termpaper(aeng).docx

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF COURSE REQUIREMENT

IN ENVIRONMENTALENGINEERING

THE BATAAN NUCLEAR POWERPLANTTopic

Calub, Maria Karla C.BS Architecture

September 2013

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of the paper is to explain how power plant works and to present the

Bataan nuclear power plant and why it ceased operating.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Boron – a non-metallic element occurring naturally only in combination as in borax or boric

acid, and obtained in either an amorphous or acrystalline form when reduced from its

compound. 

Department of Energy (DOE) – is the executive department of the Philippine

Governmentresponsible for preparing, integrating, coordinating, supervising and controlling all

plans, programs, projects and activities of the Government relative to energy exploration,

development, utilization, distribution and conservation.

Emission-free – it means the body is free from electromagnetic radiation discharged into the air.

Fuel pellets – Small slugs of frozen deuterium and tritium fuel in the 3-6 mm diameter range

fired frequently (up to 20 pellets per second) into the plasma to maintain sufficient fuel density in

the plasma core. Pellet injection is also efficient in controlling Edge Localized Modes, or ELMs.

Special technology is being developed to allow these pellets to fly along curved trajectories,

thereby attaining specific zones within the plasmas where ELMs are particularly disruptive.

House Bill (HB) 4631 - Substitute Bill to House Bills 1039 & 4631 & House Resolutions 250 &

257. “Mandating the immediate rehabilitation, commissioning and commercial operation of the

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, and appropriating funds therefore”.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –  is an international organization that seeks to

promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose,

including nuclear weapons.

Millirem – One thousandth (10-3) of a rem. The rem is defined since 1976 as equal to

0.01 sievert, which is the more commonly used SI unit outside of the United States.

Mothball – it is a term referred to stop or terminate the operation of the power plant.

Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) – the network who opposes the building of Bataan

Nuclear Power Plant

Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI) – is a government body in the Philippines,

charged with overseeing the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Its main facility was a

nuclear research reactor,

Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) – it is the former PNRI

Pressurized Water Reactor – a nuclear reactor that uses water as a coolant and moderator; the

steam produced can drive a steam turbine.

Uranium - a white, lustrous, radioactive, metallic element, occurring in pitchblende, and having

compounds that are used in photography and in coloring glass. The 235 isotope is used in atomic

and hydrogen bombs and as a fuel in nuclear reactors.

Westinghouse – it is an international company that specializes in building power plants.

WHAT IS NUCLEAR ENERGY?

Nuclear energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process called fission. At the

power plant, the fission process is used to generate heat for producing steam, which is used by a

turbine to generate electricity. Fission is the splitting of atoms into smaller pieces, caused by

neutrons hitting each other. Smaller pieces strike other atoms, releasing energy. When this

process continues, it is called chain reaction

How Nuclear Power Plant Works

Electricity, which plays such an important role on our lives, is generated in a power plant.

This interaction (refer to figure 1.1) depicts a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) nuclear power

plant. The function of any power plant is to convert some material or source energy into

electricity.

A nuclear power plant uses steam to generate electricity the same as a fossil fuel power

plant. The major difference between a fossil fuel power plant and a nuclear power plant is the

method used to heat the water and produces steam. In a nuclear power plant, uranium takes the

place of coal, oil or gas to be the fuel used to heat water and produce steam.

A nuclear reaction occurs when uranium atoms split into smaller particles in a chain

reaction that produces large amounts of heat. This heat-producing fission process is controlled in

a reactor. The core of the reactor contains the uranium fuel. A (PWR) uses pressurized water to

cool the reactor and transfer heat. The heated water transfers its heat energy to a secondary

system where steam is produced. The most important part of a nuclear power plant is the reactor.

It contains the core, control rods and coolant.

The fission process takes place within the fuel assemblies in the reactor core and is

controlled by the control rods. Control rods, located inside the fuel assembly, are made of a

material which absorbs neutrons. In addition to control rods, operators use boron dissolved in the

coolant to absorb neutrons to control the fission process. The reactor core is inside a steel-lined,

reinforced concrete containment. The walls are several feet thick.

