.

"... the identified deficiencies of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant are so pervasive and severe that the plant cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health and safety."

Jeff
03-10-2009, 01:36 PM
In fairness to Westinghouse Electric Company. Nuclear power is a proven, safe, plentiful and clean source of power generation, and Westinghouse Electric Company, is one of the pioneer and global leader in nuclear plant design and construction (even now they still exist), infact they are the only one of the first who receive Design Certification from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in designing nuclear reactor in early times. What happened during the time of design and construction of BNPP can't be blame directly to the designer and the one who constructed it, there is no records of test being conducted that pointed out the direct failure to the designer or in the construction that time. The Philippine Government as the owner should have a third party inspector and consultants to oversee whole process from the drawing board to the commissioning stage. In my opinion, it is purely negligence in our Government officials that time who handle the said project maybe due to Project Management failure.

Latest information from Westinghouse Electric Company, they were able to design latest and advanced 1154 MWe nuclear power plant that uses the forces of nature and simplicity of design to enhance plant safety and operations and reduce construction costs.



Yes your right, Japan has a number of nuclear power plant and yes they too sits under the so-called "Pacific Ring of Fire" but none of these nuclear power plants were designed and built by Westinghouse. The Japanese government allowed an independent, third party to oversaw the construction. The NUS and DNV certified their start-up and commissioning procedures. The International Atomic Energy Agency certified Japan's Quality Assurance Program.

In contrast, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was built by Westinghouse. It's design and construction was outdated and faulty. There's no need to hire Bobcock, TUV or HSB. Nuclear power plant experts from US Nuclear Energy Commission and IAEA had already made their investigation and already made public their findings.

"... the identified deficiencies of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant are so pervasive and severe that the plant cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health and safety."

Jeff
03-10-2009, 01:47 PM
Yes, Japan is not dependent or relying to US or any European Nuclear or Boiler Plant Design and Construction when it comes to power generator and provider in Japan,like my Company(Hitachi) is now one of the leading designers when it comes to power generations. So it it's not surprising why Westinghouse as mentioned haven't erected nuclear power plant in Japan. Please note that Japan METI standard is more stringent than ASME but almost equal to EN code when it comes to nuclear power generations.

KillerQueen
03-10-2009, 07:11 PM
Tsk! Tsk! If I remember it right, the thread starter states, “Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?”

If one will be patient enough to read, one will notice that M1911 and I were consistent in our stand and in our replies. With the indulgence of M1911a2 i took the liberty in posting our points, hence:

1. If what happened in Chernobyl were to happen here, do we have the resources, the knowledge and the technology to prevent a major disaster?

2. What was unsafe 20 years ago cannot be made safe by a congressional action.

3. The plant’s most serious defect concerned its Quality Assurance Program, which the experts found to be sloppy and below regulation standards. This meant that there was no way to determine if the strict, precise procedures in the construction of a nuclear plant were followed which would have ensured that the plant was safe and the design specifications of Westinghouse Electric Corp., which sold the plant to the Philippine government, were met.

4. How could our Government employ the HSB, TUV or any other power plant auditors when in the very first place there's no way to determine and verify if the strict procedure of constructing a nuclear power plant was followed?

5. How could we be sure that foreign power plant engineering firms and our corrupt government will not have another collusion in rehabilitating this BNPP? The ultimate assurance that a power plant is technically and practically sound is a third, independent body that would oversaw the project, before, during and after its construction.

6. The International Atomic Energy Agency had checked the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and found out that if it become operational, BNPP will be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in the world.

7. IAEA also said that the BNPP which has a light water reactor made by Westinghouse did not conform to the current safety standards. IAEA added that the design of the BNPP was not only outdated but also faulty.

8. The BNPP’s compliance to IAEA nuclear plant construction and site selection protocols were already in doubt even before BNPP was finished. BNPP was never evaluated according to standards of the IAEA which was raised after the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown. Today’s present standard for nuclear reactors is “Generation 3”, which has double containment for its reactor and passive safety systems. The BNPP has a “Generation 2” reactor. IAEA cannot ascertain whether the BNPP can be upgraded to meet the current reactor standards.

9. Westinghouse reactors were breaking down with alarming regularity because of design defects, including cracks in the main steam turbines, rapid deterioration of the steam generator tubes and the reactor pressure valve turning brittle. They also cited problems of other nuclear plants designed by Westinghouse and similar to the BNPP in Brazil and South Korea, which were plagued by outages and leakages of radioactive water. (With these findings, would you still trust reactors made by Westinghouse?)

10. According to Keppler, the identified deficiencies are so pervasive and severe that the plant cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health and safety.

11. When I mentioned about Japan and its nuclear power plants, its for the purpose of making a comparison with the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.

If I’d be candid with you, as a “Deputy Design Manager” for Bobcock Hitachi, with your technical expertise, with your knowledge in ASME, EN, METI etc, what’s your stand?

Again, this thread starts with this: “Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?”

KillerQueen
03-10-2009, 08:34 PM
“……Nuclear power is a proven, safe, plentiful and clean source of power generation….”

Allow me to expound my disagreement with your statement as stated above to wit:

Nuclear power in fact undermines climate protection and can only make a negligible contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction.

The nuclear industry would like us to believe that nuclear power offers a much better option for generating electricity because it does not release significant amounts of greenhouse gases or toxic pollution. However, nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the “clean air energy.”

Uranium mining, milling, leaching, plant construction and decommissioning are all energy-intensive activities which produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high-grade uranium are depleted.

Even assuming that the nuclear industry is the largest carbon-free energy source, as proponents claim, even if the industry quadruples its generating capacity, this would only reduce CO2 emissions from the energy sector by a mere six percent by 2050. Yet to achieve that, 1,300 large reactors would have to be built. That means one reactor every two weeks, starting from today to 2050, with investment costs reaching up to $10 trillion.

Add this to the insurmountable problem of radioactive nuclear waste whose toxicity lasts for 12,000 human generations, and nuclear energy is clearly not the right choice and should definitely not be part of any power generation.

Now, how can nuclear power be safe and clean source of power generation? Let's face this fact: until now, countries operating nuclear power plants around the world were in a quandary about their radioactive nuclear waste.

Again, i'll never get tired raising these points that until now has not been addressed:

1. If it become operational, BNPP will be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in the world.

2.The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant was built by Westinghouse. It's design and construction was outdated and faulty. Westinghouse's reactors were breaking down with alarming regularity because of design defects, including cracks in the main steam turbines, rapid deterioration of the steam generator tubes and the reactor pressure valve turning brittle. They also cited problems of other nuclear plants designed by Westinghouse and similar to the BNPP in Brazil and South Korea, which were plagued by outages and leakages of radioactive water.