The nuclear energy released by the fission heats the water or coolant that flows through

and around the fuel assemblies. In a nuclear power plant the coolant prevents the core of the

reactor from becoming too hot and also carries heat away from the reactor to the steam

generator.

In a PWR, the system of piping that contains the coolant is called the primary side. The

separate system of piping where steam is produced to spin the turbine is called the secondary

side. The primary side water and the secondary side water do not mix. Instead, the heat primary

side water flows through the tubes of the steam generator, which are surrounded by the cooler

secondary side water. The steam generator, then, is the link between the primary and the

secondary side.

In a nuclear power plant, a vessel known as a pressurizer keeps the primary side at high

pressure to prevent boiling, yet allowing water temperatures to reach 600 degrees Fahrenheit.

Heat from the primary side water is transferred to the secondary side through the steam

generator. Since the secondary water side water boils and becomes steam, which turns the

turbine. Meanwhile, the water from the primary side of the steam generator returns to the reactor

vessel to continue the cycle. A reactor coolant pump keeps the primary water circulating in the

closed primary side.

Figure 1.1

Because the fission process is radioactive, several barriers are built to protect against the

release of radioactivity(figure 1.2):

o The uranium is formed into ceramic pellets which seals in the radioactive

material.

o The fuel pellets are packed into zirconium rods which act as a barrier against the

release of fission products.

o The core, where the fission process occurs, is located in a shielded, 400-ton steel

reactor vessel approximately eight inches thick.

o The reactor is housed in the containment, which is an airtight building typically

made of steel-reinforced concrete approximately three feet thick.

o The primary side piping and components form a sealed pressure boundary that

prevent the release of radioactive materials.

Figure 1.2

Besides these physical barriers, nuclear plants have a number of independent backup

systems designed to operate in the event is disrupted. In addition, the reactor, all the safety

devices, and the plant itself are constantly monitored and controlled from a control room. Highly

trained technicians, government-licensed operators and nuclear engineers keep watch over

computers, dials gauges and controls at all times.

Our world must have an abundant and available source of electricity we need today and

tomorrow in a safe, environmentally friendly matter.

According to the DOE, nuclear power can contribute to energy security by stably

supplying fuels regardless of the global energy landscape. Uranium has the longest period of

reserve-production ratio which is 230 years and is well-spread around the world unlike oil(40

years), LNG(65 years), and coal(155 years). If there were no nuclear power, the world’s total

CO2 emission would increase by 10%. The high energy density of uranium guarantees a stable

supply of electricity. One load of fuel can generate power for more than 18 months.

Environmental Safety

Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment, especially in relation

to kilowatts produced, because nuclear plants do not emit harmful gases and require a relatively

small area for production. There are no significant adverse effects to water, land, habitat, species

and air resources.

Emissions-Free Energy

Nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source because it does not burn anything to

produce electricity. Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulphur

dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere. It also does not produce carbon dioxide or other

greenhouse gases that may cause global warming.

Wildlife Conservation

Nuclear energy promotes wildlife conservation because the areas around nuclear power

plants and their cooling ponds are so clean, they are often developed as wetlands that provide

nesting areas for waterfowl and other birds, new habitats for fish and the preservation of other

wildlife.

Land and Habitat Preservation

Nuclear power plants produce a large amount of electricity in a relatively small space and

they require significantly less land for their sites and operations than other energy sources, such

as wind.

What is Radiation?

Radiation is a natural part of environment in which human kind and other species have

evolved and thrived. In fact, the sun, the earth and all things emit radiation. Radiation comes

from unstable atoms. As these unstable atoms change to become more stable, they give off

radiation in the form of invisible energy waves. There is no difference between natural and man-

made radiation. Radiation from the earth’s crust ranges from 23 millirem o the Colorado plateau.

Radiation inside the body is about 40 millirem from food and water and 200 millirem

from air in the form of radon. Radiation from outer space ranges from 26 millirem at sea level to

53 millirem at 7,000 to 8,000 feet.

About 82% of our total exposure to radiation comes from natural sources: radon gas; the

human body itself, which contains radioactive elements; outer space; and rocks and soil. A

person living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant will receive 0.009 millirem of radiation.

To put this in perspective, you would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years

to get the same amount of radiation exposure you get from a single diagnostic medical x-ray.

BATAAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Bataan nuclear power plant is the only power plant in the Philippines. It is located at

Napot point, a small peninsula in the west coast of Morong, Bataan in Luzon. The site of the

power plant is 356 hectare land and it is about two and a half hour-drive from Manila.

The nuclear program in the Philippines started in 1958 with the creation of the Philippine

Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) under Republic Act 2067. In July 1973, under a regime of

martial rule, the Marcos government announced its decision to build a nuclear power plant, to be

constructed by Westinghouse. Westinghouse clinched the contract through Herminio Disini, a

Marcos crony acting as a "special sales representative". Westinghouse bribed Disini and Marcos

with at least US$17 million to secure the contract

The Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) was established in January 1981 in

response to the need for a campaign center for the opposition to the BNPP. It evolved into a

campaign-oriented coalition of national and sectoral organizations nationwide united in the

vision of a nuclear-free Philippines. Its immediate main task was to stop the construction and the

operation of the BNPP.

The NFPC embarked on a nationwide organizing, lobbying, protest actions, and media as

well as international solidarity work to generate international support for the anti-nuclear

campaign. The formation of an energetic province-wide movement- the Nuclear Free Bataan

Movement,was crucial in developing the issue into a national concern. The opposition to the

BNPP became a major national issue against the dictatorial and fascist regime of Marcos.

The Philippine government's decision to "mothball" the BNPP was a victory for the

people of Bataan and for the coalition that paved the way for still another coalition to take on the

struggle for the removal of US military bases in the Philippines. The coalition shifted its

campaign against nuclear weapons, focusing on the US military bases and troops, and nuclear

weapons.

When President Aquino convened the Constitutional Convention, the coalition lobbied

for a freedom-from-nuclear-weapons provision in the new Constitution overwhelmingly ratified

by the Filipino people. One central content of the coalition's work at that time was the

declaration of many provinces, cities, towns and schools as nuclear-free zones. The Philippine

Constitution provided the Philippine Senate with enough legal basis to reject the Republic of

Philippines (RP)-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, paving the way for a Philippines that

was not only nuclear-free but bases-free. In November 1992, the final withdrawal of US troops

and closure of military facilities ended almost a century of US domination and occupation of the

Philippines.

In 1987, former President Corazon Aquino transformed the Philippine Atomic Energy

Commission into the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute (PNRI), through Executive Order

128. It mandated the PNRI to "promote and regulate peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including

its application in power generation, agriculture, medicine, and others".

In 1988, the Philippine government filed two cases against Westinghouse Corporation:

first, a criminal case in the US Federal District Court in Newark, New Jersey, for bribery, and

second, a civil case in the International Chamber of Commerce in Switzerland, to declare the

contract with Westinghouse null and void due to bribery.

On March 5, 1992, the Aquino government agreed to negotiate a US$100 million out-of-

court settlement lopsidedly in favor of Westinghouse. Its terms, among others: Westinghouse to

give the Philippines US$10 million; plus US$75 million credits on upgrade costs; plus US$15

million discounts on non-BNPP sales; RP to borrow US$400 million from Eximbank for

Westinghouse to upgrade the plant; RP to pay Westinghouse US$40 million annually, plus 2.9

cents per KWH, for 30 years; RP responsible for decommissioning, waste disposal, security,

infrastructure, emergencies, power supply outages, permits, licenses, etc.

Among the objectionable features of the settlement was that: The case against

Westinghouse would be dropped; The escalation clauses would negate whatever payments

Westinghouse would make to the Philippines; Westinghouse would not be liable for cost of

decommissioning nuclear waste disposal, etc.; and The estimated earnings for the National

Power Corporation were either false or questionable.

REASONS WHY THE BATAAN NUCLEAR POWERPLANT CLOSED

The BNPP's tainted history is already a hard lesson on how the pursuit of nuclear power

has been a gargantuan and unjust burden on Filipinos. Even now, with moves for its revival

heralding what appears to be an aggressive plan for a national nuclear program, nuclear power

may become the altar upon which this country will bankrupt itself.