3. The identified deficiencies are so pervasive and severe that the plant cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health and safety.

4. What was unsafe 20 years ago cannot be made safe by a congressional action. The BNPP was declared unsafe 20 years ago and cannot be made safe by a congressional action.

Jeff
03-11-2009, 04:13 PM
Before I give to you my stand, please note that this plant was not tested to run the more that it was not operational to generate electricity for 20 years. Imagine this was not operated meaning, there is no maintenance or any preventive action done to the whole plant. anot running, and no one cares it strictly in accordance to standard.

With regards to what you said that the design is already outdated imagine 20 years, of course there are many design changes for those years. Have you seen a power plant that the building is lika a mall? Yes, there is. We can't compare the technology before and today.

Regarding TUV, HSB and TUV these companies are third party inspectors (NOBO), as I said in my previous forum, they can only act or give service if they have records of conducted test and inspection, if they have the blue print of the original BASIC design, if they have the QA&QC records so on and so forth. BUT if there is none our government can provide or Westinghouse can give then it is impossible for them to check, this what I meant in our previous discussion.

If IAEA confirmed with records and proof not hearsays that it can be dangerous to operate it then no one among US can contradict it.

Now if you are asking my expertise with regards to my stand about raising BNPP back to life, as I mentioned, the plant is not running for 20 years meaning 100% of all the components are no longer reliable, no maintenance records, no proof of evidence of Quality control and assurance due to no availability of final commissioning test results, therefore I could say I am not in favor to run the plant.

Thank you.





Tsk! Tsk! If I remember it right, the thread starter states, “Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?”

If one will be patient enough to read, one will notice that M1911 and I were consistent in our stand and in our replies. With the indulgence of M1911a2 i took the liberty in posting our points, hence:

1. If what happened in Chernobyl were to happen here, do we have the resources, the knowledge and the technology to prevent a major disaster?

2. What was unsafe 20 years ago cannot be made safe by a congressional action.

3. The plant’s most serious defect concerned its Quality Assurance Program, which the experts found to be sloppy and below regulation standards. This meant that there was no way to determine if the strict, precise procedures in the construction of a nuclear plant were followed which would have ensured that the plant was safe and the design specifications of Westinghouse Electric Corp., which sold the plant to the Philippine government, were met.

4. How could our Government employ the HSB, TUV or any other power plant auditors when in the very first place there's no way to determine and verify if the strict procedure of constructing a nuclear power plant was followed?

5. How could we be sure that foreign power plant engineering firms and our corrupt government will not have another collusion in rehabilitating this BNPP? The ultimate assurance that a power plant is technically and practically sound is a third, independent body that would oversaw the project, before, during and after its construction.

6. The International Atomic Energy Agency had checked the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and found out that if it become operational, BNPP will be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in the world.

7. IAEA also said that the BNPP which has a light water reactor made by Westinghouse did not conform to the current safety standards. IAEA added that the design of the BNPP was not only outdated but also faulty.

8. The BNPP’s compliance to IAEA nuclear plant construction and site selection protocols were already in doubt even before BNPP was finished. BNPP was never evaluated according to standards of the IAEA which was raised after the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown. Today’s present standard for nuclear reactors is “Generation 3”, which has double containment for its reactor and passive safety systems. The BNPP has a “Generation 2” reactor. IAEA cannot ascertain whether the BNPP can be upgraded to meet the current reactor standards.

9. Westinghouse reactors were breaking down with alarming regularity because of design defects, including cracks in the main steam turbines, rapid deterioration of the steam generator tubes and the reactor pressure valve turning brittle. They also cited problems of other nuclear plants designed by Westinghouse and similar to the BNPP in Brazil and South Korea, which were plagued by outages and leakages of radioactive water. (With these findings, would you still trust reactors made by Westinghouse?)

10. According to Keppler, the identified deficiencies are so pervasive and severe that the plant cannot be expected to operate safely and without undue risk to public health and safety.

11. When I mentioned about Japan and its nuclear power plants, its for the purpose of making a comparison with the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant.

If I’d be candid with you, as a “Deputy Design Manager” for Bobcock Hitachi, with your technical expertise, with your knowledge in ASME, EN, METI etc, what’s your stand?

Again, this thread starts with this: “Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?”

KillerQueen
03-16-2009, 11:38 PM
“……Nuclear power is a proven, safe, plentiful and clean source of power generation….”

Something terribly wrong is going on for nuclear power to be considered “proven safe, plentiful and clean energy”. Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change and it creates more problems than it purports to solve.

Believers in nuclear power, like Rep. Mark Cojuangco, think that climate change is their best argument. Nuclear power, they say is the only alternative to the dirty coal fuel. But notice how, when they talk about nuclear power, they omit or belittle renewable energy. To admit that renewable energy works (it does) renders nuclear power irrelevant.

The strongest case against nuclear power is safety, a serious concern downplayed by its proponents. They have to. Although the nuclear industry claims that new designs have made a disaster a remote possibility, the reality is that the threat remains.

Compared with other power sources, only nuclear energy can turn entire regions into radioactive wastelands, and cause cancer and mutation that can be passed on to tens of generations.

Clearly, the risks from nuclear energy are real. If disasters are possible, the risk of one happening soon is just as great as it happening later. So, the debate is not whether a nuclear accident can happen (it can), but whether we are ready to face the consequences when it does.

This concern is deliberately buried in the efforts to revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. While the Cojuangco bill seeking to activate the BNPP is stalled, attempts to force it through persist. The congressional numbers game (now at 194) is being used to advance what is perhaps the most irresponsible legislation ever proposed in the House of Representatives.

What can be worse than reviving a mothballed nuclear plant, inherently unsafe, further judged unsafe by every single study conducted on its premises?

Safe nuclear reactors are a myth! The whole life cycle of a nuclear plant is fraught with danger. Mining, processing, transporting and using radioactive fuel are risky. During operation, radioactive material is discharged into the atmosphere and bodies of water.

Worse, its waste product, plutonium, is more deadly than the fuel. Its deadliness lasts more than 240,000 years, requiring storage with garrison-like security. Plutonium has two particular characteristics: it is of high strategic value for weapons and it is highly radiotoxic. A few kilos are enough for nuclear weapon and a few micrograms can cause fatal cancer.

A major accident in a light water reactor can cause radioactive releases several times those at Chernobyl and about 1000 times that caused by a fission weapon. Evacuation can be needed for areas as large as 100,000 sq.m (as big as Luzon) and cancer deaths can exceed one million.

The death toll at Chernobyl is not 60. A Belarus study estimates at least 270,000 cancer cases and 93,000 fatalities from cancer in the years that followed the meltdown. The safety records of the BNPP’s sister plants are shady. A cooling system leak shutdown the plant in Slovenia in 2008. No deaths were reported but the incident could have triggered a catastrophe. Nuclear power is thus electricity generation living on the edge.