The faulty economics of nuclear power

Direct costs concerning nuclear power can be summed up as the following: 1)

construction costs, 2) operations and maintenance costs (including uranium fuel costs), 3) waste

storage costs and 4) decommissioning costs. A detailed examination of these costs reveal that at

all stages of a nuclear power plant's lifetime and beyond (i.e. from its proposal to waste storage),

nuclear power is a losing proposition for the Filipino people.

Historical and more current experiences of countries with existing nuclear programs

show that nuclear power construction have gone consistently over-budget, two to three times

higher than what the nuclear industry estimates. In India, the country with the most recent

experience of nuclear reactor construction, completion costs for the last ten reactors have, on

average, been 300% over budget. An assessment of 75 of the reactors in the United States shows

estimated costs to have been USD45 billion, but actual costs to have reached USD145 billion. In

Finland, the construction of a new reactor is already EUR1.5 billion over budget. HB 4631 pegs

the cost of BNPP's rehabilitation at USD1 billion, already the cost of a new power plant. Given

past experience on nuclear plant overruns and delays, the BNPP's age and documented defects,

this cost, an estimate not actually provided by experts in the first place, may well be exceeded.

Until recently, most nuclear power facilities worldwide depended heavily on state

subsidies and massive loans. The BNPP's commissioning will be no different. Under HB 4631,

the cost of the rehabilitation will come from state budget, with provisions to raise money via

surcharges to consumers, and/or international or domestic loans.

For operational costs, the procurement of uranium fuel is also not cost-effective for

Filipinos. Uranium for the BNPP will have to be imported, increasing the country's dependence

on foreign fuel. Uranium is further subject to large price hikes since the resource is only

available to a few countries. More importantly, while HB 4631 sets the operational life of the

rehabilitated BNPP as 40 years, studies show that under current global nuclear capacity, known

uranium resources will last only 34 years.

Section 10 of HB 4631 outlines the allocations for "disposal" of spent fuel and

decommissioning costs. It mandates a sinking fund USD0.1 to 0.2 (PHP4.6 to 9.3) per kilowatt

hour produced, plus an additional USD0.1 to 0.2 (PHP4.6 to 9.3) per kilowatt hour for costs of

radioactive waste disposal and spent fuel disposal.

No study has yet been made on the estimated decommissioning costs for the BNPP once

it is operational, but a 2004 report by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approximates the

cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors to be about USD300-450 million. The whole process

can take up to several years to decades. The cost is also not incurred until many years after the

plant is shut down, meaning that nuclear plants are not decommissioned until several years after

the plant is closed. And if the plant is required to be shut down prior to the completion of its

estimated life, decommissioning funds are still needed but will not be available, in which case

taxpayers directly shoulder part of the cost.

Any amount the power plant sets aside for waste storage (incorrectly called "disposal" in

the Bill) will not be enough to cover the actual costs. In fact, waste storage expenses are

impossible to calculate due to the long-term nature of storing nuclear waste which remains

radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and will outlive and outlast any facility

constructed. Putting this into perspective, humankind has been on Earth for the last 200,000

years, yet it takes 240,000 years for nuclear waste to be considered safe. This kind of timeframe

defies any sort of economic planning which Section 10 of HB 4631 leaves for Congress or 'an

IAEA organized re-processor' to work out.

An enormous hidden cost

Still, beyond all the costs outlined above, there is a hidden cost not planned for but

which, once necessary, would constitute the biggest expense of all: nuclear accidents. If plants

should malfunction, the costs will reach unimaginable amounts. These are costs for evacuation,

relocation of communities, and health costs, aside from the repair of the plant and the

rehabilitation of surroundings. From previous experience of nuclear disasters, these costs amount

to hundreds of billions of dollars over a period of decades. The total cost of the Chernobyl

accident, for example, is estimated at EUR358 billion or PHP21.6 trillion which is more than 17

times the Philippines' national budget for 2008.

Not only is nuclear power therefore the most dangerous source of electricity, it is by far

the most expensive option for power generation. Pursuing HB 4631 is akin to gambling with our

country's economic future.

Investment Risk

The global nuclear industry promises that the investment cost for new reactors is around

USD2,000 per installed kW. However, credit rating agencies like Moody's puts estimates

between USD5,000 to 6,000/kW as of October 2007. Since then, the price tag has increased to

USD7500/kW. While there are a significant number of nuclear exports, international financial

institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have not funded nuclear

power development to any great extent.

Not an answer to climate change or energy security

HB 4631 puts forth nuclear power as a "proactive" solution to climate change and energy

security. But clearly, its economic disadvantages heavily outweigh whatever perceived benefits it

can offer. Greenpeace further contends that the said benefits of nuclear power are misleading.

Studies show that entire nuclear power plant life cycle contributes significantly to climate

change. Nuclear power will also not reduce our dependence on foreign fuel: 58% of global

uranium supplies come from only three countries, can only be processed and enriched by six

countries, and is currently only reprocessed in one country.

PROS AND CONS OF A NUCLEAR POWERPLANT

The idea of an atom began with the Greek philosopher Democritus, who proclaimed all

matter consisted of tiny particles. He called them ''atomos,'' the Greek word for ''indivisible.'' He

couldn't prove they existed but centuries later other scientists did. That discovery heralded the

nuclear power movement, which has been sparking controversy and debate ever since.

Proponents maintain that nuclear power is an economical, safe and clean form of energy.

Critics cite industry disasters, problems of nuclear waste and links to chronic and sometimes

fatal diseases. Massive anti-nuclear protests occurred throughout the '70s and '80s and have

continued on a smaller scale into the 21st century. It is impossible for an issue of this magnitude

to be cut and dried. Persuasive arguments can be made in favor of or against nuclear power.

Here's s a list of pros and cons that might help you navigate the debate.

Environmental Impact

There is no energy source that is 100 percent clean, but let's examine what nuclear power

has going for it. Unlike fossil fuel plants, which spew tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

each year, nuclear power plants don't produce smoke. Electricity is created by splitting atoms in

a series of nuclear reactions, otherwise known as nuclear fission. The iconic images of white

plumes rising from cooling towers show nothing more than steam. Nuclear power is considered

carbon-free and produces more electricity than other renewables like solar and wind.

Nuclear power is less clean before and after generating electricity. Nuclear power

requires uranium, which must be mined and transported to power plants. The vast majority of the

uranium used in the United States is imported. Then there is the significant issue of radioactive

waste, which isn't biodegradable and is extremely dangerous. Most plants store nuclear waste in

steel-lined concrete basins filled with water, where it remains radioactive for thousands of years.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been proposed as a disposal site for 77,000 tons (70,000 metric

tons) of nuclear waste. It's estimated that the waste will remain radioactive 10,000 years.

Support

The support for nuclear power ebbs and flows. There are 438 nuclear power plants

operating in 2010. Another 61 plants are under construction. Many governments, including

France and the United States, have embraced it, investing billions of dollars in the industry. In

2010 the U.S. Approved $55 billion in taxpayer-backed loans. While its use as a clean energy

source is on the rise, the reality is that actual growth has been somewhat sluggish. In the United

States, the last order for a new plant was placed in the 1970's. This is attributed to public

concerns over health, environmental worries and fears about the security of nuclear facilities.

The world's first nuclear power plant, Russia's Obninsk AP-1, came on line in 1954.

Cost-effectiveness

The pro and con arguments over the cost and the economics of nuclear power are difficult

to untangle. Ask 20 different experts and you will get 20 different answers.

Proponents of nuclear power often measure its economic prowess in kilowatts. Nuclear

power plants produce more kilowatts than coal, wind or solar for fewer cents. As more plants are

built, it's expected that construction costs will come down, making the price of nuclear-generated

electricity that much more attractive. With construction comes jobs, something few could make a

case against in the current economic climate.

Critics argue that the cost benefits aren't so clear-cut. While the electricity seems cheaper

up front, the exorbitant costs of building and maintaining plants must be added into the equation:

something industry experts rarely do. Long-term storage of nuclear waste is expensive and

dangerous. Next, add the expense of finding and retaining skilled labor. When it's all said and

done, the claim that nuclear power is more cost effective than alternatives like wind, solar or

even coal becomes a little more cloudy. In 2009 China became the dominant player in the clean

energy movement. With a focus on wind farms, the country is currently the world's largest

market for clean energy projects.