Even without accidents, most radioactive contamination comes form the decommissioning of reactors and leaks from in-storage sites. The Hanford nuclear complex in Washington, USA, is now the site of the biggest environmental cleanup. The cleanup started in the late 1990s and continues today, costing taxpayers $2 billion a year. Here, the problem of nuclear waste rears its ugly head: scientists cannot stabilize the 55 million gallons of radioactive waste which have leaked into the soil and water. There is no known scientific solution to nuclear waste. The only thing that can be done with the waste is to store it and pray it doesn’t leak in your lifetime.

With such inherent problems, nuclear power is clearly not the energy of choice. Rather, it is the energy of “no choice,” only considered if there is no alternative source of power. After all, who would choose nuclear power - grotesquely expensive and hideously unsafe, whose fuel requires vast amounts of electricity to enrich, whose decommissioning and waste storage each cost more than the plant itself, and whose waste is infinitely more deadly than its fuel - when there are better sources of electricity?

This is the stark reality of nuclear energy that the industry downplays, and which Cojuangco and other proponents of rehabilitating the BNPP is trying so desperately to sweep under the rug. But at whose expense?

What makes nuclear power so abhorrent to taxpayers is what makes it so attractive to dubious politicians and monopolistic business interests. This is also why nuclear power can only prevail when these same politicians and business interests devalue renewables.

What makes renewable energy undesirable to certain politicians and monopolies is what makes it so beneficial to taxpayers. Renewable energy systems take shorter periods to build, cost less and the fuel (wind and solar) is the sort that can’t be cornered by industry or subjected to anomalous supply contracts.

Nuclear power has been harnessed by other countries, but just because they expose their nations to risks doesn’t mean that we should do, too. The nuclear industry has been trying vainly to shed the disgraceful association between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons programs, building the myth of safe, clean and cheap nuclear power.

Measured against the criteria of reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy, nuclear power fails on all counts.

Jeff
03-17-2009, 10:28 AM
You've been doing your full research about the negative side of Nuclear Power Plants, but it would be much appreciated if you can do also a research about the good side of it so that the readers may at least balance or people can think which is more appropriate. And also, if I have to add, since this research of yours is somehow giving enlightenment to the readers, I suggest that you need to discuss this matter or bring this up to our congress so that they may at least review and discuss matters before they will agree by voting on reviving the BNPP.



“……Nuclear power is a proven, safe, plentiful and clean source of power generation….”

Something terribly wrong is going on for nuclear power to be considered “proven safe, plentiful and clean energy”. Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change and it creates more problems than it purports to solve.

Believers in nuclear power, like Rep. Mark Cojuangco, think that climate change is their best argument. Nuclear power, they say is the only alternative to the dirty coal fuel. But notice how, when they talk about nuclear power, they omit or belittle renewable energy. To admit that renewable energy works (it does) renders nuclear power irrelevant.

The strongest case against nuclear power is safety, a serious concern downplayed by its proponents. They have to. Although the nuclear industry claims that new designs have made a disaster a remote possibility, the reality is that the threat remains.

Compared with other power sources, only nuclear energy can turn entire regions into radioactive wastelands, and cause cancer and mutation that can be passed on to tens of generations.

Clearly, the risks from nuclear energy are real. If disasters are possible, the risk of one happening soon is just as great as it happening later. So, the debate is not whether a nuclear accident can happen (it can), but whether we are ready to face the consequences when it does.

This concern is deliberately buried in the efforts to revive the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. While the Cojuangco bill seeking to activate the BNPP is stalled, attempts to force it through persist. The congressional numbers game (now at 194) is being used to advance what is perhaps the most irresponsible legislation ever proposed in the House of Representatives.

What can be worse than reviving a mothballed nuclear plant, inherently unsafe, further judged unsafe by every single study conducted on its premises?

Safe nuclear reactors are a myth! The whole life cycle of a nuclear plant is fraught with danger. Mining, processing, transporting and using radioactive fuel are risky. During operation, radioactive material is discharged into the atmosphere and bodies of water.

Worse, its waste product, plutonium, is more deadly than the fuel. Its deadliness lasts more than 240,000 years, requiring storage with garrison-like security. Plutonium has two particular characteristics: it is of high strategic value for weapons and it is highly radiotoxic. A few kilos are enough for nuclear weapon and a few micrograms can cause fatal cancer.

A major accident in a light water reactor can cause radioactive releases several times those at Chernobyl and about 1000 times that caused by a fission weapon. Evacuation can be needed for areas as large as 100,000 sq.m (as big as Luzon) and cancer deaths can exceed one million.

The death toll at Chernobyl is not 60. A Belarus study estimates at least 270,000 cancer cases and 93,000 fatalities from cancer in the years that followed the meltdown. The safety records of the BNPP’s sister plants are shady. A cooling system leak shutdown the plant in Slovenia in 2008. No deaths were reported but the incident could have triggered a catastrophe. Nuclear power is thus electricity generation living on the edge.

Even without accidents, most radioactive contamination comes form the decommissioning of reactors and leaks from in-storage sites. The Hanford nuclear complex in Washington, USA, is now the site of the biggest environmental cleanup. The cleanup started in the late 1990s and continues today, costing taxpayers $2 billion a year. Here, the problem of nuclear waste rears its ugly head: scientists cannot stabilize the 55 million gallons of radioactive waste which have leaked into the soil and water. There is no known scientific solution to nuclear waste. The only thing that can be done with the waste is to store it and pray it doesn’t leak in your lifetime.

With such inherent problems, nuclear power is clearly not the energy of choice. Rather, it is the energy of “no choice,” only considered if there is no alternative source of power. After all, who would choose nuclear power - grotesquely expensive and hideously unsafe, whose fuel requires vast amounts of electricity to enrich, whose decommissioning and waste storage each cost more than the plant itself, and whose waste is infinitely more deadly than its fuel - when there are better sources of electricity?

This is the stark reality of nuclear energy that the industry downplays, and which Cojuangco and other proponents of rehabilitating the BNPP is trying so desperately to sweep under the rug. But at whose expense?

What makes nuclear power so abhorrent to taxpayers is what makes it so attractive to dubious politicians and monopolistic business interests. This is also why nuclear power can only prevail when these same politicians and business interests devalue renewables.

What makes renewable energy undesirable to certain politicians and monopolies is what makes it so beneficial to taxpayers. Renewable energy systems take shorter periods to build, cost less and the fuel (wind and solar) is the sort that can’t be cornered by industry or subjected to anomalous supply contracts.