Economics in Developing Nations

Millions of people in poorer countries have limited access to reliable sources of

electricity. Up steps nuclear power to center stage. For starters, developing countries with

nuclear power plants wouldn't have to rely on expensive fossil fuels that emit large volumes of

carbon dioxide. Second, global interest in investing in nuclear power is high, providing the

potential to pump money into emerging economies and create jobs. Proponents also maintain that

many safety issues are solved using newer reactor technologies, reducing the likelihood of

accidents.

The economics arguments only go so far with critics. Many believe the push for nuclear

power in developing nations has to do with money, not altruistic intentions. Blanket assumptions

that expanding programs would boost economies and solve energy poverty doesn't account for

each country's specific needs; issues like power grids, skilled labor and strong government

policies differ among governments. Exorbitant construction costs may exceed a country's credit

limit, pushing it deeper into debt. Developing nations will have to enforce strict safety standards

and grapple with waste management. Concerns that radical governments might develop nuclear

weapons runs deep. India hopes to produce 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear power by

2050.

Proliferation

The idea that a weapon could be made from stolen nuclear materials is ingrained into

public consciousness. In theory, plants that enrich uranium for power could also be used to

enrich it for bombs. Those that reprocess spent fuel (separating plutonium from uranium) could

make stealing plutonium easier.

The hiccup in this theory is feasibility. A ''dirty bomb'' can be built with a relatively small

amount of radioactive material but it would be incredibly difficult to obtain it from a nuclear

power plant. A tremendous amount of money would be needed for training, bribes at borders and

transportation. Detection is another issue. Lead shielding in a truck is required for uranium to

slip through security detectors. Plutonium is much easier to detect even with a leaded lining. In

addition, heightened security awareness has tightened access to power plants.

The feasibility argument doesn't sway everyone. The expansion of nuclear power means

that more plants would be reprocessing. This would increase the amount of available plutonium.

Commercial plants have large stores of radioactive waste and keeping track of it is difficult. This

contributes to the threat of theft or sabotage. Critics point to inadequate security regulations

against terrorist attacks by aircraft, boats or truck. The 1978 Nuclear Non-proliferation Act was

written to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons development.

Reprocessing

Some scientists and industry experts look towards Integral Fast Reactors (IFR) as the

solution to the problem of nuclear waste. In these plants, uranium and plutonium are separated or

reprocessed, and the spent fuel is then used to power the reactor. Reprocessing doesn't eliminate

nuclear waste but it does reduce both its volume and toxicity. In theory the waste has a much

shorter half-life -- hundreds rather than thousands of years. Safety measures include a ''passive

system'' that doesn't require a human operator to shut down operations in the case of malfunction

Skeptics of reprocessing maintain that IFRs and similar technologies are ''old nuclear

wine in a new bottle.'' The time spent and extraordinary cost of building these types of plants will

negate the benefits of any energy production, and nuclear waste is still nuclear waste, no matter

how you slice it. The fact is plants are running out of storage room. The federal government is

required by law to accept used reactor fuel, and the 2,000 tons of spent fuel produced each year

put enormous stains on storage capabilities. In 2009 the Kewaunee nuclear power plant resorted

to storing waste on its grounds close to Lake Michigan.

Safety

Consumer confidence is key when marketing nuclear power as safe. The 1979 partial

meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 gave critics

explicit examples of the instability of nuclear power plants.

Proponents of nuclear power are steadfast in the belief that modern nuclear power plants

pose no safety risk and are in fact safer than coal-burning plants. In the U.S. nuclear reactors are

contained in concrete structures with walls four feet thick. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl

(which did not have concrete containment structures) were the only major accidents in ''14,000

cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries''. However, this doesn't mean

that accidents don't happen. Instances of radioactive water leeching into the ground have

occurred. In one case, several million gallons of contaminated water reached drinking wells.

"The China Syndrome" depicts the meltdown of the fictional Ventana nuclear power

plant. It was released 12 days before the accident at Three Mile Island.

Impact on Wildlife

All forms of energy production impact the environment on some level. What are nuclear

power's stats? Let's start by looking at an example of land usage. To generate the equivalent of a

1,000-megawatt plant, a single wind farm would require approximately 150,000 to 180,000 acres

(61,000 to 73,000 hectares) of land; a solar photovoltaic park would use 54,000 acres (22,000

hectares). By comparison, a typical nuclear power plant uses 200-400 acres (81-162 hectares).