Nuclear power has been harnessed by other countries, but just because they expose their nations to risks doesn’t mean that we should do, too. The nuclear industry has been trying vainly to shed the disgraceful association between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons programs, building the myth of safe, clean and cheap nuclear power.

Measured against the criteria of reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy, nuclear power fails on all counts.

KillerQueen
03-18-2009, 11:41 PM
Modesty aside, these research of mine was just a “tip of the iceberg” as compared to the studies, evaluations, test and research results that is in possession of the Senate. Because of the overwhelming reasons of the “negative” side of the BNPP, both the Aquino and the Ramos administration didn’t bother to raise the issue of rehabilitating the mothballed nuclear plant.
In all humility, I also made a research about the good side of the nuclear plant, that was way back in the mid 1990’s when I was doing my……… hahaha! Sorry, I can’t divulge my …. For sure am not a Depu… opps” just suffice it to say that the “negative” outweigh the “positive”, thus there is no reason for me to publish the “positive” side. And because I really cared for the environment, because I cared for the generation to come and because of what I’ve gathered from my studies, I opt to dwell and stand with the “negative” side. And with what I knew about the issue at hand, I believe it is my duty to inform if not to educate the people about the myths and perils of the nuclear plant.
Peace Jing/Jeff, I believe you’re a technical person. Am a technical person too. Am presently connected with …….. as a ………. Hehehehe.
PS.
I agree when you said: You’ve learned to care when others do not care back or words to that effect. But do you really care?

KillerQueen
03-18-2009, 11:44 PM
Modesty aside, these research of mine was just a “tip of the iceberg” as compared to the studies, evaluations, test and research results that is in possession of the Senate. Because of the overwhelming reasons of the “negative” side of the BNPP, both the Aquino and the Ramos administration didn’t bother to raise the issue of rehabilitating the mothballed nuclear plant.
In all humility, I also made a research about the good side of the nuclear plant, that was way back in the mid 1990’s when I was doing my……… hahaha! Sorry, I can’t divulge my …. For sure am not a Depu… opps” just suffice it to say that the “negative” outweigh the “positive”, thus there is no reason for me to publish the “positive” side. And because I really cared for the environment, because I cared for the generation to come and because of what I’ve gathered from my studies, I opt to dwell and stand with the “negative” side. And with what I knew about the issue at hand, I believe it is my duty to inform if not to educate the people about the myths and perils of the nuclear plant.
Peace Jing/Jeff, I believe you’re a technical person. Am a technical person too. Am presently connected with …….. as a ………. Hehehehe.
PS.
I agree when you said: You’ve learned to care when others do not care back or words to that effect. But do you really care? Come, join me and the others to the "negative" side.
:)

KillerQueen
03-18-2009, 11:45 PM
Modesty aside, these research of mine was just a “tip of the iceberg” as compared to the studies, evaluations, test and research results that is in possession of the Senate. Because of the overwhelming reasons of the “negative” side of the BNPP, both the Aquino and the Ramos administration didn’t bother to raise the issue of rehabilitating the mothballed nuclear plant.
In all humility, I also made a research about the good side of the nuclear plant, that was way back in the mid 1990’s when I was doing my……… hahaha! Sorry, I can’t divulge my …. For sure am not a Depu… opps” just suffice it to say that the “negative” outweigh the “positive”, thus there is no reason for me to publish the “positive” side. And because I really cared for the environment, because I cared for the generation to come and because of what I’ve gathered from my studies, I opt to dwell and stand with the “negative” side. And with what I knew about the issue at hand, I believe it is my duty to inform if not to educate the people about the myths and perils of the nuclear plant.
Peace Jing/Jeff, I believe you’re a technical person. Am a technical person too. Am presently connected with …….. as a ………. Hehehehe.
PS.
I agree when you said: You’ve learned to care when others do not care back or words to that effect. But do you really care? Come, join me and the others to the "negative" side.
:)

KillerQueen
03-19-2009, 12:04 AM
Jalmz kindly rectify my multiple reply, it seems i have a problem with my server.

My apologies for the hassle.:(

Europa
03-19-2009, 09:36 AM
Nuclear power is a proven, safe, plentiful and clean source of power generation….”

In some places or countries this are proven. One country I know is Finland they have 2 nuclear power plant.,as far as I know they dont have cases like what we have in the Philippines..maybe the government in this country walay mga hidden agenda, specially when money is involve, they think what is good for thiere people..Unlike Philippines pag pinasukan na ng isang corrupt na opisyal ang isang project, they dont care what happen to the said project makasama man or makabuti sa bansa ang maha
laga KWARTA na maipasok sa bulsa..

KillerQueen
03-20-2009, 04:49 PM
Mawalang galang na po sa inyo Ms. Europa pero its not just because you knew that there’s a couple of nuclear power plant in Finland that you’ll say that nuclear power is proven safe, plentiful and clean source of power. You may have stayed in Finland and other part of Europe but have you made an in-depth study of their nuclear power plants? Did you know how they treat their radioactive wastes from their nuclear power plants? In Helsinki alone more than 50% of their nuclear experts had confide to me that until now, they’re in a dilemma where to dispose their radioactive wastes. Until now they have not made a lasting solution to their radioactive wastes.

Is that proven safe? Will it be clean? No Ms. Europa, its not. As what I’ve said in my previous posts, nuclear power to be proven safe, plentiful, and clean source of power is just a myth.

KillerQueen
03-20-2009, 04:58 PM
Rep. Mark Cojuangco should have realized that he took on a huge burden of proof, with his proposal to activate the BNPP, for at least two reasons:
• The public is acquainted with the BNPP’s well-documented history of corruption under the Marcos regime ranging from substandard construction materials and practices to bribes to the president, as described in the book “Debts of Dishonor.”
• Three major official studies had found the BNPP unfit to operate: a technical study by a team of over 15 nuclear experts assembled by NUS Corp. in 1988; a second study, also under the term of President Corazon Aquino, by a team of 50 nuclear experts commissioned in 1990; and a third review conducted after a proposal to revive the plant was raised under the term of President Fidel Ramos, which again led the government to decide otherwise.

Cojuangco has failed to prove his case because of the following:
• He completely ignores official studies. Instead, he justifies his proposal with miscellaneous factoids on nuclear plants in other countries, selectively culled from the Web and Wikipedia.
• At the Feb. 2 public hearing conducted by the House of Representatives, he could neither cite nor present detailed technical, economic or financial feasibililty studies on the BNPP, obviously because he has not done any.
• His claim that “in the 50 year history of the nuclear power industry in the West, including the Three Mile Island incident, not a single person has been killed or injured” is so blatantly false it boggles the mind that a congressman would expose himself so.