However, the issue of waste might negate the land argument. Toxic by-products may make it

impossible to reuse surrounding land when a plant is decommissioned.

Nuclear power plants also use large volumes of water for heating and cooling. One

square mile (2.6 square kilometers) of water 14 feet (4.2 meters) deep goes through a typical

two-unit reactor every day [source: Energy Justice Network]. Nuclear plants use preventative

measures like stationary screens to prevent adult fish from being sucked into cooling water

systems. But these don't help microscopic plankton, and larger animals like sea turtles and seals

can become trapped against filters and drown [source: Energy Justice Network]. After-bays or

cooling canals are used to minimize thermal pollution (heated water) from being discharged into

surrounding bodies of water, but these systems don't filter heavy metals and salts.

The Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) is a non-profit, non-lobbying environmental group

helping nuclear facilities create and maintain clean habitats for animals and plants

Health

The link between nuclear power and disease is complex. Hundreds of studies have been

conducted. Their conflicting results make it difficult to separate fact from fiction, agendas from

politics.

There's no debate that exposure to radiation can kill. But the connection between cancer

and those living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants is arguable. Based on their studies, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found no significant increase in cancer rates among adults

and children residing in the 107 counties near nuclear facilities. In 1990, the National Cancer

Institute also reported a lack of data correlation between cancer and proximity to nuclear power

plants. Critics of these studies maintain there have been documented clusters of breast cancer and

childhood leukemia near nuclear facilities. According to the Energy Justice Network, 268

counties within 50 miles of nuclear reactors had breast cancer death rates 10 times the national

average.

The Fight against Global warming

As heat waves, raging forest fires and devastating hurricanes become the norm, it's

crystal clear that a solution to global warming must be found, and found fast. Is nuclear power

the shining star? It all depends on whom you ask. One of the main arguments against nuclear

energy is time. Plants take upwards of ten years to build but global warming is happening now. It

won't wait around for new nuclear power plants to appear on the scene (Hertsgarrd). Proponents

argue that the amount of energy a nuclear power plant generates far outweighs the timeline issue.

Megawatt for megawatt, it produces more clean energy than wind or solar once it's up and

running.

The argument that nuclear power plants are more reliable is often cited. They aren't

dependent on wind or sun to produce electricity. What isn't mentioned is their dependence upon

is uranium. There is not an infinite supply of it and once it's gone, it's gone for good.

According to the International Energy Agency, the world demand for energy will grow

65 percent by 2020.

SUMMARY

Nuclear power plant is one type power plant which we harbour electricity from. The main

process is to convert the heat into electricity. Fission is the splitting of atoms into smaller pieces,

caused by neutrons hitting each other. Smaller pieces strike other atoms, releasing energy. When

this process continues, it is called a chain reaction.

Nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the Environment (in terms of continuous

operation and has no damage on the power plant). It is also emission-free and does not produce

harmful gases. Nuclear power plants larger amount of energy but only requires smaller land area

compared to the other power plants.

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP) is the only power plant that was built on our

country. It is located in Morong, Bataan, in the northern part of Luzon. During Marcos regime,

the power plant was constructed under contract with Westinghouse. BNPP was completed and

already operating when Nuclear Free Philippines Coalition (NFPC) was established to oppose

against its operation. The opposition was successful and the power plant ceased its progression.

During the Aquino administration, the power plant was completely closed and sold the uranium

fuel.

The government decided to close the power plant for some reasons:

The government sees that the project was over-budget, twice or thrice larger than the

nuclear energy estimates.

There were enormous hidden costs that the government has not planned yet for

example, nuclear accidents.

It is not an answer to climate change or energy security. Studies show that entire

nuclear power plant life cycle contributes significantly to climate change.

REFERENCES

“What is Nuclear Energy?”. http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/ (August 2013)

“The Bataan Nuclear Power Plant”. http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index. (august 2013)

Mauro l. marcelo, jr..“Nuclear energy for power generation”. (2008)

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/10-pros-cons-nuclear-power.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com