An Internet search easily reveals the following deaths from nuclear plant accidents outside of Chernobyl: one death in Rhode Island, USA in 1964; two in Virginia, USA in 1986; two in Japan in 2000 (from a 1999 accident; another four in Japan in 2004; and two in Pakistan in 2008.
• At least three published scientific studies (Wing 1996, Chang 2003 and Kaatsch 2007) show that the incidence of leukemia and other cancers, especially among children, is higher within a 5-10 km radius of nuclear plants.
• His $1 billion BNPP rehabilitation cost estimate comes from a questionable method based on comparable coal plant costs, instead of detailed cost estimates of actual services and materials for nuclear plants.
• He claims that the BNPP will provide the cheapest electricity without giving any actual figures or providing any supporting financial study. He cites cheap nuclear electricity in France, the United States and elsewhere, ignoring the fact that their nuclear industries are heavily subsidized for nuclear bomb production.
• His warning of a possible power crisis in 2012 is based on overestimated demand projections made before the global recession.
• Rep. Cojuangco’s Inquirer piece forces on the public a false “either or” choice between nuclear and fossil fuels, ignoring such viable options like hydro, geothermal, biomass, solar and wind.
• While the rest of the world wants to subsidize renewable energy sources to increase demand and hasten a drop in prices, Cojuangco’s bill will instead tax renewables to subsidize nuclear power, which is bizarre.

Europa
03-20-2009, 08:56 PM
Dear Killer queen:

As your expert sources probably know, the nuclear fuel disposal has been solved in Finland already more than 10 years ago.

They have setup a company called Posiva responsible for the handling and storaging of the waste. The company is owned by the government and the facility is ready for use. Please I am not an engineer, nor an expert, my judgement in this case ..kong ano lang ang nabasa ko,,thats all.

You can find more information below.

Best Regards,
Europa

---

The Principles for Final Disposal

Spent nuclear fuel will be stored in copper canisters inside Olkiluoto bedrock, in the depth of about 400 meters.

Final Disposal Canister: (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/en/final_disposal/the_principles_for_final_disposal/the_final_disposal_canister/) The fuel is packed in a gas-tight, corrosion-resistant canister made of copper and cast iron that protects the fuel assemblies from the mechanical stress occurring deep inside the bedrock.

Bentonite Barrier: (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/en/final_disposal/the_principles_for_final_disposal/bentonite_barrier/)The final disposal canister is surrounded with bentonite clay that protects the canister from any potential jolts in the bedrock and diminishes the movement of water in the proximity of the canister.

Bedrock: (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/en/final_disposal/the_principles_for_final_disposal/the_surrounding_bedrock/) The bedrock provides the canister and bentonite with conditions where changes are slow and predictable. Deep in the bedrock, the canisters are protected from any changes occurring above ground, such as future ice ages, and kept away from people’s normal living environment.

Final Disposal Canister: (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/en/final_disposal/the_principles_for_final_disposal/the_final_disposal_canister/) The fuel is packed in a gas-tight, corrosion-resistant canister made of copper and cast iron that protects the fuel assemblies from the mechanical stress occurring deep inside the bedrock.

Bentonite Barrier: (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/en/final_disposal/the_principles_for_final_disposal/bentonite_barrier/)The final disposal canister is surrounded with bentonite clay that protects the canister from any potential jolts in the bedrock and diminishes the movement of water in the proximity of the canister.

Bedrock: (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/en/final_disposal/the_principles_for_final_disposal/the_surrounding_bedrock/) The bedrock provides the canister and bentonite with conditions where changes are slow and predictable. Deep in the bedrock, the canisters are protected from any changes occurring above ground, such as future ice ages, and kept away from people’s normal living environment.

Cost Distribution for the Repository

The total cost of the repository is approximately 3,000 million euro, of which the investment costs are around 650 million, the operating costs until the year 2118 around 2,100 million and the decommissioning and closure costs around 250 million.

Repository

The deposition tunnels are located at a depth of about 400 meters inside the Olkiluoto bedrock. Tunnels will be excavated inside the rock, and the final disposal canisters will then be placed in holes drilled in those tunnels.


The underground repository is divided into three parts:

deposition tunnels where the canisters containing spent nuclear fuel will be placed
central tunnels connecting the deposition tunnels and access tunnel and shafts, and
underground technical auxiliary facilities.
The size of the final disposal facilities depends on the amount of the spent nuclear fuel. The basis is the final disposal of the amount of fuel equivalent to 5500 tU, which means a total of 2800 final disposal canisters. In this case, the volume of rock to be excavated for the facility, excluding the canister holes, is approximately 1.3 million cubic metres. According to current plans, the number of final disposal tunnels required is 137. The total length of the tunnels has been calculated to be 42 kilometres, and they are located within an area extending over 2 to 3 square kilometres.

An access tunnel and five vertical shafts lead from the surface down to the repository. The vertical shafts include a personnel shaft and a canister shaft as well as three ventilation shafts. Of these, the access tunnel, the personnel shaft and two ventilation shafts will be constructed while building the research tunnel ONKALO (http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/final_disposal_facility/en/research_development/onkalo/).


Deposition Tunnels

In Posiva's reference solution, the canisters will be placed in holes 6 to 8 metres deep that will be bored in the floor of the deposition tunnels. The holes will be sealed with precompressed bentonite clay. Alternatively, the canisters can be placed in horizontal tunnels, lined with a bentonite structure.

During final disposal operation, deposition tunnels are sealed as canisters are placed in tunnels. After placing the canisters in tunnels, the tunnels will be filled up as soon as possible. Compressed clay blocks will be used as filling material.

Multiple Barriers Prevent the Release of Any Radioactive Substance to the Biotic Environment

Long-term safety is based on the multiple barriers principle. Radioactive substances are contained in several barriers that support each other, yet are as independent from each other as possible, so that the failure of one barrier will not endanger the overall functioning of the isolation. These barriers include the ceramic state of the fuel, the canister made of copper and cast iron, the barrier bentonite, the tunnel filling material, and the bedrock.

Links for further information:

Web site of the nuclear waste management company owned by Finnish government:
http://www.posiva.fi/en

Picture of the facility:

http://www.posiva.fi/en/databank/pictures?gpid_309=151

KillerQueen
03-20-2009, 09:48 PM
Great research there Ma'am Europa. This entombing or burying of used nuclear fuel was also my argument during my thesis in the mid-1990's when i was doing my........ and at that time am pro-nuclear. The nuclear experts i've talked to in Helsinki were from that Posiva company. I agree, they've "solved" the nuclear fuel disposal and what they're doing is not a lasting solution. As you may know, radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant is not only it's fuel. The cooling water that comes in contact with the tubes in the boiler, the oil on its motorized valves, the tubes in the boiler, the different valves, basically, every plant item that would undergo a wear-and-tear could be and is considered a radioactive waste. It's not only the fuel Ma'am that matters when we say radioactive waste from a nuclear plant. No Ma'am, nuclear power is not proven safe, not clean and its not cheap.

For the sake of an argument, entombing or burying of used nuclear fuel is not a lasting solution. Applying Murphy's Law, if anything would go wrong and it will, what should we do? That's what is being done in other nuclear plants around the world. And the cost you just mentioned, do you think the Philippines can afford that cost? Do you think nuclear power can help lessen the insurmountable amount of electricity in the Philippines? No Ma'am, it can't and it won't.

And just because Finland and other countries in Europe were into nuclear power risking their next generation with their radioactive waste, it should and would not supposed to follow that the Philippines should do too.

Why should the Philippines would be gambling with nuclear energy/power when the Philippines has vast geothermal reserves just waiting to be explored?

Europa
03-20-2009, 09:59 PM
Exactly. They don't care about the people in the Philippines. They will do anything to get the project and the money. Anyway, nice to have this kind of forum. Thank you and please continue to send entry like this..Kamo man god medyo may hibawo nianing mga butanga..for me lain akong linya, though our machine is for hospital only at malakas din ang radio active..hangang doon lang ang research ko..

pinoyisip
03-21-2009, 11:38 PM
Exactly. ....Anyway, nice to have this kind of forum. Thank you ......


Indeed, nice it is, especially the opinions generated here are highly intelligent and well-researched.


If you don't mind my intrusion to this highly academic forum, please allow me to say something from layman's point of view and when someone is rebutting, please let's do it in a KISSing(keep it short and simple) terms. I am not gunning for doctoral nuclear thesis here.....just few thoughts coming off from my mind after reading the blogs here while cooking for breakfast. Itlog ra gud sunny side up. Maayo unta to kinilaw.



So here are my 2 simple and short points:

1) Nothing is guaranteed in life, or shall I say, are we not living in a life of compromise?
-nuclear energy, is it really that bad? how come advance countries is taking
advantage of it- economically in a big way? yeah, there were deaths along the way but just like a good medicine, there are good and bad side effects. just imagine: due
to "fear-mongering", the science of nuclear energy cannot advance itself due to risks. The oil-producing nations, whose leaders are somewhat deranged, will take
the WORLD HOSTAGE if their demands are not met. The world has only one religion and we all be wearing the turban. I like mine color black kay puti akong buhok. Or, if there were no risk-takers then to use nuclear energy in WW2, Asians would have been speaking or writing only one language. Dili ta ma-conscious or maka-show off sa atong good English grammar. :p



2) politics - ahhh, that dirty word.....mixed with science like the Bataan nuclear plant, there's no good chemistry in there. Period. The results are deadlier than after dropping
an atomic bomb.


Need I say more?


Have you been KISS-ed?I mean, literally...puede pod in actuality, sa aping lang...:D


Miga, give my hugs to your family.:)

KillerQueen
03-22-2009, 09:13 AM
My apologies if i can't KISS (keep it short and simple) with you. I just want to put my facts in the right perspective.

THE BILL “Mandating the Immediate Rehabilitation, Commissioning, and Commercial Operation of the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant” is moot. There’s no way that it could and should be executed.

Let’s cut to the chase: the site – Napot Point, Morong, Bataan – has an unacceptably high risk of serious damage from earthquakes, volcanism, or both. While the proponents have produced no serious and exhaustive study to prove the site’s safety, numerous studies were already there to attest otherwise. Some examples:
Shortly after the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) construction started, nuclear technologists Elmer C. Hernandez and Gabriel Santos Jr. submitted a report in 1977, revealing “high probability earth motions associated with earthquakes due to the Manila Trench-West Luzon Trough displacements and presence of a probable fault in the plant location itself [that] may lend to structural failures causing the release of radioactive materials from the nuclear power plant or may cause extensive damage to the plant.”

The dangers that earthquakes posed to the BNPP were indeed recognized very early, but were apparently ignored as construction proceeded.
In 1979, Professor Ernesto Sonido, of the University of the Philippines’ Diliman Department of Geology and Geography, was asked by the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission to investigate the site further. Likewise, the report “...suggest[s] that the area had been tectonically active...”
While he was still at the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (Phivolcs), Dr. Ronnie Torres, a foremost expert in pyroclastic flows who is now at the University of Hawaii, warned of volcanism and faulting at the site in a 1992 report titled “The vulnerability of BNPP site to the hazards of Natib volcano.” (Phivolcs Observer Vol. 8 No. 3: 1-4)

Dr. Torres said, “Natib volcano does not erupt very often but could still erupt.” As a rough rule of thumb, the longer a volcano is in repose, the more time it has to store eruptive energy, and thus, the stronger the eventual eruption.

In 2000, Dr. Ernesto Sonido collaborated with Jesse Umbal to submit an exhaustive, 38-page analysis of the geology and geohazards of the Subic Bay area, which adjudged Natib as “potentially active.”

It is important to recognize that Natib, like Pinatubo, is a “caldera-forming” volcano, characteristically having very powerful eruptions separated by long repose periods. The report documented two Natib eruptions that formed large calderas, one with a diameter more than twice as big as that of the new caldera on Pinatubo.

Sonido and Umbal also studied the system of faults exposed on land in the larger region. They estimated the recurrence period for earthquakes of magnitude 6.4 to 7.0 at 22 years; of magnitude 7.0 to 7.3 at 59 years; and of magnitude 7.3 to 8.2 at 157 years.

While a number of these studies have been present all along, the only attention paid to the natural hazards in the area was in the “Explanatory Note” of the original House Bill 4631, which sadly has been misinterpreted, consciously or not, by proponent Representative Mark Cojuangco. Nevertheless, his take is in serious error.

Even a casual reading of the Cabato et al. 2005 study reveals a much greater potential danger, one from earthquakes.

Since January 2009, technicians from the Korea Electric Power Corp. (Kepco) have been studying the plant itself. However, the results of the previous studies, such as the Puno commission report in 1980 and the international group National Union of Scientists’ finding of more than 2,000 defects in the plant’s design and construction (which are more than enough to conclude that the plant is unsafe), were deliberately overlooked.

There are other very strong grounds to believe that the BNPP’s revival is a bad idea.

First, we have no uranium ore in the Philippines, and no hope of finding any. Reviving the plant means we would expend a huge amount of money only to put ourselves at the mercies of countries that have uranium, much as we have made ourselves utterly dependent on petroleum-exporting companies. Yeah, we’ve no oil too and we’ll be held hostage by oil-producing countries. Are we not be held hostage by countries with uranium ore if their demands are not met?

Also, nuclear energy produces wastes that remain toxic for hundreds of thousand of years. The problem of waste disposal has not been solved by any country, not even the United States. Proponents was not able to address this issue.

Finally, the additional burden government imposes on the Filipino people, who have so much to bear already, is unacceptable.

The Filipino taxpayer has already paid $2.3 billion for the plant, plus $460 million in interest, without receiving any benefit. Now it is proposed to spend another $1 billion to renovate it. With the current administration plagued by corruption to implement this billion-dollar project, the circumstance would be truly worse than déj* vu.

pinoyisip
03-22-2009, 11:02 AM
My apologies if i can't KISS (keep it short and simple) with you. I just want to put my facts in the right perspective.


That's ok...no KISS....smile ok too...

If the whole idea is to KILL the nuclear energy idea in PI due to bad studies mixed with politics, then we are on the same page. There was a suggestion by Jeff that you present your anti-BNPP thesis to the House of Congress to represent the academia. Any consideration?

However, someone cannot imposed one's "right perspective" somewhere else just because of bad experience right in their own backyard.

Again, in a layman's view of the nuclear issue, the advantages outweigh the bad effects as long as scientific and moral judgment prevail. Fair and balance, if I may add.


ps: that was really a quick reply, KQ. Thanks and hopefully hear/see you soon debating forcefully your stand in the national press or in the House of Congress. I can sense you have a killer instinct with your ideology. I hope the King is fine.(Ok, joke lang to lighten up the forum. Nuke indeed is too hot to handle). :cool:

Europa
03-22-2009, 01:13 PM
Indeed, nice it is, especially the opinions generated here are highly intelligent and well-researched.

Sorry Migo, I have answered in this forum without any research, to be honest I have no idea about nuclear power plant,I just googled it but nice to read an intelligent discussion. At the same time parang nag research na pod ko libre pa. I love to listen to intelligent people debating and changing point of views. What Killer queen tried to impose is not copied or pasted ... I think she made it clear what are the DOs and DOnts in setting up a project like this in a country. what are the consequences if the country cannot afford to comply with all the regulations..SAFE? Clean? nobody knows if it will be safe 10 or 15 years from now..Let see what the future brings. Life is full of risks and challenges - as for myself it is better to take a risk than to do nothing at all.

pinoyisip
03-22-2009, 01:50 PM
Indeed, nice it is, especially the opinions generated here are highly intelligent and well-researched.

Sorry Migo, I have answered in this forum without any research, to be honest.....




Hey, miga, no need for sorry...

You defended your position, I defended mine, others got their own,
and KQ stands in a well-qualified position.
We all agree to disagree in a civilized manner.
That's all that matter.

TCA.

Europa
03-23-2009, 09:36 AM
hahaha next time, I will research and read some more..now nga 2 months jobless si miga nimo I have a lot of time to read..Salamat sa modern technology, just switch on your computer,,andyan na lahat ang gusto mong malaman sa halos lahat ng katanungan mo..Except of course sa reality ng buhay..I have taken examination about radiation 2 days ago, 2 weeks pa malaman if okey ang result..Wish me luck, i hope may work na me next month.

Sunny sideup for breakfast? hmmp yummy but out ako dyan Colestherol Migo beware it is hazardous to your health too.

KillerQueen
03-23-2009, 10:59 AM
To PinoyIsip:

1. I welcome you to be with me “on the same page”, id est, against the rehabilitation of the BNPP.

2. With regards to Jeff’s suggestion, as I’ve said in my previous posts, with all humility, the result of my research, my facts and figures ay kakaramput lamang compared to the facts and figures the Senate have in their possession. Of course, I am more than willing to present and submit my humble research to any body if given the opportunity.

3. I am not imposing my “right perspective”, that’s the very reason I can’t KISS (keep it short and simple). I admit I have lengthy explanations here cause I want to present my facts, to inform the “layman” (not to impose) and to take away the myth around the issue, which is the nuclear power in general, the BNPP in particular.

4. Again, my lengthy explanation is to point out the disadvantages outweighs the advantages of the nuclear power in general and the BNPP in particular. In my previous posts, I’ve pointed out that based on the scientific findings of nuclear experts, BNPP is not safe to be rehabilitated and to operate. If moral judgment should prevail here, Cong. Cojuangco should not insist with his bill.



To Europa:

I admire your candidness in saying, “… I have answered in this forum without any research, to be honest I have no idea about nuclear power plant,I just googled it but nice to read an intelligent discussion.”

Again, I am in no position to “impose”. What am doing is simply to inform the “layman”, to take away the myth on BNPP and to promote the renewable source of energy such as solar, wind and geothermal power.

pinoyisip
03-23-2009, 01:42 PM
Miga,

Thanks for your concern about the "sunny side up" cholesterol. Yeah, you are right, I have to watch it...my guafa nga nutrionist(lambing pa naman) keeps on bugging me to monitor my diet kay kandidato ko ug diabetes. Unsaon na lang - lami man jud ikaon. Wish you luck nalang pod sa imong radiation exam. I hope nothing serious. Am I right? - that radiation thingy is one good example of nuclear use for humanity...anyway, here we go....(by the way, see you around,miga)....



KQ,

I hope someone from the powers-that-be reads your blog
here and learn something of your argument. Better yet,
invite you to the proper floor to present your case against BNPP.
Wish you luck too.


At any rate, thank you so much for the information you
shared about the dreadful result of nuclear use in general.
The way I understand it, you can correct me again if I'm wrong, you are hell bent to discourage the whole world(with your own info) not to use nuclear energy anymore but use alternative means like you mentioned: solar, wind and geothermal.I am not too sure how this is possible with mobile outfits like aircraft carriers and submarine to deter those insane leaders of other countries. Go back to sail boats(by wind) or bapor de guerra de bateria(by solar power)? I am fine with solar at home-in fact, I am thinking of putting one in my payag soon.



If I read it right somewhere in this forum, you were once a
fan of nuclear use and then the turn around. Does the BNPP fiasco affect you somewhat? - I mean, your course of nuclear study? in such a bad way that you will inform everyone one side of the story only?


I am just curious...

Jeff
03-24-2009, 10:45 AM
We have a new project now in Eastern Europe a multi MWe nuclear power plant. If you say that NPP is unsafe, why still many countries prefer NPP, where infact we are not the only country who is very serious to safety and much concern to mother earth " dapat stop na natin ang kaingin at laganap na air pollution sa tambutso ng mga sasakyan at pabrika". Our laws particular to clean air act is not so much stringent compared to other countries like Germany, Japan and others and yet they still continue operating their NPPs. Come to think we don't have yet our own standard when it comes to design and fabrication of power and industrial boiler plants. We just theoretically dependent only to all prevailing standards as I mentioned in my last forums.

The case of BNPP is not the ultimate conclusion that NPP is not safe. If NPP proven not safe "sa dami ng gumagamit ng NPP sa mundo" our mother earth can't exist till now.

Alternative power source is not enough to cater the high demand of world's power consumption. In our country alone, not all places can have wind power or geaothermal power plants.

"kahit magtanim ka pa ng madaming windmills, tarakan mo man ng maraming geothermal plants, hindi pa rin ito sapat". That is why many countries still indulge to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to hit their power consumption demands.




To PinoyIsip:

1. I welcome you to be with me “on the same page”, id est, against the rehabilitation of the BNPP.

2. With regards to Jeff’s suggestion, as I’ve said in my previous posts, with all humility, the result of my research, my facts and figures ay kakaramput lamang compared to the facts and figures the Senate have in their possession. Of course, I am more than willing to present and submit my humble research to any body if given the opportunity.

3. I am not imposing my “right perspective”, that’s the very reason I can’t KISS (keep it short and simple). I admit I have lengthy explanations here cause I want to present my facts, to inform the “layman” (not to impose) and to take away the myth around the issue, which is the nuclear power in general, the BNPP in particular.

4. Again, my lengthy explanation is to point out the disadvantages outweighs the advantages of the nuclear power in general and the BNPP in particular. In my previous posts, I’ve pointed out that based on the scientific findings of nuclear experts, BNPP is not safe to be rehabilitated and to operate. If moral judgment should prevail here, Cong. Cojuangco should not insist with his bill.



To Europa:

I admire your candidness in saying, “… I have answered in this forum without any research, to be honest I have no idea about nuclear power plant,I just googled it but nice to read an intelligent discussion.”

Again, I am in no position to “impose”. What am doing is simply to inform the “layman”, to take away the myth on BNPP and to promote the renewable source of energy such as solar, wind and geothermal power.

KillerQueen
03-24-2009, 01:00 PM
I’d like to remind everyone that the thread starter states: “Which would you prefer, rehabilitate the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant or develop and eventually build and operate a Geothermal Power Plant in Biliran island? Why?”
Hey Jeff/Jing:

1. Just because the countries you’ve just mentioned were into nuclear power, you mean to say na maki uso na rin ang Pilipinas? Are you saying or implying that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap just because the countries you’ve mentioned were using it? I’ve presented my facts and figures, can you and will you present yours to substantiate your claim that its otherwise?

2. As you can see (I wonder if you do), the Philippines is practically held hostage by oil producing countries, are we gonna let our country be held hostage by uranium-ore producing countries?

3. In his book “Reactor Accidents – Institutional Failure in Nuclear Industry”, David Mosey explores in detail the events leading up to seven of the most serious accidents in the history of the nuclear industry. In each of the cases analysed it is shown that the root causes of these accidents were design flaws or the mistakes of individual operators, however much of these may have affected the accident sequence. The root causes were rather deep-seated failings in the institutions involved in the operation of the nuclear plant – failings which allowed the adoption of flawed designs, the provision of inadequate operator support and guidance, and a dangerous overconfidence in the technology.

4. If I may be candid with you Mr. Deputy Design Manager, will you allow a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl disaster to happen in the Philippines?

For your information, the Three Mile Island accident occurred on March 28, 1979 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania, United States. An estimated 43,000 curies of radioactive krypton were released when the pilot-operated relief valve did not close when the pressure on the primary system decreased, it is considered as the most serious accident in US commercial nuclear power plant operating history.

The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union. It resulted in a severe release of radioactive elements into the environment. The overall cost of the disaster is estimated at $200 billion. Do you think we have the financial resources?

Economic-wise, 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 projected cost for BNPP’s rehabilitation could be exceeded.

The plant would 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 would be incurred. From previous experience of nuclear disasters, these costs amount to hundreds of billions of dollars spent for a period of decades.

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.

If I may borrow PinoIsip’s thought,“….morality should prevail”.

pinoyisip
03-25-2009, 07:06 AM
Hi, KQ...

I am a little bit uneasy calling your full pseudonym because it
sounds so harsh in yourself. You appear to be a well-rounded
and educated woman and you should deserve a nice sounding
and gentler name....how about sexyqueen? Your avatar looks nice.

Anyway, I know, you will disagree with me because intelligent women at this day and age are so independent-minded and brutally frank like my boss....yeah, in fact, both bosses, at work and at home.

Going back to the nuclear issue, I just stumbled online, (where else?),
that there is an alternative to uranium. I am not sure if you have
been following this one but I just thought you might be interested to read.

The link: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/ (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/)
Just read few pages of the forum and this can be a bonus
for our thinking cap.

So enjoy and if you want to share your view with us, appreciate
much.

Thanks.

Europa
03-25-2009, 09:40 AM
I suggest that you need to discuss this matter or bring this up to our congress so that they may at least review and discuss matters before they will agree by voting on reviving the BNPP.

I do agree with Jeff in his sugestion, sayang ang research mo Miss KQueen..if you said kakaramput lang compare to what they have in Congress, still fight for it and let it shine, malay mo matauhan sila?

Again I have given time to google or read (not research)all about Nuclear Power plant in all countries. Hayy too much and no need to paste it here baka maligaw pa ang author sa bil.com madiskubre ako.(.just kidding) bitaw sa panahon karon kapoy na mag research naa na sa computer halos tanan tubag sa ako pangutana.

KillerQueen
03-25-2009, 11:29 AM
No, please don't get uneasy with my pseudonym, I encourage you to go on, just call me KillerQueen. Hahaha! Basta, just remember this: "Hindi lahat ng tao na nasa loob ng simbahan ay sumasamba."

Yes, i've read the article in that link that you have posted. Have you read the article there that says, "Nuclear energy becoming less sustainable"?

Am open to the development pointed out by the author of that article and i'd like to raise a few questions:

1. Mining, leaching, transporting of thorium-ore from its country of origin needs money, right? So ganon pa rin, uranium or thorium costly pa rin. It can never be cheap.

2. Mining, and other operation in developing this thorium needs vast amount of fuel from fossils, coal or both, so ganon pa rin, it can't be a green nuclear energy.

3. The issue on supply of thorium, ganon pa rin, we'll be held hostage by thorium producing countries.

As long as there is a significant and lasting decrease in cost, risk, and a country will not be held hostage by thorium-producing countries then and maybe then that's the time anti-nukes like me we'll support its use.

And lastly, ang uranium ore po ay inilibing ng Dios sa ilalim ng lupa. Tulad po ito ng pandora's box na once na ilabas ito po ay mamiminsala sa sanlibutan, kung hindi man kaagad ngayon ay baka sa mga darating na araw.